Cott MM ArchDueDiligence L0T558 SimmonsRd FinalReport

7/31/2019 Cott MM ArchDueDiligence L0T558 SimmonsRd FinalReport

1/22

CASTLEREAGH LACHLAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SUITE 3BEARDY STREET BUSINESS CENTRE

94 BEARDY STREETARMIDALE 2350

ABN 71 883 232 892Mob: 0409 510 874

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGEDUE DILIGENCE SITE INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT REPORT

LOT 558, DP 755808 SIMMONS ROAD, DANGARSLEIGH,ARMIDALE-DUMARESQ COUNCIL LGA.

Prepared for: BUSHFIRESAFE (AUST) PTY LTD20 McLACHLAN STREETMACLEAN NSW 2463October 2011

Basalt outcrop on flat hill crest LOT 558, DP75 Simmons Road, Dangarlsleigh(Maria Cotter)


2/22

2

REPORT SUMMARY

IntroductionThis document reports the results of an Aboriginal Objects Due Diligence Assessment of LOT558, DP 755808 Simmons Road, Dangarsleigh. This due diligence assessment has been conductedin accord with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales(DECCW, 2010a) and the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009. The assessment has been

commissioned by Mr Michael Lloyd of Red Frog Environmental Services as part of his preparationof a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) to support a development application by his clientfor the erection of a single residence within the allotment.AimsThe purpose of the Aboriginal Objects Due Diligence Assessment of Lot 558, Simmons RoadDangarsleigh was to:

Determine whether any Aboriginal objects do or are likely to occur within the proposeddevelopment footprint, particularly the proposed building envelope;

Determine whether any and all activities associated with the proposed development haveany likelihood to cause harm to any Aboriginal objects that do or may occur within thedevelopment footprint area;

Determine whether or not further investigation is required to evaluate the nature, extantand likelihood of harm to any Aboriginal objects that do/may occur within thedevelopment area;

Determine whether or not an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit under s.90 of theNationalParks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) is required; and

Provide a documentary record of the due diligence assessment process undertakenincluding all evidence and decision support mechanisms used to ensure adherence to theDue Diligence Code of Practice and the NP&W Regulation.

MethodsTo achieve this due diligence assessment a desktop analysis of background and contextualinformation was conducted. This desktop assessment was supplemented by an inspection of theproject site on Tuesday 18 October by Dr Maria Cotter of Castlereagh Lachlan Environmental

Services (CLES) in the company of Aboriginal Community and Local Aboriginal Land CouncilBoard Member, Ms Rhonda Kitchener. Ms Kitchener attended in her capacity as Anaiwantraditional owner representative and Director of Nyakka Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Corporation.In field assistance was also provided by Mr Stephen Cotter of Bushfire(Safe) Australia.ResultsThe desktop review and supplementary site inspection identified no Aboriginal objects within theSubject Area and hence it is concluded that there is a negligible risk that development activitiesassociated with the proposed construction of a single residence it will cause harm to Aboriginalobjects. The assessment further concluded that there is negligible risk that development activitieswill directly impact Anaiwan cultural values. Hence it is determined that there are no apparentAboriginal archaeological or cultural constraints to the proposed development.Recommendations

Having found no Aboriginal objects within the building envelope proposed for this single residencedevelopment, it is recommended that:

No further archaeological or Aboriginal assessment of the building envelope is required forthis development to proceed.

During construction works the proponent adopt a risk management strategy to ensure that- despite the low likelihood of Aboriginal objects occurring within the sub-surface of thebuilding envelope - an appropriate cessation of work protocol is established should anysuch objects be exposed during construction works. This protocol should include timelyand appropriate consultation with the Office of Environment & Heritage1, the ArmidaleLocal Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal groups including NyakkaAboriginal Cultural Heritage Corporation;

This Aboriginal archaeological due diligence assessment report be recognised as providingthe documentary evidence that the proponent has adopted a precautionary approach with

1 Formerly the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW).


3/22

3

respect to Aboriginal objects; and in so doing has met and discharged all due diligenceobligations with respect to such objects.

This Aboriginal archaeological due diligence assessment report be retained by theproponent as evidence of compliance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects in NSW.


4/22

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Report summaryTable of contents

14

List of abbreviations 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 The Development proposal 51.2 Aims of the Due Diligence Assessment 5

2.0 LOCATION AND ENVIRONS 6

2.1 Location 62.2 Environs 62.3 Past and Present Land use contexts 83.0ABORIGINALCULTURALHERITAGECONTEXTS 93.1 Legislative context 93.2 Cultural context 123.3 Aboriginal archaeological context 123.4 Aboriginal community Consultation 15

4.0DUE DILIGENCEASSESSMENT (PARTA-DESKTOPASSESSMENT AND REVIEW) 16

5.0 DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT (PART B - SITE INSPECTION METHODS ANDRESULTS

16

6.0DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS 19

7.0RECOMMENDATIONS 19

8.0REFERENCES 20

ATTACHMENTS 21

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AHD Australian Height DatumAHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management SystemAHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact PermitDA Development ApplicationDECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and WaterDP Deposit PlanEP&A Act Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (NSW, 1979)LEP Local Environmental PlanLGA Local Government Area

