132 railway terrace, schofields - blacktown.nsw.gov.au

McCARDLE CULTURAL HERITAGE PTY LTD

ACN 104 590 141 • ABN 89 104 590 141

PO Box 166, Adamstown, NSW 2289 Mobile: 0412 702 396 • Email: [email protected]

North Western Surveys

132 Railway Terrace, Schofields LGA: Blacktown Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment

1 April 2021

Report No: J202142 DD

Approved by: Penny McCardle

Position: Director

Signed:

Date: 1 April 2021

This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH), ACN: 104 590 141, ABN: 89 104 590 141, and North Western Surveys. The report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and specific times and conditions specified herein. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by North Western Surveys. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by North Western Surveys and MCH accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties.

132 Railway Terrace, Schofields 2021

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 1 GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 4

AHIMS SITE ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. 4

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 5 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 THE PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................................... 5

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 6

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE DUE DILIIGENCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 6

1.5 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 7

1.5.1 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT (1974, AS AMENDED) .................................... 7

1.5.2 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE REGULATION (2009) ............................................ 8

1.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (EP&A ACT) ..................... 8

1.6 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ........................................................................... 9

1.7 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATOR .............................................................................. 9

1.8 REPORT STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 9

2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT.................................... 10 2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 11

2.1.1 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AHIMS) ................. 11

2.1.2 HERITAGE REGISTER LISTINGS ............................................................................ 12

2.2 BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL DCP ............................................................................ 12

2.2.1 SUMMARY OF THE REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT .................................... 13

2.2.2 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ..................................................................... 14

2.3 MODELS OF PAST ABORIGINAL LAND USE ............................................................ 15

2.3.1 MODEL OF OCCUPATION FOR THE LOCAL AREA .................................... 16

2.4 SYNTHESIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS .................................... 17

2.5 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR THE PROJECT AREA .................................................................... 18

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 20 3.1 SURVEY UNITS ................................................................................................................ 20

3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND PADS ................................................................................. 21

3.3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 22

4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ................................................................................. 23 4.1 IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... 23

5 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ................................................ 24


5.1 CONSERVATION/PROTECTION .......................................................................................... 24

5.2 FURTHER INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................ 24

5.3 AHIP ............................................................................................................................. 24

6 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 25 6.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES APPENDIX A AHIMS SEARCH RESULTS

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTIONS (KUSKIE & KAMMINGA 2000). ................................................................................. 17 TABLE 3.1 EFFECTIVE COVERAGE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AREA ............................................................................. 21

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 REGIONAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 1.2 LOCAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 1.3 AERIAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 2.1 LOCATION OF AHIMS SITES ................................................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 2.2 BLACKTOWN DCP ILLUSTRATING ABORIGINAL POTENTIAL AND THE PROJECT AREA LOCATION .................... 13 FIGURE 2.3 FOLEY’S MODEL (L) AND ITS MANIFESTATION IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD (R), (FOLEY 1981). ........... 16 FIGURE 3.1 VIEW NW FROM KENSINGTON PARK ROAD FORWARDS THE DAM ............................................................. 20 FIGURE 3.2 VIEW NE ALONG EDGE OF THE DAM ...................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 3.3 CLOSE UP OF DISTURBANCES/AREAS OF EXPOSURE ............................................................................... 21


McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) has been engaged by North Western Surveys to undertake an Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment for the proposed residential subdivision located at 132 Railway Terrace, Schofields, within the Blacktown Local Government Area (LGA).

The assessment has been undertaken to meet the Heritage NSW, Department of Premier & Cabinet, Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010), the Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW (OEH 2011), the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, Council requirements and the brief.

The project area is situated on the Liverpool Sub‐group/Bringelly Shale, Minchinbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale geological formation consisting of shale with some sandstone beds. Consisting of a gentle slope, the project area consists of the Blacktown residual soil landscape, the soils include of an upper soil Horizon A and underlying B (referred to as duplex soils). Unit A and Unit B are interpreted as being Holocene and Pleistocene in age respectively. Within the region, sites tend to occur on or within soil Horizon A or are often present at the interface of the A and B horizons.

As water is needed for survival, proximity to reliable water and associated subsistence and medicinal resources was paramount in past Aboriginal land uses and such resources are more abundant along high order rivers and creeks. So, not surprisingly past Aboriginal occupation focused within close proximity of reliable water sources with hunting and gathering around the outer reaches of the water source and along lower order creeks. A 1st order creek is located approximately 25 metres to the north of the project area and flows west into Eastern Creek (3rd order) located approximately 250 metres west. Thus, the project area may be considered limited in resources in terms of fresh water availability, as well as any associated subsistence and medicinal resources and as such the area may have been utilised by small numbers of people during transitory activities (such as hunting and gathering).

the investigation area has been subject to additional clearing, ploughing, grazing, significant construction of large dams along the northern boundary and forms part of a power easement, all of which would have impacted on the landscape and any cultural materials that may also have been present.

A search of the AHIMS register has shown that 110 known Aboriginal sites are currently recorded within two kilometres of the project area and include 97 sites with artefacts, six PADs, three sites with artefacts and PADs, one site with artefacts and an ochre quarry, one site with artefacts and art, one burial and one scar tree. There are no registered sites or Aboriginal Places within the project area. Review of the regional and local archaeological assessments identified a number of trends in the archaeological record as follows:

• archaeological evidence of past Aboriginal peoples will be limited and will be representative of background scatter within close proximity to first order creek lines;

• archaeological evidence within close proximity of second order streams will again be representative of background scatter and will likely consist of one‐off camp locations and / or isolated events;

• archaeological evidence in close proximity to third order creeks will consist of repeated occupation by small groups of people. Archaeological expressions will likely consist of knapping floors and evidence of repeated use over time;

• archaeological evidence along major fourth order creek lines will consist of continued and repeated use by past Aboriginal peoples and may include stratified deposits;



• Large campsites are clustered along the waterways, and in particular along the Nepean Rive and the larger reeks; and

• Ridge tops were frequently used for short‐term visits such as hunting and gathering or raw material procurement (stone materials).

Given that fresh water was necessary for survival and the project area is located 250 metres kilometres from the closest reliable fresh water source, the project area was not suitable for camping. The project area may have been utilised for more transitory activities such as travel and hunting and gathering which is reflected in the archaeological record as very low‐density artefacts scatters or isolated artefacts.

The survey identified a highly disturbed landscape with a highly modified area that has been impacted by artificial channel and dam construction. The majority of the remaining area had high levels of vegetation, in some area’s impassable levels of vegetation, reducing ground surface visibility. A cleared section leading from the slope down to the dam adjacent to the backyards of two residential properties was the largest area with visibility due to exposures.

No archaeological sites or Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) were identified during the survey and as such there are no impacts on the archaeological records and the following recommendations are provided:

1) The persons responsible for the management of onsite works will ensure that all staff, contractors and others involved in construction and maintenance related activities are made aware of the statutory legislation protecting sites and places of significance. Of particular importance is the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Aboriginal Objects and Aboriginal Places) Regulation 2010, under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;

2) Should any Aboriginal objects be uncovered during works, all work will cease in that location immediately and the Environmental Line contacted.



GLOSSARY

Aboriginal Place: are locations that have been recognised by the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (and gazetted under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) as having special cultural significance to the Aboriginal community. An Aboriginal Place may or may not include archaeological materials.

Aboriginal Site: an Aboriginal site is the location of one or more Aboriginal archaeological objects, including flaked stone artefacts, midden shell, grinding grooves, archaeological deposits, scarred trees etc.

Artefact: any object that is physically modified by humans.

Artefact scatter: a collection of artefacts scattered across the surface of the ground (also referred to as open camp sites).

Assemblage: a collection of artefacts associated by a particular place or time, assumed generated by a single group of people, and can comprise different artefact types.

Backed artefact: a stone tool where the margin of a flake is retouched at a steep angle and that margin is opposite a sharp edge.

Background scatter: a term used to describe low density scatter of isolated finds that are distributed across the landscape without any obvious focal point.

Core: a chunk of stone from which flakes are removed and will have one or more negative flake scars but no positive flake scars. The core itself can be shaped into a tool or used as a source of flakes to be formed into tools.

Debitage: small pieces of stone debris that break off during the manufacturing of stone tools. These are usually considered waste and are the by‐product of production (also referred to as flake piece).

Flake: any piece of stone struck off a core and has a number of characteristics including ring cracks showing where the hammer hit the core and a bulb of percussion. May be used as a tool with no further working, may be retouched or serve as a platform for further reduction.

Flaked piece/waste flake: an unmodified and unused flake, usually the by‐product of tool manufacture or core preparation (also referred to as debitage).

Harm: is defined as an act that may destroy, deface or damage an Aboriginal object or place. In relation to an object, this means the movement or removal of an object from the land in which it has been situated

In situ: archaeological items are said to be ʺin situ” when they are found in the location where they were last deposited.

