appendix e - orange city council

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL HERITAGE DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT

View south to a stand of native vegetation in the study area.

ABORIGINAL DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

CLERGATE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE EXPANSION

ORANGE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

DECEMBER 2020

Report prepared by

OzArk Environment & Heritage

for Orange City Council

OzArk


145 Wingewarra St (PO Box 2069)

Dubbo NSW 2830 Phone: (02) 6882 0118 Fax: (02) 6882 0630

[email protected] www.ozarkehm.com.au

This page has intentionally been left blank.


DOCUMENT CONTROLS

Proponent Orange City Council

Client Premise

Document Description Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment Report. Clergate Industrial Estate

Expansion, Orange Local Government Area.

File Location OzArk Job No.

S \OzArk EHM Data\Clients\Premise 2685

(Orange, Geolyse)

Document Status V1.0 DRAFT Date 28 September 2020

Draft V1.0 Author to editor OzArk 15 internal V1.0HR author 17/9/20

(Series V1 = OzArk internal edits) V1 .1 SR review 28/9/20

Draft V2.0 Report Draft for release to client V2.0 OzArk to Client 28/9/20

(Series V2 = OzArk and client edits)

FINAL V3.0 = Final report V3.0 Final 23/12/20

Prepared For Prepared By

David Walker Stephanie Rusden and Harrison Rochford

Senior Town Planner Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Officer

Premise OzArk Environment & Heritage 154 Peisley St 145 Wingewarra Street (PO Box 2069) Orange NSW 2800 Dubbo NSW 2830

P 02 6882 011 8

F 02 6882 6030

Stephanie@ozarkehm com au

COPYRIGHT

© OzArk Environment & Heritage 2020 and© Orange City Council 2020

All intellectual property and copyright reserved.

Apart from any fair dealing for private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act,

1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form

or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission.

Enquiries should be addressed to OzArk Environment & Heritage.

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment Clergate Industrial Estate Expansion, Orange Local Government Area.


Acknowledgement

OzArk acknowledge Traditional Owners of the area on which this assessment took place and pay respect

to their beliefs, cultural heritage and continuing connection with the land. We also acknowledge and pay

respect to the post-contact experiences of Aboriginal people with attachment to the area and to the elders,

past and present, as the next generation of role models and vessels for memories, traditions, culture and

hopes of local Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment: Clergate Industrial Estate Expansion, Orange Local Government Area


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OzArk Environment & Heritage (OzArk) has been engaged by Premise (the client), on behalf of

Orange City Council (the proponent) to complete an Aboriginal Due Diligence heritage

assessment for the proposed expansion of the Clergate Industrial Estate (the proposal). The

proposal is in the Orange City Council Local Government Area.

The study area includes Lot 1 DP 1085646, which encompasses approximately 28 hectares (ha)

of land located to the east of Clergate Road, on the northern outskirts of Orange.

Visual inspection of the study area was undertaken by OzArk Senior Archaeologist, Stephanie

Rusden, on 4 September 2020. The visual inspection did not record any Aboriginal sites or

identify any landforms that have potential to contain further, subsurface archaeological deposits.

Further, there are no previously recorded sites that will be harmed by the proposal.

The undertaking of the Due Diligence process resulted in the conclusion that the proposed works

will have an impact on the ground surface, however, no Aboriginal objects or intact archaeological

deposits will be harmed by the proposal.

To ensure the greatest possible protection to the area's Aboriginal cultural heritage values, the

following recommendations are made:

1) The proposed work may proceed at the study area without further archaeological

investigation under the following conditions:

a) All land and ground disturbance activities must be confined to within the study

area, as this will eliminate the risk of harm to Aboriginal objects in adjacent

landforms. Should the parameters of the proposal extend beyond the assessed

areas, then further archaeological assessment may be required.

b) All staff and contractors involved in the proposed work should be made aware of

the legislative protection requirements for all Aboriginal sites and objects.

2) This assessment has concluded that there is a low likelihood that the proposed work will

adversely harm Aboriginal cultural heritage items or sites. However, during works, if

Aboriginal artefacts or skeletal material are noted, all work should cease and the

procedures in the Unanticipated Finds Protocol (Appendix 2) should be followed.

3) Work crews should undergo cultural heritage induction to ensure they recognise

Aboriginal stone artefacts, particularly those commonly found within the Orange area (see

(see Appendix 3) and are aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal objects under

the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the contents of the Unanticipated Finds

Protocol.

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment: Clergate Industrial Estate Expansion, Orange Local Government Area. iii


4) The information presented here meets the requirements of the Due Diligence Code of

Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales. It should be retained

as shelf documentation for five years as it may be used to support a defence against

prosecution in the event of unanticipated harm to Aboriginal objects.

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment: Clergate Industrial Estate Expansion, Orange Local Government Area. iv


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ill

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1

1.2

1.3

Brief description of the proposal .

Study area .

Assessment approach .

. 1

. 1

................................................. 2

2 ABORIGINAL DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT 3

2.1

2.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.3

2.3.1

2.3.2

2.3.3

2.3.4

Introduction .