LOT 558 Allotment 558, DP755808, Simmons Road, DangarsleighNP&W Act National Park and Wildlife Act (NSW, 1974)OEH Office of Environment & HeritagePAD Potential Archaeological DepositSEE Statement of Environmental Effects

*All measurements are abbreviated as per standard metric notation


5/22

5

1.0INTRODUCTIONThis document reports the results of an Aboriginal archaeological site inspection and Aboriginal

objects due diligence assessment of LOT 558, DP 755808 Simmons Road, Dangarsleigh (LOT

558). The due diligence assessment has been conducted in accord with the Due Diligence Code of

Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010a) and theNational

Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009The site inspection has been conducted with due regard for the

consultants ethical responsibilities, as a member of the Australian Archaeological Association, to

value and respect Indigenous cultural heritage (Davidson, 1991) and with knowledge of the

requirements of the Office of Environment and Heritage2 (OEH) with respect to the need for

Aboriginal community consultation in the determination of the significance of Aboriginal

archaeological sites (e.g. DECCW, 2010b).

1.1 The Development ProposalThe proponent proposes to construct a single dwelling in a relatively cleared portion of the central

eastern area of LOT 558 with vehicle access to this site achieved via an access way that commences

at the south western boundary of the property (Attachment A). A 60 m wide buffer adjoining the

eastern side of the railway line is to be established, and it is expected that this area will not be

encroached by any development but rather the woodland habitat it incorporates will be encouraged

to regenerate naturally.

1.2 Aims of the Aboriginal Objects Due Diligence AssessmentThe purpose of the Aboriginal Objects Due Diligence Assessment of LOT 558 it to:

Determine whether any Aboriginal objects do or are likely to occur within the proposeddevelopment footprint, particularly the proposed building envelopes for the single

residence and associated shed;

Determine whether any and all activities associated with the proposed development haveany likelihood to cause harm to any Aboriginal objects that do or may occur within the

development footprint area;

Determine whether or not further investigation is required to evaluate the nature, extantand likelihood of harm to any Aboriginal objects that do/may occur within the

development area;

Determine whether or not an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit under s.90 of theNationalParks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) is required; and

Provide a documentary record of the due diligence assessment process undertakenincluding all evidence and decision support mechanisms used to ensure adherence to the

Due Diligence Code of Practice and the NP&W Regulation.

2 Formerly the Department of Climate Change & Water (DECCW).


6/22

6

2.0 LOCATION AND ENVIRONS

2.1 Location

Lot 558 in DP 755808 is an approximately 7.2 ha parcel of land that lies approximately 8 km south

of the City of Armidale in an area zoned 1(b) Rural Living (Armidale Council LEP, 2008). The

eastern boundary of the property adjoins Lot 560 (also in DP 755808), a small rural holding that lies

immediately west of Simmons Road (Attachment 1). The subject land is accessed from Simmons

Road through a Right of Carriage Way situated at the southern margins of Lot 560. The Main

Northern Tablelands Railway line transects the property in the west. Adjoining allotments to the

south and north are Zoned 1(b) Rural living whilst allotments to the west of the Railway Line are

zoned 1(c) Rural Fringe (Armidale Council, LEP, 2008). Lot 558 has recently been subdivided from

a larger parcel of land and the subdivision includes a dwelling entitlement.

2.2. Environs

Geology and SoilsThe Armidale Plateau lies within the New England Fold Belt a geologic belt comprised of

Palaeozoic marine sediments that are heavily faulted as result of the intrusion of Permian and

Triassic age granitic plutons (Sahukar et al., 2003). These units are variously overlain by basalts and

basaltic derived sediments of Tertiary origin and minor Quaternary alluvium. Consistent with this

geological underpinning of the Armidale Plateau LOT 558 lies within an area mapped as the Kellys

Plains soil landscape unit (Kp) a landscape broadly described as comprising gently undulating lower

slopes, footslopes and colluvial fans on basalt and basalt-related colluvium and some other

sediments (Armidale Beds/Sandon Beds) (King, 2008, 2009). Specifically, this soil landscape is atransitional/transferral landscape between the elevated residual Bald Knob (Ba) basaltic outcrops

about Dangarsleigh to the lower elevated areas of moderate and deep alluvium and colluvium

nearer to Kellys Plains (King, 2009). The soil of LOT 558 is generally skeletal surrounding minor

basaltic outcrops in the east (Plate 1) becoming moderately deep red-brown to chocolate

kraznosem in the central, western and southern portion of the allotment. There are indications of

minor lithic gravels at shallow depth as observed from soil test pit residuals near the area proposed

as the main building envelope (Plate 2).