Retouched flake: a flake that has been flaked again in a manner that modified the edge for the purpose of resharpening that edge.

Typology: the systematic organization of artefacts into types on the basis of shared attributes.



ACRONYMS

ACHA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

ACHMP Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

AHIMS SITE ACRONYMS

ACD Aboriginal ceremonial and dreaming

AFT Artefact (stone, bone, shell, glass, ceramic and metal)

ARG Aboriginal resource and gathering

ART Art (pigment or engraving)

BOM Non‐human bone and organic material

BUR Burial

CFT Conflict site

CMR Ceremonial ring (stone or earth)

ETM Earth mound

FSH Fish trap

GDG Grinding groove

HAB Habitation structure

HTH Hearth

OCQ Ochre quarry

PAD Potential archaeological deposit.

SHL Shell

STA Stone arrangement

STQ Stone quarry

TRE Modified tree (carved or scarred)

WTR Water hole



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) has been engaged by North Western Surveys to undertake an Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment for the proposed residential subdivision located at 132 Railway Terrace, Schofields, within the Blacktown Local Government Area (LGA).

The assessment has been undertaken to meet the Heritage NSW, Department of Premier & Cabinet, Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010), the Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW (OEH 2011), the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, Council requirements and the brief.

The purpose of a due diligence assessment is to assist proponents to exercise due diligence when carrying out activities that may harm Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places and to determine whether that should apply for a consent to harm Aboriginal objects or Places through an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment (AHIP). The purpose of this due diligence report is to demonstrate that all reasonable and practicable measures have been undertaken to prevent harm to any Aboriginal objects and/or place within the project area. This report has met the requirements and considered the relevant environmental and archaeological information, the project land condition, the nature of the proposed development activity and impacts, as well as preparing appropriate recommendations.

1.2 THE PROJECT AREA The project area is located at 132 Railway Terrace, Schofields, NSW. Including LOT 4 in DP 1207669, the location of the project area is shown in Figures 1.1 to 1.3.

Figure 1.1 Regional location of the project area



1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposal includes the subdivision of the project area into Torrens title residential lots and works would include extensive excavation works, construction of roads, landscaping and associated infrastructure. Any development or impacts occurring within the project area will have regard to and managed in accordance with the requirements and provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE DUE DILIIGENCE ASSESSMENT The objectives and primary tasks of this due diligence assessment were to:

Figure 1.2 Local location of the project area

Figure 1.3 Aerial location of the project area



• Undertake a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Management System (AHIMS) and other relative registers;

• Undertake preliminary research into the environmental and archaeological contexts of the project area;

• Develop a predictive model of site location for the project area;

• Undertake a field survey of the project area;

• Assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on any identified Aboriginal sites or potential archaeological deposits (PADs) identified within the project area;

• Assess the significance of any identified Aboriginal objects or sites identified within the project area;

• Complete and submit site cards to AHIMS for any Aboriginal sites identified; and

• Provide appropriate recommendations.

1.5 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT The following overview of the legislative framework, is provided solely for information purposes for the client, and should not be interpreted as legal advice. MCH will not be liable for any actions taken by any person, body or group as a result of this general overview and MCH recommends that specific legal advice be obtained from a qualified legal practitioner prior to any action being taken as a result of the general summary below.

Land managers are required to consider the effects of their activities or proposed development on the environment under several pieces of legislation. Although there are a number of Acts and regulations protecting Aboriginal heritage, including places, sites and objects, within NSW, the three main ones include:

• National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974, as amended)

• National Parks and Wildlife Regulation (2009)

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979)

1.5.1 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT (1974, AS AMENDED)

The National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974), Amended 2010, is the primary legislation for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales. The NPW Act protects Aboriginal heritage (places, sites and objects) within NSW and the Protection of Aboriginal heritage is outlined in s86 of the Act, as follows:

• “A person must not harm or desecrate an object that the person knows is an Aboriginal object” s86(1)

• “A person must not harm an Aboriginal object” s86(2)

• “A person must not harm or desecrate an Aboriginal place” s86(4)

Penalties apply for harming an Aboriginal object, site or place. The penalty for knowingly harming an Aboriginal object (s86[1]) and/or an Aboriginal place (s86[4]) is up to $550,000 for an individual and/or imprisonment for 2 years; and in the case of a corporation the penalty is up to $1.1 million.



The penalty for a strict liability offence (s86[2]) is up to $110,000 for an individual and $220,000 for a corporation.

Harm under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974, as amended) is defined as any act that; destroys defaces or damages the object, moves the object from the land on which it has been situated, causes or permits the object to be harmed. However, it is a defence from prosecution if the proponent can demonstrate that;

1) harm was authorised under an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) (and the permit was properly followed), or

2) the proponent exercised due diligence in respect to Aboriginal heritage.

The ‘due diligence’ defence (s87[2]), states that if a person or company has applied due diligence to determine that no Aboriginal object, site or place was likely to be harmed as a result of the activities proposed for the Project Area, then liability from prosecution under the NPW Act 1974 will be removed or mitigated if it later transpires that an Aboriginal object, site or place was harmed. If any Aboriginal objects are identified during the activity, then works should cease in that area and BCD notified (DECCW 2010:13). The due diligence defence does not allow for continuing harm.

The archaeological due diligence assessment and report has been carried out in compliance with the NSW DECCW 2010 Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW.

1.5.2 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE REGULATION (2009)

The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 provides a framework for undertaking activities and exercising due diligence in respect to Aboriginal heritage. The Regulation (2009) recognises various due diligence codes of practice, including the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW which is pertinent to this report, but it also outlines procedures for Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) applications and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements (ACHCRs); amongst other regulatory processes.

1.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (EP&A ACT)

EP&A Act establishes the statutory framework for planning and environmental assessment in NSW and the implementation of the EP&A Act is the responsibility of the Minister for Planning, statutory authorities and local councils. The EP&A Act contains three parts which impose requirements for planning approval:

• Part 3 of the EP&A Act relates to the preparation and making of Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs), State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs).

• Part 4 of the EP&A Act establishes the framework for assessing development under an EPI. The consent authority for Part 4 development is generally the local council, however the consent authority may by the Minister, the Planning Assessment Commission or a joint regional planning panel depending upon the nature of the development.

• Part 4, Division 4.1 of the EP&A Act establishes the assessment pathway for State significant development (SSD) declared by the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (NSW). Once a development is declared as SSD, the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) will be issued outlining what issues must be considered in the EIS.



• Part 5 of the EP&A Act provides for the control of ‘activities’ that do not require development consent and are undertaken or approved by a determining authority. Development under Part 5 that are likely to significantly affect the environment is required to have an EIS prepared for the proposed activity.

• Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act establishes the assessment pathways for State significant infrastructure (SSI). Development applications made for SSI can only be approved by the Minister. Once a development is declared as SSI, the SEARs will be issued outlining what issues must be addressed in the EIS.

The applicable approval process is determined by reference to the relevant environmental planning instruments and other controls, LEPs and State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). This project falls under Part 4.

1.6 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION A due diligence assessment relates to the physical identification of Aboriginal objects, sites and places. Community consultation is only required once Aboriginal objects, sites or places have been identified and an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is deemed necessary. Section 5.2 of the 2010 Due Diligence Code of Practice for the protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW specifically states that;

‘consultation with the Aboriginal community is not a formal requirement of the due diligence process’ (2010:8).

1.7 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATOR Penny McCardle: Principal Archaeologist/Forensic Anthropologist has 19 years’ experience in Indigenous archaeological assessments, excavation, research, reporting, analysis and consultation and fifteen years Forensic Anthropology experience in skeletal identification, biological profiling and skeletal trauma reconstruction and identification.

• BA (Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England 1999

• Hons (Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology): Physical Anthropology, University of New England 2001

• Forensic Anthropology Course, University of New England 2003

• Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Forensic Anthropology Course, Ashburn, VA 2008

• Analysis of Bone trauma and Pseudo‐Trauma in Suspected Violent Death Course, Erie College, Pennsylvania, 2009

• Documenting Scenes of War and Human Rights Violations. Institute for International Criminal Investigations, 2018

• PhD, University of Newcastle, 2019

1.8 REPORT STRUCTURE The report includes Section 1 which outlines the project, Section 2 presents the environmental and archaeological context, Section 3 provides the results and discussion and Section 4 presents the Impact Assessment, Section 5 discusses the mitigation measures and Section 6 provides the management recommendations.



2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Past site location and land use are closely linked to the environment including the landform, geology, geomorphology, soils, waterways and associated resources. The environmental context is important to identify potential factors relating to past Aboriginal land use patterns.

The project area is situated on the Liverpool Sub‐group/Bringelly Shale, Minchinbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale geological formation consisting of shale with some sandstone beds (Sydney 1: 250,000 Geological Series Map 1966). Materials most dominant in stone tool manufacture in the local area include a dominance of silcrete followed by indurated mudstone/tuff and in lesser quantities, quartz, basalt and petrified wood (McDonald 2002, Oakley 2007, Austral Archaeology 1984, AHMS 2012), all of which are absent from the local area and as such any stone tools within the proejct area would have been transported (possibly traded) into the area.

Consisting of a gentle slope, the project area consists of the Blacktown residual soil landscape. The Blacktown soil landscape typically consists gently undulating rises and include broad rounded crests and ridges with gently inclined slopes. This soil landscape consists of an A1 horizon (up to 30 cm in depth) of friable brownish‐black loam to clay loam, but can range from dark reddish‐brown to dark yellowish‐brown. This overlies the A2 horizon (10‐20 cm in depth) of hard setting dark brown clay loam to silty clay loam, but can range from dark reddish‐brown to dark brown. This the overlies the B horizon (Hazelton, Bannerman, and Tille. P. 1989: 35‐38). These soils consist of an upper soil Horizon A and underlying B (referred to as duplex soils). Unit A and Unit B are interpreted as being Holocene and Pleistocene in age respectively. Within the region, sites tend to occur on or within soil Horizon A or are often present at the interface of the A and B horizons. Within the A horizon the lowermost (in terms of vertical positioning) artefact assemblages tend to contain artefacts that are typically attributed to the mid‐Holocene, as characterised by an increase in the number of backed artefacts.

As water is needed for survival, proximity to reliable water and associated subsistence and medicinal resources was paramount in past Aboriginal land uses and such resources are more abundant along high order rivers and creeks. So, not surprisingly past Aboriginal occupation focused within close proximity of reliable water sources with hunting and gathering around the outer reaches of the water source and along lower order creeks. A 1st order creek is located approximately 25 metres to the north of the project area and flows west into Eastern Creek (3rd order) located approximately 250 metres west. Thus, the project area may be considered limited in resources in terms of fresh water availability, as well as any associated subsistence and medicinal resources and as such the area may have been utilised by small numbers of people during transitory activities (such as hunting and gathering) on the way to the more reliable Eastern Creek, rather than long term camping by large numbers of people.

European settlers extensively cleared the original native vegetation in the 1800’s and since then the investigation area has been subject to additional clearing, ploughing, grazing, significant construction of large dams along the northern boundary and forms part of a power easement. These direct impacts to the land and associated cultural materials that may be present are easy to see and understand. Early vegetation clearing included the uprooting of trees by chaining will disturbed or destroy that may be present near or underneath trees and vegetation. Although pastoralism is a comparatively low impact activity, it does result in disturbances due to vegetation clearance and the trampling and compaction of grazed areas. Furthermore, grazing by hoofed animals can affect the archaeological record due to the displacement and breakage of artefacts resulting from trampling (Yorston et al 1990). Pastoral land uses are also closely linked to alterations in the landscape due to the construction of dams, fence lines and associated structures. As a sub‐set of agricultural land use, ploughing typically disturbs the top 10‐12 centimetres of topsoil (Koettig 1986) depending on the



method and machinery used during the process. Ploughing increases the occurrence of erosion and can also result in the direct horizontal and vertical movement of artefacts, thus causing artificial changes in artefact densities and distributions. In fact, studies undertaken on artefact movement due to ploughing (e.g. Roper 1976; Odell and Cowan 1987) has shown that artefact move between one centimetre up to 18 metres laterally depending on the equipment used and horizontal movement. Ploughing may also interfere with other features and disrupt soil stratigraphy (Lewarch and O’Brien 1981). Ploughing activities are typically evidenced through ‘ridges and furrows’ however a lengthy cessation in ploughing activities dictates that these features may no longer be apparent on the surface.

Excavation works required for developments, including but not limited to business, residential, industrial, and associated infrastructure and utilities as well as dam construction, involves excavation, cut and fill methods. These direct impacts to the land and associated cultural materials that may be present are easy to see and understand. Any form of construction or resource exploitation that involves the removal of, relocation of or compaction or soils sediments or minerals, requires the modification of the topography, thus displacing and/or destroying any cultural materials that may have been present (Wood 1982).

Additional disturbances would have derived from natural processes. The patterns of deposition and erosion within a locality can influence the formation and/or destruction of archaeological sites. Within an environment where the rate of erosion is generally high, artefacts deposited in such an environment will be eroded downslope after being abandoned. Additionally, bioturbation processes such as the redistribution and mixing of cultural deposits occurs as a result of burrowing and mounding by earthworms, ants and other species of burrowing animals. Artefacts can move downwards through root holes as well as through sorting and settling due to gravity, and translocation can also occur as a result of tree falls (Balek 2002; Peacock and Fant 2002:92).

The project area is located within an environment that provided limited resources. With the absence of fresh water, the project area may have been utilised for more transitory activities such as travel and hunting and gathering on the way to reliable water and associated subsistence resources. Such past Aboriginal land uses are manifest in the archaeological record as a background scatter of discarded artefacts (such as isolated artefacts and/or very low‐density artefact scatters). In relation to modern alterations to the landscape, the previous large‐scale clearing, ploughing, grazing, tracks and dam construction and power easement clearing, can be expected to have had high impacts upon the archaeological record and moderate impacts through the remainder of the project area.

2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT A review of the archaeological literature of the region, and more specifically the Lake Macquarie area and the results of an AHIMS search provide essential contextual information for the current assessment.

2.1.1 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AHIMS)

It must be noted that there are many limitations with an AHIMS search including incorrect site coordinates due to errors and changing of computer systems at over the years that failed to correctly translate old coordinate systems to new systems. Secondly, AHIMS will only provide up to 110 sites per search, thus limiting the search area surrounding the project area and enabling a more comprehensive analysis and finally, few sites have been updated on the AHIMS register to notify if they have been subject to a s87 or s90 and as such what sites remain in the local area and what sites have been destroyed, to assist in determining the cumulative impacts, is unknown. In addition to this, other limitations include the number of studies in the local area, high levels of erosion have



proven to disturb sites, site contents, and the extent of those disturbances is unknown. Thus, the AHIMS search is limited and provides a basis only that aids in predictive modelling.

A search of the AHIMS register (Appendix A) has shown that 110 known Aboriginal sites are currently recorded within two kilometres of the project area and include 97 sites with artefacts, six PADs, three sites with artefacts and PADs, one site with artefacts and an ochre quarry, one site with artefacts and art, one burial and one scar tree (Figure 2.1). There are no registered sites or Aboriginal Places within the project area.

2.1.2 HERITAGE REGISTER LISTINGS

The National Heritage List, the Commonwealth Heritage List, the Australian Heritage Database, Australiaʹs National Heritage List, The National Trust Heritage Register State Heritage Inventory the and the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan have no Aboriginal objects, sites or places listed.

2.2 BLACKTOWN CITY COUNCIL DCP As indicated in Figure 2.2, the project area falls within areas not previously identified as having potential Aboriginal Heritage values on the heritage control plan within the Blacktown City Council Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan 2010.

Figure 2.1 Location of AHIMS sites



2.2.1 SUMMARY OF THE REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Kohan (1996), Smith (1989) and White and McDonald (2010) have undertaken extensive research into past Aboriginal land uses across the Cumberland. These studies study provided spatial and distribution analysis of Aboriginal objects (evidence of past Aboriginal land use) in relation to fresh water sources and landform types. The results indicate similar trends throughout NSW, that there is a relationship between proximity to fresh water and landform in site location and land uses by past Aboriginal people. The following broad predictions for the regional archaeology and past Aboriginal land use are provided:

• archaeological evidence of past Aboriginal peoples will be limited and will be representative of background scatter within close proximity to first order creek lines;

• archaeological evidence within close proximity of second order streams will again be representative of background scatter and will likely consist of one‐off camp locations and / or isolated events;

Figure 2.2 Blacktown DCP illustrating Aboriginal potential and the project area location



• archaeological evidence in close proximity to third order creeks will consist of repeated occupation by small groups of people. Archaeological expressions will likely consist of knapping floors and evidence of repeated use over time;

• archaeological evidence along major fourth order creek lines will consist of continued and repeated use by past Aboriginal peoples and may include stratified deposits;

• Large campsites are clustered along the waterways, and in particular along the Nepean Rive and the larger reeks; and

• Ridge tops were frequently used for short‐term visits such as hunting and gathering or raw material procurement (stone materials).

White and McDonald found that artefacts are most likely within 50‐100 metres of higher (4th) order streams, within 50 metres of 2nd streams, and that artefact distribution around 1st order streams was not significantly affected by distance from the watercourse. White and McDonald also found that artefact densities were most likely to be greatest on terraces and lower slopes within 100 metres of freshwater resources. Ridgelines and crests located between drainage lines were identified to contain archaeological evidence though usually representative of background scatter similar to that identified for first and/or second order creek lines. White & McDonald’s (2010) predictive model can be seen as indicative of the archaeology of the Cumberland Plain. However, it is important to note that conclusions based on geographical land form models only models are not concrete justifications or criteria for site distribution and characteristics (AMBS 1997). The existing distribution and characteristics of sites manifest through past Aboriginal land uses over the past 30,000 years throughout a landscape is the result of the complex interplay of numerous factors such as periods of occupation, site type, environmental impacts, erosional events and the impacts of modern activities.