Plate 1: Basalt outcrop at eastern margins of flat hill crest Lot 558, Simmons Road Dangarsleigh (Maria Cotter)


7/22

7

Plate 2: Soil test pit residual adjacent to proposed building envelope highlighting red-chocolate kraznozem soiland minor lithic (non-artefactual) gravels in sub-soil (Maria Cotter)

Topography

The topography of LOT 558 is influenced by its situation within the undulating to low hill

landforms that characterise the central Armidale Plateau (Sahukar et al., 2003). The topographic

high (of about 1045 M AHD) within the LOT occurs as a broad flat area within its central northern

portion at or near the area pegged as the building envelope for the development. From this

topographic high the terrain slopes gently to a topographic low in the southeast corner. A more

moderate slope trends downwards to the northwest with the slope extending lower beyond the

property boundary towards an existing drainage channel. Relative relief within the Lot is less than

20M


8/22

8

Vegetation

The overstorey vegetation observed within LOT 558 is characteristic of the grassy open woodlands

that characterise the grazed basalt derived soils of the Northern Tablelands Bioregion (Sahukar et

al.; 2003; Clarke, 2006). Two woodland communities have been recognised to occur in the Lot

(Bushfire(Safe) Australia, 2011). In the western portion a degraded sparse Blakelys Red Gum

(Eucalyptus blakelyi) Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora) woodland predominates (Plate 1), whilst a

small clump of Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda) occurs as regrowth near the eastern

boundary, down slope and to the south of the proposed dwelling location. There is no mid storey

within either woodland community, and for both the understorey is characterised by a generally low

(


9/22

9

3.0ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE CONTEXT3.1 Legislative Context

For New South Wales the Part 6 provisions of the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 3 (NP& W

Act) are focused on the protection and regulation of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Act is

administered by the Office of Environment and Heritage and its Officers are supported to do so by

a number of policy and guideline documents (e.g. DECCW, 2009a, 2009b, 2010b). The focus of the

legislation is on the protection of Aboriginal objects and places. The protection provided applies

irrespective of the level of significance of the Aboriginal objects or places and irrespective of the

land tenure upon or in which they occur. For the purposes of the Act an Aboriginal object is

defined as:

any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to the

Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises NSW, being habitation before or

concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area of persons of non Aboriginal

extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains (s.5 NP&W Act).

Likewise an Aboriginal place is a statutory term that means:

any place declared to be an Aboriginal place (under s84 of the NP&W Act) by the

Minister administering the NP&W Actbecause the Minister is of the opinion that the

place is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture. It may or may not

contain Aboriginal objects (DECCW 2010a, v.).

Legislative Changes

On 25 February 2010 the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Amendment Billwas introduced into the

NSW State Parliament. This Bill which was assented to on the 15 June 2010; brought into effect the

first changes to the Aboriginal cultural heritage provisions of the NP& W Act since its inception in

1974. Principal amongst these changes are the establishment of:

A two tiered offence relating to the causation of harm to Aboriginal objects/places whichincludes:

the offence of knowing desecration or harm of an Aboriginal object(Section 86(1)) and

the strict liabilityoffences of harm of an Aboriginal object (Section 86(2))and the desecration or harm of an Aboriginal place (Section 86(4)), and

The expansion (under Section 87) of the defences against prosecution that may beexercised to repudiate offences outlined under Section 86(1), (2) or (4) such that the

defences now include the following:

3 As Amended in June 2010.


10/22

10

i. The valid issue of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP)authorising the harm (i.e. Section 87(1)).

ii. The exercise ofdue diligenceto establish that Aboriginal objects will not beharmed (i.e. Section 87(2)) whereby due diligence may be achieved by

compliance with prescribed Regulations[see below] and/or a Code of

Practice (i.e. Section 87 (3)); and

iii. The undertaking of low impact activities as described in the prescribedRegulations.

The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (NSW) (NP&W Reg.2009)

Clause 80A of The NP&W Reg. 2009 allows that the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects in NSW(DECCW, 2010c) be a generic code of practice that can be complied with

pursuant to Section 87 of the NP& W Act. In addition clause 80B of the NP&W Reg.2009

describes certain low impact activities that are exempt from requiring a due diligence assessment.

Low impact activities relevant to the proposed development include the maintenance of existing roads,

fire and other trails and tracks on disturbed land (i.e. NP&W Reg.: cl.80B(1)(a) (i)]. Land is defined as

being disturbed if it has been the subject of a human activity that has changed the lands surface,

being changes that remain clear and observable [NP & W Regulation cl.80B(4)]. Examples given in

the notes to clause 80B(4) include 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).