2.2.2 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

All archaeological surveys throughout the local area have been undertaken in relation to environmental assessments for developments. The most relevant investigations indicate differing results and observations based on surface visibility and exposure, alterations to the landscape (including mining, industrial and residential development), proximity to water sources and geomorphology.

Archaeological survey, test excavation and salvage have been conducted across the Riverstone, Schofields, Rouse Hill, Eastern Creek, Penrith, Castlereagh, Blacktown, South Windsor and Quakers Hill areas since as early as 1980 (Dallas 1982; Kohen 1983; Haglund 1980; Smith and McDonald 1985; Smith 1985; McDonald 1986, 1997, 2001, 2002; Darwala‐Lia 1999; Comber 2016; Comber & Tasire 2018; Blacktown Council 2015, 2016a, b, c; Biosis 2019; MCH 2018a, b, c, 2019a, b, c, 2020a, b). These assessments identified the key landforms that contain evidence of past Aboriginal land uses are being creek banks, flats and terraces, all close to reliable water sources, as well as elevated areas overlooking channels.

The first predictive models developed to explain Aboriginal site location in the Cumberland Plain (such as those by Haglund 1986, Kohen 1986, and Smith 1989 etc) have been progressively refined over time and ongoing archaeological research in the northern Cumberland Plain highlights the influence stream order, landforms, distance from water, site aspect, geology, and past vegetation regimes are likely to have effected archaeological site location, complexity and composition. Basically, the water supply is often thought to be a significant factor influencing peoples’ land‐use strategies. For example, large and/or permanent water supplies may have supported large numbers of people and/or long periods of occupation while small and/or ephemeral water supplies may have been able to support only small numbers of people and/or transient occupation. Silcrete was cited as



the most commonly used raw material, primarily due to natural sources at Plumpton Ridge and from river bed gravels. The most commonly occurring site types were artefact scatters and isolated artefacts. One of the primary limiting factors to site presence noted in these studies is the level of past disturbance. Vegetation clearance for example has almost completely removed the possibility for locating culturally modified trees. It is noted that existing disturbance is a key reason why sites had not survived, or were only likely to be present in disturbed contexts, and therefore less scientifically valuable.

2.3 MODELS OF PAST ABORIGINAL LAND USE

The main aim of this project is to attempt to define both the nature and extent of occupation across the area. As a result, the nature of the analysis will focus on both the landform units and sites. The purpose of this strategy is to highlight any variations between sites and associated assemblages, landforms and resources across the area treating assemblages as a continuous scatter of cultural material across the landscape. In doing this, it is possible to identify variation across the landscape, landforms and assemblages that correspond with variation in the general patterns of landscape use and occupation. Thus, the nature of activities and occupation can be identified through the analysis of stone artefact distributions across a landscape. A general model of forager settlement patterning in the archaeological record has been established by Foley (1981). This model distinguishes the residential ‘home base’ site with peripheral ‘activity locations’. Basically, the home base is the focus of attention and many activities and the activity locations are situated away from the home base and are the focus of specific activities (such as tool manufacturing). This pattern is illustrated in Figure 2.2. Home base sites generally occur in areas with good access to a wide range of resources (reliable water, raw materials etc). The degree of environmental reliability, such as reliable water and subsistence resources, may influence the rate of return to sites and hence the complexity of evidence. Home base sites generally show a greater diversity of artefacts and raw material types (which represent a greater array of activities performed at the site and immediate area). Activity locations occur within the foraging radius of a home base camp (approximately 10 km); (Renfrew and Bahn 1991). Based on the premise that these sites served as a focus of a specific activity, they will show a low diversity in artefacts and are not likely to contain features reflecting a base camp (such as hearths). However, it is also possible that the location of certain activities cannot be predicted or identified, adding to the increased dispersal of cultural material across the landscape. If people were opting to carry stone tools during hunting and gathering journeys throughout the area rather than manufacturing tools at task locations, an increased number of used tools should be recovered from low density and dispersed assemblages.



Figure 2.3 Foley’s model (L) and its manifestation in the archaeological record (R), (Foley 1981).

2.3.1 MODEL OF OCCUPATION FOR THE LOCAL AREA

Occupation models often aim to identify and explain archaeological patterning in site type, content and distribution. General theories have been developed outlining the relationship between land use patterns and the resulting archaeological evidence. A number of models developed and reviewed (Dean‐Jones and Mitchell 1993; Rich 1995; Kuskie and Kamminga 2000) and the most commonly accepted model is summarised and adapted to for the present project area. Kuskie and Kamminga (2000) established a general model of occupation strategies based primarily upon ethnographic research. Used as a starting point, it makes a general set of factors that are consistent with other studies (e.g. White and McDonald 2010, Nelson 1991). The model distinguishes between short‐term or extended long‐term occupation and makes some predictions about the likely location of different foraging and settlement activities. Combining this information with a general review of assemblage contents from a sample of excavated sites within the region, a baseline of settlement activities may be determined (Barton 2001). The model provides a number of archaeological expectations that may be tested. For example, the presence of features requiring a considerable labour investment such as stone‐lined ovens or heat‐treatment pits are likely to occur at places where occupation occurred for extended periods of time. The presence of grindstones is also a reliable indicator of low mobility and extended occupation. Seed grinding requires a large investment of time and effort (Cane 1989). In most ethnographic examples, seed grinding is an activity that takes place over an entire day to provide adequate energetic returns (Cane 1989; Edwards and O’Connell 1995). Where group mobility was high and campsites frequently shifted throughout the landscape, artefact assemblages are not expected to contain elements such as grindstones, heat‐treatment pits, ovens and the diversity of implements frequently discarded at places of extended residential occupation. It may also have been the case that the location of particular activities could not be predicted by tool users, adding to the increased low‐density scattering of artefacts over the landscape. Also, if individuals were opting to carry a number of stone tools during hunting and gathering activities and maintaining these tools rather than manufacturing new tools at each task location, the ratio of used tools to unworn flakes in these assemblages should be high. Table 2.2 has been adapted from Kuskie and Kamminga (2000).



Table 2.1 Site descriptions (Kuskie & Kamminga 2000).

Occupation Pattern

Activity Location

Proximity to water

Proximity to food

Archaeological expectations

Transitory movement

all landscape zones

not important

not important

assemblages of low density & diversity evidence of tool maintenance & repair evidence for stone knapping

Hunting &/or gathering without camping

all landscape zones

not important

near food resources

assemblages of low density & diversity evidence of tool maintenance & repair evidence for stone knapping high frequency of used tools

Camping by small groups

associated with permanent & temporary water

near (within 100m)

near food resources

assemblages of moderate density & diversity

evidence of tool maintenance & repair evidence for stone knapping & hearths

Nuclear family base camp

level or gently undulating ground

near reliable source (within 50m)

near food resources

assemblages of high density &diversity evidence of tool maintenance, repair,

casual knapping evidence for stone knapping heat treatment pits, stone lined ovens grindstones

Community base camp

level or gently undulating ground

near reliable source (within 50m)

near food resources

assemblages of high density & diversity evidence of tool maintenance, repair,

casual knapping evidence for stone knapping heat treatment pits, stone lined ovens grindstones & ochre large area >100sqm with isolated camp

sites

To identify the specific activity areas through analysis of the composition of patterning of lithic assemblages, is utilised. However, this is applied to excavated materials as they provide more realistic data due to the lesser degree of disturbances, removal and breakages.

2.4 SYNTHESIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS The site types identified throughout the area appear to be either low density/small occupation activities or sites that were associated with more secular activities. The broader landform assessment also suggests that larger sites indicative of larger camping groups may be located on elevated land forms in close proximity to reliable water sources and associated resources compared to locations at distance from such necessary resources where large‐scale habitation is not possible but may have been utilised as activity areas away from the main camp. Based on information gained from previous studies, both regionally and locally, within a five‐kilometre radius of our project area, it can be expected that:

• a wide variety of site types are represented in the project area with open campsites and isolated artefacts by far the most common

• lithic artefacts are primarily manufactured from silcrete and mudstone with a variety of other raw materials also utilised but in smaller proportions



• sites in proximity to ephemeral water sources or located in the vicinity of headwaters of upper tributaries (1st order streams) have a sparse distribution and density and contain little more than a background scatter

• sites located in the vicinity of the upper reaches of minor tributaries (2nd order streams) also have a relatively sparse distribution and density and may represent evidence of localised one‐off behaviour

• sites located in the vicinity of the lower reaches of tributaries (3rd order creeks) have an increased distribution and density and contain evidence that may represent repeated occupation or concentration of activity

• sites located in the vicinity of major tributaries (4th and 5th order streams/rivers) have the highest distribution and densities. These sites tend to be extensive and complex in landscapes with permanent and reliable water and contain evidence representative of concentrated activity

• sites located within close vicinity at the confluence of any order stream may be a focus of activity and may contain a relatively higher artefact distribution and density

The previous assessments also noted that all sites had been disturbed through past landuses including but not limited to clearing, agricultural and pastoral activities, residential developments, utilities, infrastructure and erosion. All excavations also identified highly disturbed subsurface deposits due to the above mentioned intensive long‐term land uses.