The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales 2010 (The

Code)

The Code describes the process and actions that must be followed and/or taken by a proponent,

and the site conditions that must be met and/or prevail in order to demonstrate due diligence in the

consideration of potential harm to Aboriginal objects. The process set out in The Code involves the

step-wise consideration of harm to Aboriginal objects with additional and more detailed levels of

information being incorporated at each step to support the decisions being made (see Figure 1). If

the proposed activities are not low impact activities (a defence for which is provided under the

Regulation) the considerations result in a determination of whether

Harm to Aboriginal objects is likely to occur and hence the proponent must take allnecessary action to avoid and/or mitigate this harm. Avoidance and/or mitigation actions

must be appropriate for the Planning assessment process to which the Project is

subject.(e.g. for Part 4 or Part 5 EP&A Act Approvals a further Aboriginal Heritage

Impact Permit may be required); or whether

Harm is unlikely and hence the proponent has met and discharged all due diligenceobligations for the protection of Aboriginal objects under The Code.


11/22

11

*formerly DECCW.

Figure 1. The Due Diligence process under The Code (after DECCW, 2010a)


12/22

12

3.2 Aboriginal cultural contexts

The Southern New England Tablelands area is recognised as being the traditional lands of the

Anaiwan people (Tindale, 1974; Sahukar et al., 2003). Archaeological, ethnographic and oral

histories support the view that Anaiwan social organisation enabled extensive extra-territorial

movement including migration from the Armidale Plateau through the rugged gorge system of the

Eastern Escarpment to the coastal plains in order to satisfy social and ceremonial obligations

(Godwin, 1990, Sahukar et al.; 2003; Beck, 2006) and perhaps to alleviate the climatic strictures

imposed by harsh New England winters (McBryde, 1974; Beck, 2006). Across the New England

tablelands there is a preponderance of ceremonial sites, and along with numerous art sites the

cultural landscape within which the Anaiwan operated is recognised to have been one of immense

spiritual, as well as physical attachment (Sahukar et al.; 2003; Beck, 2006).

The post-colonial history of the Anaiwan, as elsewhere for Aboriginal groups throughout Australia,

is one of social dislocation, marginalisation and dispossession from tribal lands. Despite this,

known descendants of the traditional Anaiwan people assert and/or maintain ancestral, historic and

contemporary cultural attachments to the Armidale Plateau. The Nyakka Aboriginal Heritage

Corporation is one organisation that represents the interests of Anaiwan traditional owners within

the Armidale District.

3.3 Aboriginal archaeological contexts

Local archaeological contexts

Within the Southern New England State of the Environment Report 2008-2009, it was reported that 171

Aboriginal archaeological sites were known for the Armidale Dumaresq Council Area as of 2008

(SOE, 2009). Although no details of site types or locations is provided for these known sites Beck

(2006) provides the following generalisations in relation to the type of archaeological resource

identified within the New England Region and it is to be expected that archaeological sites within

the Armidale Plateau will be comprised by one or more of these site types

There are five basic site types of archaeological traces or sites occurring in New

England. Domestic sites exhibit open stone artefact scatters, isolated stone artefacts shell

middens, and rock shelters with occupation deposit. Ceremonial sites include natural

mythological sites and exhibit carved trees, Bora and ceremonial grounds and stone

arrangements. Art sites exhibit stone engravings and rock shelters with art. Industrial sites

have scarred trees, waterholes or wells and axe-grinding grooves, fish traps and quarries.

Burial sitesinclude human bones. Multiple site-types can also occur at a single place. Not all

sites are preserved or visible on the surface, and not all areas are equally surveyed or

sampled (Beck, 2006:92).


13/22

13

The archaeological potential of LOT 558

The environmental and archaeological contexts of LOT 558 suggest that in general it is a location

with a low to moderate potential to yield Aboriginal archaeological materials. Descriptions of some

of the archaeological site types most likely to be found within the vicinity of Lot 558 are presented

below. These descriptions are made with reference to some useful general texts, (i.e.; McBryde,

1974; 1978; Heather & Burke, 2004, Beck 2006) relevant research articles and/or theses(e.g. Binns &

McBryde, 1972; Bowdler, 1981 cfDavidson, I. 1982; Godwin, 1983, 1990, 1997) and consideration

of readily accessible archaeological reports prepared for development assessment purposes within

the Armidale Dumaresq Council Area (e.g. Appleton, 2006, 2009). For each site type a summary

discussion of the probability of Aboriginal objects attributable to these sites types being located

during field survey of is also provided. The lack of suitable rock surface exposure and/or geological

features such as rockshelters within the immediate terrain of Lot 558 mean that grinding grooves,

art sites and rockshelter deposit sites are not expected and hence not further described.

Stone artefact scatters: This type of site may range in size from a single artefact to an extensive

scatter of a wide range of artefact types. When comprised of a single artefact this site type may

represent either the remnant of a dispersed open campsite or the simple loss or random discard of

artefacts. The most commonly reported isolated artefacts are edge ground stone axes, unifacially

and/or bifacially flaked river pebbles, hammerstones or individual stone tool cores from which

flakes have been removed. Greater concentrations of artefacts may provide evidence of a knapping

floor resulting from stone being worked in a particular place or a general scatter of many and varied

artefact types and raw material types. Stone artefacts may occur anywhere across the land surface

that Aboriginal communities may have traversed, however the likelihood that a single artefact or

scatter will be identified during a site inspection of Lot 558 is limited by the extensive grazing and

clearing that has previously occurred; and the thick grassy understorey vegetation across the LOT

that severely restricts the natural ground surface visibility.