Relating specifically to the project area, given it is located some distance from a reliable fresh water source, combined with the historic and present land uses impacts, significantly limits the potential for in situ Aboriginal sites to be located within the project area.

2.5 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR THE PROJECT AREA An archaeological predictive model is established to identify areas of archaeological sensitivity so it can be used as a basis for the planning and management of Aboriginal heritage. It involves reviewing existing literature to identify basic site distribution patters. These patterns are then modified according to the specific environment of the project area to form a predictive model for site location within the specific project area. A sampling strategy is then used to test the model and the results of the survey used to confirm, refute or modify the model.

Land‐systems and environmental factors are commonly used factors in predictive modelling based on the assumption that they provide distinctive sets of constraints and opportunities that influenced past Aboriginal land use patterns. As land use patterns may differ between zones (due to different environmental conditions), this may result in the physical manifestation of different spatial distributions and forms of archaeological evidence. The predictive model presented here is based on the following information;

• Landform units;

• Previous archaeological assessments conducted within the region;

• Distribution of known sites and site densities; and

• Traditional Aboriginal land use patterns.

Also taken into consideration are land use impacts (both natural and anthropomorphic) that may have resulted in a disturbed landscape and associated archaeological record. However, these assumptions may only be clarified during survey and the model updated accordingly if needed.



Given that fresh water was necessary for survival and the project area is located 250 metres kilometres from the closest reliable fresh water source, the project area was not suitable for camping. The project area may have been utilised for more transitory activities such as travel and hunting and gathering which is reflected in the archaeological record as very low‐density artefacts scatters or isolated artefacts. Brief descriptions of the site types that may occur in the project area are presented below.

• Artefact scatters

Also described as open campsites, artefact scatters and open sites, these deposits have been defined at two or more stone artefacts within 50 metres of each other and will include archaeological remains such as stone artefacts and may be found in association with camping where other evidence may be present such as shell, hearths, stone lined fire places and/or heat treatment pits. These sites are usually identified as surface scatters of artefacts in areas where ground surface visibility is increased due to lack of vegetation. Erosion, agricultural activities (such as ploughing, grazing) and access ways can also expose surface campsites. Artefact scatters may represent evidence of;

Large camp sites, where everyday activities such as habitation, maintenance of stone or wooden tools, manufacturing of such tools, management of raw materials, preparation and consumption of food and storage of tools has occurred;

Medium/small camp sites, where activities such as minimal tool manufacturing occurred;

Hunting and/or gathering events;

Other events spatially separated from a camp site, or

Transitory movement through the landscape.

Artefact scatters are a common site type in the locality and the broader region. There is a low potential for very low‐density artefact scatters representative of a background scatter of discarded artefacts to be present in the project area. There is also the potential for such sites to be impacted on through past land uses.

• Isolated finds

Isolated artefacts are usually identified in areas where ground surface visibility is increased due to lack of vegetation. Erosion, agricultural activities (such as ploughing) and access ways can also expose surface artefacts. Isolated finds may represent evidence of;

Hunting and/or gathering events; or

Transitory movement through the landscape.

Isolated finds are a common site type in the locality and the broarder region. There is potential for isolated artefacts to occur across the project area and across all landforms. There is also the potential for such sites to be impacted on through past land uses.



3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To comply with the due diligence requirement that a visual inspection of the project area be undertaken, an archaeological pedestrian survey across the project area was undertaken by MCH archaeologist on 20th March 2021. The survey focused on areas of high ground surface visibility and exposures (erosional features, dam, tracks, cleared areas).

3.1 SURVEY UNITS The project area, consisting of a slope, was surveyed as one survey unit (SU) that was based on landform elements (following McDonald et al 1984). The survey identified a highly disturbed landscape with a highly modified area that has been impacted by artificial channel and dam construction. The majority of the remaining area had high levels of vegetation, in some area’s impassable levels of vegetation, reducing ground surface visibility. A cleared section leading from the slope down to the dam adjacent to the backyards of two residential properties was the largest area with visibility due to exposures. Examples of the project area are provided in Figures 3.1 to 3.3.

Figure 3.1 View NW from Kensington Park Road forwards the dam

Figure 3.2 View NE along edge of the dam



Figure 3.3 Close up of disturbances/areas of exposure

As shown if Table 3.1 the total effective coverage for the project area was 855 m2, or 14.25% reflecting the low surface visibility due to vegetation cover.

Table 3.1 Effective coverage for the investigation area

SU Landform Area (m2)

Vis. %

Exp. %

Exposure type

Previous disturbances

Present disturbances

Limiting visibility factors

Effective coverage (m2)

1 slope 6,000 15% 95% erosion, dam excavation, tracks, easement

erosion, clearing, ploughing, dam excavation, tracks, easement

erosion, dam, tracks, easement

vegetation 855

Totals 6,000 855Effective coverage % 14.25%

The level and nature of the effective survey coverage is considered satisfactory to provide an effective assessment of the investigation area. The coverage was comprehensive for obtrusive site types (e.g. grinding grooves and scarred trees) but somewhat limited for the less obtrusive surface stone artefact sites by surface visibility constraints that included vegetation cover and minimal exposures.

3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND PADS No archaeological sites or Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) were identified during the survey and this is likely due to a number of factors including:

• Distance from reliable water and subsistence resources indicates the project area was unlikely to have been utilised for camping;



• The project area may have been used for travel and/or hunting and gathering which manifest in the archaeological record as very low‐density artefact scatters and/or isolated finds; and

• Past and present land uses would have displaced and/or destroyed any evidence of past Aboriginal land use.

3.3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION It is well established that proximity to water was an important factor in past occupation of the area, with sites reducing in number significantly away from water with most sites located within 50 metres of the tributaries. The project area is located approximately 250 metres from Eastern Creek and associated subsistence resources. The project area was unsuitable for sustained camping but may have been utilised for transitory movement or hunting/gathering activities only.

In relation to modern alterations to the landscape, previous large‐scale clearing, ploughing, grazing and construction works associated with the dam construction, power easement and tracks can be expected to have had high impacts upon the archaeological record. Natural factors such as erosion would also have impacted on the archaeological record, all of which would have displaced cultural materials and the likelihood of in situ cultural materials is very low.



4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

The archaeological record is a non‐renewable resource that is affected by many processes and activities. As outlined in Section 2 and Section 3, the various natural processes and human activities have impacted on archaeological deposits through both site formation and taphonomic processes.

4.1 IMPACTS The Heritage NSW Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (2010:21) describes impacts to be rated as follows:

1) Type of harm: is either direct, indirect or none

2) Degree of harm is defined as either total, partial or none

3) Consequence of harm is defined as either total loss, partial loss, or no loss of value

As no sites or PADs were identified, there are no impacts on the archaeological record.



5 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Specific strategies, as outlined through the Heritage NSW, Department of Premier & Cabinet Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010b), the Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW (OEH 2011), and the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010c), are considered below for the management of the identified site within the project area.

5.1 CONSERVATION/PROTECTION Conservation is the first avenue and is suitable for all sites, especially those considered high archaeological significance and/or cultural significance. Conservation includes the processes of looking after an indigenous site or place so as to retain its significance and are managed in a way that is consistent with the nature of peoples’ attachment to them.

As no sites or PADs were identified conservation/protection is not required.

5.2 FURTHER INVESTIGATION An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is no longer required to undertake test excavations (providing the excavations are in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigations in NSW). Subsurface testing is appropriate when a PAD has been identified, and it can be demonstrated that sub‐surface Aboriginal objects with potential conservation value have a high probability of being present, and that the area cannot be substantially avoided by the proposed activity.

As no sites or PADs were identified further investigations are not justified.

5.3 AHIP If harm will occur to an Aboriginal object or Place, then an AHIP is required from Heritage NSW, Department of Premier & Cabinet. If a systematic excavation of the known site could provide benefits and information for the Aboriginal community and/or archaeological study of past Aboriginal occupation, a salvage program may be an appropriate strategy to enable the salvage of cultural objects. The AHIP may also include surface collection of artefacts.

As no sites or PADs were identified an AHIP is not required.