Stone quarries: As the raw material source for stone artefacts, quarries are usually found where

significant outcrops of suitable stone occur. Favourable rock types for the manufacture of stone

artefacts include siliceous rocks such as chert and silcrete or igneous rocks such as rhyolite or

basalt. Where such favourable rock types do not occur locally available raw materials such as

mudstone and quartz may be utilised and therefore predominate stone tool assemblages within

close proximity. The consultant has examined known Aboriginals stone quarry sites in the vicinity

of Salisbury Plains to the west of the study area; and adjacent to the University of New England

Campus to the north. The vesicular and coarse grained nature of the basalt outcropping within the

the LOT makes it of unreliable knapping quality and an unlikely quarry source for Aboriginal

artefacts.


14/22

14

Scarred and carved trees: Aboriginal scarred trees are trees from which the bark has been removed

by Aboriginal groups for a variety of purposes e.g. making shields, containers, canoes etc. Provided

that mature trees of species native to the area are still extant, scarred trees may be found anywhere

across the landscape (Long, 2005). The mature Box-gum woodland identified within LOT 558 has

the potential to contain Aboriginal scarred trees. Carved trees are associated either with burials

and/or bora (ceremonial) grounds. The carved designs are usually in the form of linear or

geometric patterns including zigzags, concentric diamonds, spirals and circles McCarthy (1940)

reported that as many as 120 carved trees might be associated with a bora ground these trees being

situated both around the edge of the two raised earthen rings, and on either side of the track

connecting these rings. The existence of carved trees within LOT 558 cannot be entirely discounted

given that a mature box-gum woodland occurs within it. However as ceremonial grounds are

usually situated near a localised and abundant suite of food and water resources to support the

gathering large numbers of people (Bowdler, 2001; Cotter, 2009) it is expected that the lack of a

permanent water source in the immediate area was a deterrent to such gatherings and likely

precludes the occurrence of associated material evidence such as carved trees within LOT 558.

Shell middens:The term shell midden although typically used to refer to the accumulated remains

of the Aboriginal exploitation of shellfish is also used to refer to the accumulated remains of

freshwater mussels. The habitat most preferred by freshwater mussels is a muddy, silty or sandy

bottomed stream and/or lagoon with abundant flowing permanent water. The size of a midden

deposit generally depends upon the nature of the Aboriginal occupation and resource exploitation

of the area, (i.e. whether people repeatedly returned to the same place to eat shellfish or freshwater

mussels, or whether only one or a few meals were eaten at a location) and on post depositional

impacts which may be either environmental (e.g. erosion) and/or humanly induced (e.g. land

clearance). A lack of permanent watercourse in the immediate vicinity reduces the likelihood that

mussels were available for exploitation and hence the existence of midden material is not expected

within LOT 558.

Bora grounds/earthen circles: Bora ground is a specific term used to refer to a place where male

initiation ceremonies were conducted. Earthen circles incorporate places which may have been used

for male initiation (i.e. bora grounds) but which may have also been used for other ceremonial or

secular activities. Usually bora grounds consisted of two earthen rings one larger than the other,

joined by a pathway. These sites are exclusive to southeastern Australia and the greatest

concentration of them occurs within northern New South Wales and southeastern Queensland

where they have been linked to large social gatherings of up to 1000 people supported by seasonal

resource abundances (Bowdler, 2001). There durability in the landscape is less than other artefact

types being vulnerable to natural effects such as erosion, and to historical impacts, particularly their

complete destruction as a result of land clearing activities. As the allotment has been cleared, and


15/22

15

farming activities have been conducted within the area for some time it is not expected that earthen

mounds will have survived in this area.

Burials: Aboriginal burials spanning both the Pre- and- Post European Contact periods have been

documented within the New England area of northern NSW (e.g. Mcbryde, 1974). These burials

have included both single and multiple interments of individuals. For the contact period,

inhumation appears to have been the primary mode of burial and this typically involved placing the

body into the ground in an upright but tightly crouching or sitting position. Bodies were also often

wrapped in bark prior to burial. Although graves are sometimes marked by earth or stone mounds,

most have been discovered eroding out of creek banks, or by being disturbed during earthworks

associated with drain and road construction. These places are of significant cultural importance to

Aboriginal people, an importance that involves spiritual values and a respect for the dead in which

time elapsed since burial is of no relevance. Although burials may be found anywhere in the

landscape, the stony basalt slope and plateau features of LOT 558 are considered to preclude it

from being a preferred and/or usual place of interment.

What emerges from this consideration of Aboriginal archaeological site types is that despite the

Armidale Dumaresq Council area being within a broader geographic domain of cultural heritage

value to the local Anaiwan community the actual likelihood of artefactual material being located

within LOT 558 is low. This is largely due to its underlying topographic and geomorphic

composition and its consequent spatial patterning within this broader local Aboriginal geographic

domain. Historic practices such as vegetation clearance and more recent pasture improvement

activities further reduces the likelihood that (a) Aboriginal archaeological objects will be located

during any site inspection and (b) if found that any such Aboriginal archaeological objects will

remain undisturbed and within their original depositional context.

3.3 Aboriginal community consultation

Where it is determined that a development will impact a known Aboriginal object or place OEH

provides formal guidance to proponents with respect to the requirement for consultation with the

local Aboriginal community (e.g. DEC, 2004; DECCW, 2010b). Essentially such consultation must

be demonstrated when making an application for an AHIP (see section 3.1). However where no

objects or places are known (or expected) to exist within a development footprint there are no

formal requirements for such consultation to occur. Nevertheless where, as in the case for the

Armidale Dumaresq Council LGA, a significant Aboriginal cultural landscape is demonstrated it is

always preferable that the proponent consult with the local Aboriginal community to ensure that

local understandings of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of an area are acknowledged and

appropriately planned for. It is for this reason that Rhonda Kitchener as Director of Nyakka

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Corporation [an organisation that represents local Anawain traditional

owners] and executive member of the Armidale and District Local Aboriginal Land Council was


16/22

16

actively engaged in the site inspection and archaeological assessment.

4.0DUE DILIGENCEASSESSMENT PARTA-DESKTOPASSESSMENT AND REVIEWThe main desktop elements of the due diligence assessment process are considered and/or

reference below (Table 1). In accord with Clause 80B of the NP& W Regulation first consideration

is given to whether or not the activities expected to occur in order to build the single dwelling on

LOT 558 are low impact activities. With this consideration made the assessment moves to the step-

wise consideration of the risk of harm being caused to Aboriginal objects [as outlined in The

Code] as a result of any or all of the proposed development related activities.

Table 1: Step 1 to 4(a) considerations of the Due Diligence Code as applied to LOT 558

Clause 80B of the NP&W RegulationIs the proposed activity a low impact activity as defined by the Regulation?

No. The proposed works will cause a level of human-induced ground disturbance not previouslyencountered in the development area.

Step 1Will the activity disturb the ground surface?

Yes. The preparation of the building envelope; installation of general utilities; and theestablishment of permanent vehicle access to the proposed residence are all activities that willcause ground surface disturbance within LOT 558.

Step 2aAre there any relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature

information on AHIMS?

No. A basic AHIMS web service search conducted on 2 October 2011 for Lot 558 using abuffer of 1km revealed that no Aboriginal sites have been recorded within 1km of the subject

area (Attachment 3).Step 2b

Are there any other sources of information of which a person is already aware?

No. In field consultation with Ms Rhonda Kitchener, revealed that she had no local knowledgeof Aboriginal cultural sites occurring in the actual area of LOT 558. Rhonda proposes to makefurther enquires with the traditional owners she represents to further investigate whether othercommunity members have knowledge of sites of archaeological and/or cultural value within thearea. The results of Ms Kitcheners enquirieswere not yet provided at completion of this reportto Draft Stage (i.e. at 9.00am 25-10-2011) but see Attachment 4 for confirmation of Aboriginalcommunity involvement in the assessment.

Step 2cAre there landscape features that are likely to indicate the presence of Aboriginal

objects?

Yes. As described in Section 3.2 above, the mature Eucalypt Woodlands that dominates theoverstorey vegetation within the Subject Area may contain trees of sufficient age to have beensubject to scarring by ancestral Aboriginals.

Step 3Can the harm or the activity be avoided?

There is no scope or compelling reason to relocate the proposed works. The land is alreadyzoned 1(b) Rural Living and the proposal to develop a single dwelling on the subject land is inkeeping with this land use zoning. Likewise LOT 558 was part of a recently approvedsubdivision that includes a dwelling entitlement.

Step 4a

Desktop assessmentThe desktop assessment comprises Sections 1- 4 of this report including the short answersummaries provided in response to the applicable questions outlined immediately above.


17/22

17

5.0DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT PART B -ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITEINSPECTION

A site inspection/targeted traverse of LOT 558 was conducted on Tuesday 18 October by Dr

Maria Cotter of Castlereagh Lachlan Environmental Services (CLES) in the company of Aboriginal

Community and Local Aboriginal Land Council Board Member, Ms Rhonda Kitchener. Ms

Kitchener attended in her capacity as Anaiwan traditional owner representative and Director of

Nyakka Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Corporation. In field assistance was also provided by Mr

Stephen Cotter of Bushfire(Safe) Australia. The site inspection was conducted in warm sunlit

conditions with no noticeable restrictions to observation. The nature, extent and results of this site

inspection are summarised below.