6 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL 1) The persons responsible for the management of onsite works will ensure that all staff,

contractors and others involved in construction and maintenance related activities are made aware of the statutory legislation protecting sites and places of significance. Of particular importance is the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Aboriginal Objects and Aboriginal Places) Regulation 2010, under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;

2) Should any Aboriginal objects be uncovered during works, all work will cease in that location immediately and the Environmental Line contacted.



REFERENCES

AHMS. 2012. Additional Water Related Infrastructure for the North West Growth Centre ‐ First Release Precincts Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment. Report prepared for Sydney Water. Anonymous 2003 CatchmentSIM GIS. http://www.uow.edu.au/~cjr03/ index.htm?Overview/VNAnalysis/VNAnalysisFrame.htm~mainFrame. Downloaded 24 February 2004. Balek, C. 2002. Buried Artefacts in Stable Upland Sites and the Role of Bioturbation: A Review. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 17(1):41‐51. Biosis. 2019. Alex Avenue Public School, Schofields: Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment report. Report prepared for Schools Infrastructure NSW. Blacktown City Council. 2015. Review of Environmental Factors Prepared Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Roads Infrastructure Facilities Project Name: Jacqui Avenue from Grima Street to Railway Terrace, Schofields. Report prepared for Blacktown City Council. Blacktown City Council. 2016a. Review of Environmental Factors Prepared Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Stormwater Infrastructure Project Name: CP20 Channel E4.6 – E4.12. Report prepared for Blacktown City Council. Blacktown City Council. 2016b. Review of Environmental Factors Prepared Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Roads Infrastructure Facilities Project Name: Proposed Construction of Northern East West Road between Railway Terrace and Alex Avenue, Schofields. Report prepared for Blacktown City Council. Blacktown City Council. 2016c. Review of Environmental Factors Prepared Under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Stormwater Infrastructure Project Name: CP 20 Package C Stormwater Infrastructure Works Basin E8.1. Report prepared for Blacktown City Council. Cahen, D. and J. Moeyersons. 1977. Subsurface Movements of Stone Artefacts and Their Implications for the Prehistory of Central Africa. Nature 266:812‐815. Cane, S. 1989. Australian Aboriginal Seed Grinding and its Archaeological Record: a case study from the Western Desert. In Foraging and Farming, D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman (eds.), 99‐119. London: Unwin Hyman. Comber, J., and Tasire, A. 2018. Schofields Public School St Albans Road, Schofields Proposed Installation of Demountables Aboriginal Archaeological Testing Report AHIMS Site 45‐5‐5008. Report prepared for TKD Architects on behalf of the Department of Education. Dallas, M. 1982. An Archaeological Survey at Riverstone, Schofields and Quakers Hill, NSW. Report prepared for Land Commission of NSW. Darwala‐Lia. 1999. Riverstone Land Release Area Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for Blacktown City Council.



Dean‐Jones, P. and P.B. Mitchell. 1993. Hunter Valley Aboriginal sites assessment project. Environmental modelling for archaeological site potential in the Central Lowlands of the Hunter Valley. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. De Reu J, Bourgeois J, Bats M, et al. 2013. Application of the topographic position index to heterogeneous landscapes. Geomorphology, 186: 39–49. DOI:10.1016/j. geomorph.2012.12.015. De Reu J, Bourgeois J, De Smedt P, et al. 2011. Measuring the relative topographic position of archaeological sites in the landscape, a case study on the Bronze Age barrows in northwest Belgium. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(12): 3435–3446. DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.005. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). 2010a. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). 2010b. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). 2010c. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Edwards, D. and J. F. OʹConnell 1995. Broad Spectrum Diets in Arid Australia. Antiquity, 69: 769‐783. Foley, R. 1981. A Model of Regional Archaeological Structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 47: 1‐17. Haglund, L. 1980. Report on watch over Partial Destruction of an Aboriginal Camp Site on Eastern Creek. Report prepared for NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services. Hazelton, P., Bannerman, S., and Tille. P. 1989. Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet Report. The Soil Conservation Service of NSW. Koettig, M. 1986. Assessment of Archaeological Sites along the Proposed Singleton to Glennies Creek Water Pipeline Route and the Reservoir Site at Apex Lookout, Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Unpublished report for The Public Works Department. Kohen, J. 1983. Surveys and Surface Collections in the Western Cumberland Plain: 1982‐83. Report prepared for NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services. Kuskie, P.J., and J. Kamminga. 2000. Salvage of Aboriginal archaeological sites in relation to the F3 Freeway near Lenaghans Drive, Black Hill, New South Wales. Report to Roads and traffic Authority New South Wales. Lewarch, D. E. and O’Brien, M. J. 1981. The Expanding Role of Surface Assemblages in Archaeological research. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4. Academic Press, New York.



McDonald, R.C., Isbell, R.F., Speight, J.G., Walker, J. and Hopkins, M.S. 1998. Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook, Second Edition. Inkata Press, Australia. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2018a). 149 Riverstone Road, Riverstone. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to Orion Consulting Engineers. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2018b). 43 Schofileds Road, Schofields. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to Orion Consulting Engineers. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2018c). 114 Cranbourne Street, Riverstone. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to Orion Consulting Engineers. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2019a). Lots 29 to 34 DP1972, Campbell Street, Riverstone. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to McLeod McCrow & Associates Pty Ltd. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2019b). 158 Railway Tce, Schofields. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to Liskowski Architects. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2020a). Glengarrie Road, Marsden Park. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to pitt & sherry (Operations) Pty Ltd. McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) (2020b). Quakers Road, between Quakers Hill Parkway and Triton Parade, Schofields. Archaeological Due Diligance Assessment. Report to Blacktown City Council. McDonald, J. 1986. Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Schofields Regional Depot Plumpton, NSW. Report prepared for the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority, Sydney, NSW. McDonald, J. 1997. Survey for Archaeological Sites: Knudsen Reserve at Riverstone, NSW. Report prepared for Blacktown City Council. McDonald, J. 2001. Archaeological Survey for Aboriginal Sites, Proposed Rural Subdivision, Bridge Street and Grange Avenue Schofields, NSW. Report prepared for Grey Development Pty Ltd. McDonald, J. 2002a. Archaeological Assessment of Indigenous Cultural Heritage Values, Rouse Hill Development Area Sewerage Master Plan. Report prepared for GHD on behalf of RHI. McDonald, J. 2002b. Rouse Hill Infrastructure Project (Stage 3) Development Areas 2, 5, 20, 22 and 24b Second Ponds Creek Area Indigenous and European Heritage Issues. Report prepared for Rouse Hill Infrastructure Consortium (RHIC) Pty Ltd. Mitchell, P.B. 2007. Geomorphology and pedology of the Sydney Water Project: Rouse Hill – North Kellyville in relation to possible Aboriginal archaeology. Report to Sydney Water. Mulvaney, J., and J. Kamminga. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen and Unwin, Australia. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Ed. 1997. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit. NPWS, Sydney.



Nelson, M. 1991. The study of technological organisation. In Schiffer, M. (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. pp. 57‐100. Oakley, B. 2007. Indigenous Heritage Assessment Proposed Potable, Recycled and Wastewater Pipelines North Kellyville NSW. Report prepared for Department of Main Roads. Odell, G. and F. Cowan. 1987. Estimating Tillage Effects on Artifact Distributions. American Antiquity 52(3):456‐484. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 2011. Guide to Investigating, Assessing and reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Peacock, E. and D. Fant. 2002. Biomantle Formation and Artefact Translocation in Upland Sandy Soils: An Example from the Holly Springs National Forest, North‐Central Mississippi, U.S.A. In Geoarchaeology 17(1):91‐114. Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. 1991. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames & Hudson. Rich, E. 1990a. Aboriginal Historic Sites in North East NSW: Management Study. Report to The National Parks and Wildlife Service of NSW (NPWS) and The Australian Heritage Commission. Roper, D. 1976. Lateral Displacement of Artifacts Due to Plowing. American Antiquity 41(3):372‐375. Smith, L., and McDonald, J. 1985. An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Sewerage Lines at Quakers Hill, NSW. W.O. 36591. W.O. 37292. Report prepared for the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. Smith, L. 1985. Archaeological Survey of Pacific Highway: Proposed Northbound Carriageway between Gosford & Kariong, NSW. Report prepared for the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. Wheeling Jesuit University, 2002. Exploring the Environment: Water Quality. http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/waterq/wqphysmethods.html Downloaded 24 February 2004. White, B. & J. McDonald. 2010. ‘Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area, Cumberland Plain, NSW’. Australian Archaeology. Volume 70:29‐38. Wood, S. 1982. Mechanical treatment impacts to cultural resource sin Central Arizona: The marden brush cutter. Presented at the Symposium on Dynamics and Management of Mediterranean‐Type Ecosystems, June 22‐26, 1981, San Diego, California. Yorston, R.M., Gaffney, V.L. and Reynolds, P.J. 1990. Simulation of Artefact Movement Due to Cultivation. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:67‐83.



APPENDIX A

AHIMS Search Results

AHIMS Web Services (AWS)Search Result Purchase Order/Reference : 132 Railway

Client Service ID : 578073

Date: 22 March 2021Penny Mccardle

Po Box 166

Adamstown New South Wales 2289

Dear Sir or Madam:

AHIMS Web Service search for the following area at Datum :GDA, Zone : 56, Eastings : 300000 - 304000,

Northings : 6268000 - 6272000 with a Buffer of 50 meters. Additional Info : assessment, conducted by

Penny Mccardle on 22 March 2021.

Email: [email protected]

Attention: Penny Mccardle

The context area of your search is shown in the map below. Please note that the map does not accurately

display the exact boundaries of the search as defined in the paragraph above. The map is to be used for

general reference purposes only.

A search of the Office of the Environment and Heritage AHIMS Web Services (Aboriginal Heritage Information

Management System) has shown that:

110

0

Aboriginal sites are recorded in or near the above location.

Aboriginal places have been declared in or near the above location. *

If your search shows Aboriginal sites or places what should you do?

Important information about your AHIMS search

You can get further information about Aboriginal places by looking at the gazettal notice that declared it.

Aboriginal places gazetted after 2001 are available on the NSW Government Gazette

(http://www.nsw.gov.au/gazette) website. Gazettal notices published prior to 2001 can be obtained from

Office of Environment and Heritage's Aboriginal Heritage Information Unit upon request

Aboriginal objects are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 even if they are not recorded

as a site on AHIMS.

You must do an extensive search if AHIMS has shown that there are Aboriginal sites or places recorded in the

search area.

If you are checking AHIMS as a part of your due diligence, refer to the next steps of the Due Diligence Code of

practice.

AHIMS records information about Aboriginal sites that have been provided to Office of Environment and

Heritage and Aboriginal places that have been declared by the Minister;

Information recorded on AHIMS may vary in its accuracy and may not be up to date .Location details are

recorded as grid references and it is important to note that there may be errors or omissions in these

recordings,

Some parts of New South Wales have not been investigated in detail and there may be fewer records of

Aboriginal sites in those areas. These areas may contain Aboriginal sites which are not recorded on AHIMS.

This search can form part of your due diligence and remains valid for 12 months.

The information derived from the AHIMS search is only to be used for the purpose for which it was requested.

It is not be made available to the public.

3 Marist Place, Parramatta NSW 2150

Locked Bag 5020 Parramatta NSW 2220

Tel: (02) 9585 6380 Fax: (02) 9873 8599

ABN 30 841 387 271

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

AHIMS Web Services (AWS)Extensive search - Site list report

SiteID SiteName Datum Zone Easting Northing Context SiteFeatures SiteTypes Reports

Your Ref/PO Number : 132 Railway


Site Status

45-5-2434 Knudsen Reserve 1 AGD 56 300550 6270600 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 4058,98187

PermitsDoctor.Jo McDonaldRecordersContact

45-5-5243 Garfield Isolated 1 GDA 56 300394 6270117 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

PermitsAustral Archaeology Pty Ltd - Liverpool,Ms.Molly QuinnRecordersContact

45-5-2821 RTT1 AGD 56 301110 6270685 Open site Valid Artefact : -

1571,2147PermitsHelen BrayshawRecordersContact

45-5-4095 PAD 1037-6 GDA 56 302155 6269705 Open site Valid Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -

PermitsExtent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Doctor.Alan WilliamsRecordersContact


Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -



Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -


45-5-4084 PAD 1023-6 GDA 56 303407 6271437 Open site Not a Site Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -

PermitsNiche Environment and Heritage,Extent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Doctor.Alan Williams,Mr.Balazs HanselRecordersContact

45-5-4085 Artefact Scatter PAD 1024-46 GDA 56 303213 6271306 Open site Destroyed Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -,

Artefact : -

4006PermitsNiche Environment and Heritage,Niche Environment and Heritage,Extent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Doctor.Alan Williams,Mr.Balazs Hansel,Mr.Balazs HanselRecordersContact

45-5-4086 Isolated Object 1025-5 GDA 56 302031 6268677 Open site Valid Artefact : -


45-5-4087 Artefact Scatter 1026-46 GDA 56 301842 6268842 Open site Partially

Destroyed

Artefact : -, Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -

3637,4012PermitsExtent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Doctor.Alan Williams,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Artefact - Cultural Heritage Management - Pyrmont,Artefact - Cultural Heritage Management - Pyrmont,Miss.Kristen Taylor,Ms.veronica norman,Mr.ryan taddeucciRecordersContact

45-5-4093 PAD 1035-6 GDA 56 302243 6268470 Open site Partially

Destroyed

Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -

3637PermitsExtent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Doctor.Alan Williams,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact

45-5-4646 110 Boundary Rd AS1 GDA 56 303989 6270483 Open site Destroyed Artefact : -

4041PermitsArtefact - Cultural Heritage Management - Pyrmont,Mr.Alex TimmsRecordersContact

Report generated by AHIMS Web Service on 22/03/2021 for Penny Mccardle for the following area at Datum :GDA, Zone : 56, Eastings : 300000 - 304000, Northings : 6268000 - 6272000 with a

Buffer of 50 meters. Additional Info : assessment. Number of Aboriginal sites and Aboriginal objects found is 110

This information is not guaranteed to be free from error omission. Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) and its employees disclaim liability for any act done or omission made on the information and consequences of such

acts or omission.

Page 1 of 8





Site Status

45-5-4654 SB-Reburial-2015 GDA 56 302002 6269770 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

4075PermitsMr.Geordie Oakes,AECOM George Street SydneyRecordersContact

45-5-4671 Reburied Artefacts of 45-5-4489 GDA 56 302140 6269889 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4075PermitsMary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists (MDCA),Ms.Tamika Goward,Ms.Tamika GowardRecordersContact

45-5-4655 Advance Street 1 GDA 56 302902 6269125 Open site Valid Artefact : - 103598,10359

9,103600,1036

01

3998PermitsMr.Tyler BeebeRecordersContact

45-5-4710 Bligh Street Isolated Find 1 GDA 56 302664 6270510 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsMr.Josh SymonsRecordersContact





45-5-4722 Advance Street AFT 2 GDA 56 302982 6269114 Open site Valid Artefact : - 103598,10359

9,103600,1036

01

3998PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Mr.Benjamin AndersonRecordersContact

45-5-4723 Schofields Road Detention Basin (SRDB) IF 3 GDA 56 302888 6269179 Open site Valid Artefact : - 103598,10359

9,103600,1036

01



9,103600,1036

01



9,103600,1036

01


45-5-5267 ISF01 GDA 56 300312 6268652 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsExtent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Miss.Coral HardwickRecordersContact

45-5-2525 EC-OS-2 AGD 56 301130 6271050 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 98187

3991PermitsMrs.Robynne MillsRecordersContact



45-5-2528 EC-IF-1 AGD 56 301060 6270690 Open site Valid Artefact : - Isolated Find 98187




acts or omission.

Page 2 of 8





Site Status








45-5-0359 QH 3 Quakers Hill AGD 56 302850 6271320 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 260,874,984,10

18,98341

PermitsMary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists (MDCA)RecordersContact

45-5-0360 QH 4 Quakers Hill AGD 56 301210 6271430 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 260,364,1018,9

8187

4040PermitsMary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists (MDCA)RecordersContact

45-5-0210 Eastern Creek; AGD 56 300850 6271570 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 98187

1096,3991PermitsHelen BrayshawRecordersContact

45-5-0498 Eastern Creek 5 Schofields Aerodrome GDA 56 302479 6268066 Open site Partially

Destroyed

Artefact : - Open Camp Site 521,1018,9818

7

4074,4075,4086PermitsJim Kohen,GML Heritage Pty Ltd - Surry Hills,Doctor.Tim Owen,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Mr.Benjamin AndersonRecordersContact

45-5-0500 Riverstone 4 Riverstone AGD 56 300800 6269700 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 521,1018,9818

7

PermitsJim KohenRecordersContact

45-5-0501 Riverstone 5 Riverstone AGD 56 300250 6270430 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 521,1018


45-5-0502 Schofields 1 Schofields (Public Road) AGD 56 302400 6269200 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 521,1018,9818

7


45-5-3726 MPIP 5 GDA 56 300187 6267996 Open site Partially

Destroyed

Artefact : 3 103420

3679,3681PermitsMatthew Kelleher,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty LtdRecordersContact

45-5-3729 MPIP 5C GDA 56 300231 6267975 Open site Valid Artefact : 30

3681PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty LtdRecordersContact

45-5-3632 ISF3 Riverstone Meatworks GDA 56 301320 6271500 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4040PermitsMs.Mary DallasRecordersContact

45-5-3633 ISF4 Riverstone Meatworks GDA 56 300950 6271860 Open site Valid Artefact : -

3991,4040PermitsMs.Mary DallasRecordersContact

45-5-3637 Vineyard 1 GDA 56 300950 6271860 Open site Valid Artefact : -

3991,4040PermitsMs.Laila HaglundRecordersContact




acts or omission.