Methods

Standard archaeological field survey and recording methods were employed during the site

inspection (cf. Burke & Smith, 2004; DECCW 2001c). This mainly took the form of a non-

systematic transect survey of LOT 558 (See Attachment 2). This included close visual inspection of

(a) the area pegged as the building envelope for the development (Plate 4), (b) the unsealed vehicle

track that traverses the property (Plate 5) (b) areas of basalt outcrop in the eastern margins of the

central plateau within the allotment (refer Plate 1) (c) all sites of prior geotechnical investigation

(refer Plate 2) and (d) the girths of large extant trees within the area (e.g. refer Plate 3). It was

determined that as the development impact area would in no way extend into the 60 M buffer zone

adjoining the Northern Tablelands Railway Line in the west of the Lot, this area would not be

inspected. A handheld GPS was used to geo-reference the start and end of each transect and any

points of observation; photographs were taken using a Nikon Digital SLR camera and where

applicable field observations were recorded in a lined notebook. The maximum width of walked

transects in this archaeological survey was c. 40 m (i.e. 2 persons x 20m wide transects). The results

of the site inspection are discussed more fully below.

Results

No Aboriginal objects were identified during the transect survey of LOT 558. No stone artefacts

were identified and all extant mature trees examined showed no evidence of being modified for

traditional Aboriginal purposes. Due to early spring rains the majority of the ground surface of

LOT 558 - including 100% of the pegged building envelope - was covered with a low dense cover

of improved pasture grass. Topsoil exposures, as a result of development related geotechnical

investigation, revealed red/brown kraznozem type soils typical of those associated with basaltic

parent materials; interspersed with non-artefactual, stoney materials.

The lack of Aboriginal objects being identified across the ground surface of LOT 558 is consistent

with/reflects (a) a general lack of ground surface visibility due to dense vegetation cover; (b) the

longer term land-use history that indicates prior tree clearing activities and grazing of stock has


18/22


19/22

19

occurred within the area and (c) the lack of a suitable regolith such that visible basalt rock outcrop

demonstrated little suitability as a source of raw material for artefact manufacture and, (d) local and

regional archaeological site prediction models that suggest fewer sites are identified in the highly

arable and intensively grazed kraznozem soils versus the duplex trap soils of the New England

Tablelands (see:Sutton, 1989; Appleton, 2009).

A letter report from Ms Rhonda Kitchener of Nyakka Aboriginal Heritage Corporation confirming

that no Aboriginal objects were identified during the site inspection is provided at Attachment 4.

This letter report provides no additional information regarding local Aboriginal knowledge of the

occurrence of specific Aboriginal sites of importance within the immediate area of Lot 558 but

does affirm that the area is a recognised part of the Anaiwan cultural domain, particularly as it lies

within the vicinity of an ancestral travel route.

6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the site inspection, supplemented by the desktop review of (a) relevant legislation

and (b) the local and regional archaeological record enable the following to be concluded for the

land portion described as Lot 558 in DP, Simmons Road, Dangarsleigh:

No Aboriginal object or place has been identified within the designated building envelopeproposed for this development;

No potential archaeological deposit has been identified within the designated buildingenvelope for this development.;

No Aboriginal objects, places or potential archaeological deposit has been identified withinthe broader allotment not subject to the current development application

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Having found no Aboriginal objects within the building envelope proposed for this single residence

development, it is recommended that:

1. No further archaeological or Aboriginal assessment of the building envelope is required forthis development to proceed.

2. During construction works the proponent adopt a risk management strategy to ensure that- despite the low likelihood of Aboriginal objects occurring within the sub-surface of the

building envelope - an appropriate cessation of work protocol is established should any

such objects be exposed during construction works. This protocol should include timely

and appropriate consultation with the Office of Environment & Heritage4, the Armidale

Local Aboriginal Land Council and other relevant Aboriginal groups including Nyakka

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Corporation;

3. This Aboriginal archaeological due diligence assessment report be recognised as providingthe documentary evidence that the proponent has adopted a precautionary approach with

4 Formerly the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW).


20/22

20

respect to Aboriginal objects; and in so doing has met and discharged all due diligence

obligations with respect to such objects.

4. This Aboriginal archaeological due diligence assessment report be retained by theproponent as evidence of compliance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects in NSW.


21/22

21

8.0REFERENCESAppleton, J. 2006 The archaeological investigation for sites of Indigenous culturalsignificance on the site ofthe proposed New England Regional Landfill, WaterfallWay, east of Armidale, Northern Tablelands, NSW.Unpublished report prepared for Maunsell Australia Proprietary Limited on behalf of Armidale DumaresqCouncil.

Appleton, J, 2009:The Archaeological Investigation for sites of Indigenous Cultural Significance For Part

3A Approval New England Regional Landfill Waterfall Way, East Of Armidale, Northern Tablelands, NSW.Unpublished report prepared for AECOM, Pty Ltd on behalf of Armidale Dumaresq Council..

Beck, W. 2006.Chapter 8. Aboriginal Archaeology. In Atkinson, A, Ryan, J.S., Davidson, I and Piper, A.(eds.) High Lean Country: Land People and Memory in New England, pp.88-97. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Belshaw, J. 1978. Population distribution and the pattern of seasonal movement in northern New SouthWales. In McBryde, I. (ed.), Records of Times Past: ethnohistorical essays on the culture and ecology of the New Englandtribes. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp.65-81.

Binns, R.A. & McBryde, I 1972. A petrological analysis of ground-edge artefacts from northern New South Wales.Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Bowdler, S. 1981. Hunters in the Highlands: Aboriginal Adaptations in the Eastern Australian Uplands,Archaeology in Oceania, 16:99-111.

Bowdler, S. 2001. The Management of Indigenous Ceremonial (Bora) sites as components of culturallandscapes. In Cotter,M.M., Boyd, W.E. & Gardiner, J.E. (eds), 2001. Heritage Landscapes: Understanding Placeand Communities, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore NSW.

Burke, H & Smith, C. 2004.The Archaeologists Field Handbook,Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Bushfire(Safe)Australia, 2011. Flora and Fauna Assessment For Proposed New Dwelling, Lot 558, DP755808 Simmons Road, Dangarsleigh, Unpublished Report, October, 2011.

Clarke, P., 2006. Chapter 5. The vegetated landscape. In Atkinson, A, Ryan, J.S., Davidson, I and Piper, A.(eds.) High Lean Country: Land People and Memory in New England, pp.57-68. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Cotter, M.M. 2009. Landscapes of Deception: A multi-modal exploration of the Indigenous culturallandscape of Deception Bay Southeast Queensland. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of EnvironmentalScience and Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW, Australia.

Davidson, I. 1982. Archaeology on the New England Tableland: A Preliminary Report. Armidale & DistrictHistorical Society Journal, 25:42-56.

DEC, 2004. National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974: Part 6 Approvals Interim Community Consultation Requirementsfor Applicants, Department of Environment and Conservation, Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW.

DECCW, 2009a. Operational Policy: protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage. Department of Environment,Climate Change & Water, Goulburn Street, Sydney, NSW.

DECCW, 2009b. Guide to determining and issuing Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits. Department ofEnvironment, Climate Change & Water, Goulburn Street, Sydney, NSW.

DECCW, 2010a. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales . Department ofEnvironment, Climate Change & Water, Goulbourn Street, Sydney NSW.

DECCW, 2010b.Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010: Part 6 National Parks& wildlife Act 1974. Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water, Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW.

DECCW, 2010c. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investibation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW. Department ofEnvironment, Climate Change & Water, Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW.

Godwin, L. 1983. Archaeological Site Surveys on the eastern margins of the New England Tablelands,Australian Archaeology, 15: 38-46.


22/22

Godwin, L. 1990. Inside information: Settlement and Alliance in the late Holocene of Northeastern NewSouth Wales, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of New England.

Godwin, L. 1997. Little Big Men: Alliance & Schism in North -eastern NSW During the Late Holocene. InMcConvell, P & Evans, N. (eds), Archaeology and Linguistics: Global perpectives on Ancient Australia, pp. 297-309,Oxford Unicersity Press, Melbourne.

King, D.P 2008, Soil Landscapes of the Armidale 1:100 000 sheetmap, Department of Environment and ClimateChange, Sydney.

King, D.P 2009, Soil Landscapes of the Armidale 1:100 000 sheetreport, Department of Environment andClimate Change, Sydney.

Long, A. 2005. Aboriginal scarred trees in New South Wales, A field manual, Department of Environment &Conservation, Sydney, NSW.

McBryde, I. 1974. Aboriginal Prehistory in New England: An archaeological survey of northeastern New South Wales,Sydney University Press.

McBryde, I. 1978. Records of Times Past: Ethnohistorical essays on the culture and ecology of the New England tribes.Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

McCarthy, F. 1940. The Carved Trees of New South Wales.Australian Museum Magazine, 7(5): 161-166.

Sahukar, S, Gallery, C., Smart, J. & Mitchell, P . 2003. The Bioregions of NSW, their Biodiversity, Conservation,History, Chapter 13, pp157-164. Department of Environment & Conservation, Sydney.

SOE, 2009. Southern New England Tablelands State of the Environment Report, 2008-2009. Accessedonline October 2011 from the Armidale Dumaresq Council website (i.e.http://www.armidale.nsw.gov.au).

Sutton, S. 1989. Results of a survey for Aboriginal sites in the City of Armidale, Unpublished report toArmidale Council.

Tindale, N.B. 1974 Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: their terrain, environmental controls, distribution, limits and proper

names. University Of California Press, Berkley.
http://www.armidale.nsw.gov.au/http://www.armidale.nsw.gov.au/http://www.armidale.nsw.gov.au/http://www.armidale.nsw.gov.au/

Cott MM ArchDueDiligence L0T558 SimmonsRd FinalReport

Documents

Transcript of Cott MM ArchDueDiligence L0T558 SimmonsRd FinalReport