Page 3 of 8





Site Status

45-5-4202 NWG AS 1 GDA 56 303508 6268857 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3646PermitsAustralian Archaeological Survey Consultants,Mr.David MarcusRecordersContact

45-5-4204 SS1 GDA 56 301299 6268579 Open site Valid Artefact : 1






45-5-4177 MPP-14 GDA 56 300222 6268744 Open site Valid Artefact : 5

PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty LtdRecordersContact

45-5-4266 SF01a GDA 56 302264 6269873 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3696PermitsIain StuartRecordersContact

45-5-4116 Schofields Village AS1 GDA 56 302202 6268541 Open site Valid Artefact : 136

3525PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney,Mr.Luke KirkwoodRecordersContact








PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney,Mr.Luke KirkwoodRecordersContact









45-5-4125 SC IA1 GDA 56 302779 6268654 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 1

3525PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney,Mr.Luke Kirkwood,Ms.Georgia BurnettRecordersContact

45-5-4272 SB - AS1 - 12 GDA 56 302123 6269471 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3608,3696PermitsMr.Geordie Oakes,AECOM Australia Pty Ltd - SydneyRecordersContact




acts or omission.

Page 4 of 8





Site Status

45-5-4152 VR1 GDA 56 302172 6268573 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 2

3637PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact



45-5-4199 SS4 IF GDA 56 300119 6268312 Open site Valid Artefact : 1


45-5-4135 RAA19 GDA 56 303934 6268532 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3606PermitsDoctor.Alan Williams,AECOM Australia Pty Ltd - SydneyRecordersContact

45-5-4305 Marsden Park Isolated Find 1 GDA 56 299999 6268070 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3681PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney,Doctor.Andrew Peter MclarenRecordersContact

45-5-4625 30AdvSt-IF1 GDA 56 302921 6269238 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4474PermitsMr.Alistair HobbsRecordersContact

45-5-4626 14SchRd_IF1 GDA 56 303403 6268930 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsMr.Alistair HobbsRecordersContact

45-5-4627 14SchRd-AS3 GDA 56 303189 6268994 Open site Valid Artefact : -






45-5-4482 A 5 GDA 56 303471 6271637 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsDoctor.Alan WilliamsRecordersContact

45-5-4485 RS_BASIN_E10.3_AS GDA 56 302888 6270407 Open site Destroyed Artefact : -

3759PermitsMr.David MarcusRecordersContact

45-5-4562 AA-AS-001 GDA 56 303356 6268369 Open site Valid Artefact : -

3998PermitsMr.Lance SymeRecordersContact


3998PermitsMr.Lance SymeRecordersContact


PermitsMr.Lance SymeRecordersContact

45-5-4489 Argowan Rd1 GDA 56 302090 6268991 Open site Destroyed Artefact : -

3803PermitsMs.Tamika GowardRecordersContact

45-5-5008 Schofields PS GDA 56 303048 6269868 Open site Valid Artefact : 1, Ochre

Quarry : 1

103922

4324PermitsComber Consultants Pty Limited,Ms.Alandra TasireRecordersContact




acts or omission.

Page 5 of 8





Site Status

45-5-5011 Denmark Road AFT 1 GDA 56 301530 6270517 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Ms.Cristany MilicichRecordersContact

45-5-5012 Bridge Street AFT 1 GDA 56 302125 6269990 Open site Valid Artefact : -, Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -

PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Ms.Cristany MilicichRecordersContact

45-5-5110 BR IF 1 (Boundary Road Isolate Find 1) GDA 56 303904 6270832 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsArtefact - Cultural Heritage Management - Pyrmont,Ms.Jennifer NorfolkRecordersContact

45-5-5218 Alex Avenue PS 02 GDA 56 303664 6268948 Open site Destroyed Artefact : - 104161,10416

2

PermitsBiosis Pty Ltd - Wollongong,Biosis Pty Ltd - Wollongong,Biosis Pty Ltd - Wollongong,Mrs.Samantha Keats,Mrs.Samantha Keats,Mrs.Samantha KeatsRecordersContact

45-5-5219 Alex Avenue 01 GDA 56 303539 6268955 Open site Destroyed Artefact : - 104161,10416

2

PermitsBiosis Pty Ltd - Wollongong,Biosis Pty Ltd - Wollongong,Biosis Pty Ltd - Wollongong,Mrs.Samantha Keats,Mrs.Samantha Keats,Mrs.Samantha KeatsRecordersContact

45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 GDA 56 304021 6271819 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

4689PermitsEco Logical Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney - Individual users,Mr.Tyler BeebeRecordersContact

45-5-5018 CS-AD-01 GDA 56 303801 6271609 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4569PermitsApex Archaeology,Ms.Jenni BateRecordersContact

45-5-4944 HF OC2 GDA 56 302211 6270088 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsMurray Brown,Mr.Paul IrishRecordersContact

45-5-4945 HF OC1 GDA 56 302103 6270074 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsMurray Brown,Mr.Paul IrishRecordersContact

45-5-5138 WSPP Artefact 1 GDA 56 302211 6268065 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsExtent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Ms.Ngaire RichardsRecordersContact

45-5-5140 WSPP Artefact 3 GDA 56 301420 6268227 Open site Valid Artefact : -


45-5-5146 WSPP PAD 2 GDA 56 302133 6268462 Open site Valid Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : -


45-5-4943 Riverstone Cemetery Art Rebur GDA 56 300621 6270579 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

PermitsMr.Dominic SteeleRecordersContact

45-5-5024 Riverstone Road AFT 2 GDA 56 303963 6271839 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4349PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Ms.Cristany MilicichRecordersContact

45-5-5423 Clarke AS3 GDA 56 303731 6271749 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsEco Logical Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney - Individual users,Ms.Jennifer NorfolkRecordersContact




acts or omission.

Page 6 of 8





Site Status

45-5-5424 Clarke AS4 GDA 56 303788 6272001 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsEco Logical Australia Pty Ltd - Sydney - Individual users,Ms.Jennifer NorfolkRecordersContact

45-5-2590 CCS1 AGD 56 302650 6271320 Open site Valid Artefact : 65

PermitsColin GaleRecordersContact

45-5-2610 SEC1 - Schofields Eastern Creek 1 AGD 56 301725 6269334 Open site Valid Artefact : 10 98047,98048

4075PermitsDoctor.Jo McDonaldRecordersContact

45-5-2611 SEC2 - Schofields Eastern Creek 2 AGD 56 301540 6269180 Open site Valid Modified Tree

(Carved or Scarred) :

-

98047,98048

PermitsDoctor.Jo McDonaldRecordersContact

45-5-4457 A-5 GDA 56 303471 6271637 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - SydneyRecordersContact

45-5-4472 RAA21 GDA 56 303570 6269090 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - SydneyRecordersContact

45-5-4476 RV40 GDA 56 303505 6268732 Open site Valid Artefact : -

3998PermitsAECOM Australia Pty Ltd - SydneyRecordersContact

45-5-4326 Basin4IF30 GDA 56 303009 6268789 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3784PermitsMr.Oliver BrownRecordersContact

45-5-4763 RL 8 GDA 56 303306 6270440 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

PermitsDarwala-LiaRecordersContact

45-5-4774 Riverstone General Cemetery GDA 56 300520 6270665 Open site Valid Art (Pigment or

Engraved) : 1,

Potential

Archaeological

Deposit (PAD) : 1

4114PermitsMr.Dominic SteeleRecordersContact

45-5-4869 North Street AFT 1 GDA 56 301818 6269649 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact

45-5-4770 Burial Ground Of The Blacks (1842 burial) GDA 56 301661 6268256 Open site Valid Burial : -

PermitsMuru Mittigar,Ms.Leanne WatsonRecordersContact

45-5-4743 209 Railway Terrace IF1 GDA 56 302994 6268672 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsExtent Heritage Pty Ltd - Pyrmont - Individual users,Doctor.Tessa BryantRecordersContact

45-5-4870 South Street AFT 1 GDA 56 300314 6268227 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4075,4272PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen Taylor,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact

45-5-4871 Grange Avenue AFT 4 GDA 56 300129 6268516 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact




acts or omission.

Page 7 of 8





Site Status


4075PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact


4075PermitsKelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd,Miss.Kristen Taylor,Miss.Kristen TaylorRecordersContact

45-5-4847 Grange Avenue IF 1 GDA 56 301191 6268949 Open site Valid Artefact : -









acts or omission.

Page 8 of 8

132 railway terrace, schofields - blacktown.nsw.gov.au

Documents