Defences under the NPW Regulation 2009 .

Low impact activities .

Disturbed lands

............................................................. 3

···························································3

······························································3

·············································································································3

Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice to the proposal .

Step 1 .

Step 2a .

Step 2b .

Step 2c .

. .4

. .4

. .4

. 6

.8

3 VISUAL INSPECTION RESULTS 10

3.1

3.2

Results

Conclusion .

······························ 10

............................. 11

4 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 12

REFERENCES 13

PLATES 15

APPENDIX 1: AHIMS SEARCH RESULTS 19

APPENDIX 2: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE: UNANTICIPATED FINDS PROTOCOL 21

APPENDIX 3: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE: ARTEFACT IDENTIFICATION 22

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Map showing the location of the proposal. ····························································•·•1

Figure 1-2: Aerial showing the study area. .. . 2

Figure 2-2. Previously recorded sites in relation to the study area 5

Figure 3-1: Survey coverage within the study area. . . 11

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment: Clergate Industrial Estate Expansion, Orange Local Government Area. V


TABLES

Table 2-1: Determination of whether Due Diligence Code applies .

Table 2-1: Site types and frequencies of AHIMS sites near the study area .

Table 2-3: Due Diligence Process application .

.4

. 5

..11

PLATES

Plate 1: View south to a stand of native vegetation in the south of a study area on a crest. 15

Plate 2: View north across gentle slopes in the north of the study area which has been cleared of

vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Plate 3: View of outcropping rock on the crest............................ . 16

Plate 4: View north across gentle slopes in the north of the study area which has been cleared of

vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Plate 5: View west a long, gentle slope in the northern portion of the study area.................. . 17

Plate 6: View north across the western portion of the study area.................................. . 17

Plate 7: View across the ephemeral drainage line intersecting the study area. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 18

Plate 8: View of a cutting on the side of a slope exposing thin A-Horizon soils above a highly fragmented

rock material.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment: Clergate Industrial Estate Expansion, Orange Local Government Area. vi


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

OzArk Environment & Heritage (OzArk) has been engaged by Premise (the client), on behalf of

Orange City Council (the proponent) to complete an Aboriginal Due Diligence heritage

assessment for the proposed expansion of the Clergate Industrial Estate (the proposal). The

proposal is in the Orange City Council Local Government Area (LGA) (Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1. Map showing the location of the proposal.

69000E 7o00oE 7l!2t)Ul)t

1 · Mitchell Highway

Orange

Ophir Road l

z

0 4km r/;J;_ maa.a..a GzArk

Scale 1 40000 GDA 2020 255 Source: OPIE

D Study area

1.2 STUDY AREA

The study area includes Lot 1 DP 1085646, which encompasses approximately 28 hectares (ha)

of land located to the east of Clergate Road (Figure 1-2), 4.3 kilometres (km) north of the Orange

central business district.

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment Clergate Industrial Subdivision.


Figure 1-2: Aerial showing the study area.

0 100 200 300 400 m 4 OzArk

Scale 1: 6 000 GDA 2020 255 Source: Gooale

CJ st area

1.3 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

The desktop and visual inspection component for the study area follows the Due Diligence Code

of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Due Diligence; DECCW

2010). The field inspection followed the Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in New South Wales (OEH 2011)

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment Clergate Industrial Subdivision. 2


2 ABORIGINAL DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (NPW Regulation) made under the National

Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) advocates a Due Diligence process to determining likely

impacts on Aboriginal objects. Carrying out Due Diligence provides a defence to the offence of

harming Aboriginal objects and is an important step in satisfying Aboriginal heritage obligations

in NSW.

2.2 DEFENCES UNDER THE NPW REGULATION 2009

2.2.1 Low impact activities

The first step before application of the Due Diligence process itself is to determine whether the

proposed activity is a "low impact activity" for which there is a defence in the NPW Regulation.

The exemptions are listed in Section 80B (1) of the NPW Regulation (DECCW 2010: 6).

While the assessment has been triggered by subdivision, the study area will be eventually be

impacted by construction works associated with the expansion of the Clergate Industrial Estate.

As such, the low impact activities defence does not applicable and the Due Diligence process

must be applied.

2.2.2 Disturbed lands

Relevant to this process is the assessed levels of previous land-use disturbance.

The NPW Regulation Section 80B (4) (DECCW 2010: 18) define disturbed land as follows:

Land is disturbed if it has been the subject of a human activity that has changed

the land's surface, being changes that remain clear and observable.

Examples include ploughing, construction of rural infrastructure (such as dams

and fences), construction of roads, trails and tracks (including fire trails and tracks

and walking tracks), clearing vegetation, construction of buildings and the

erection of other structures, construction or installation of utilities and other similar

services (such as above or below ground electrical infrastructure, water or

sewerage pipelines, stormwater drainage and other similar infrastructure) and

construction of earthworks.

While the study area has been largely subject to vegetation clearance, there are no changes to

the land, apart from minor localised impacts i.e. dams, that remains disturbed in a 'clear and

observable' manner as per the Due Diligence guidelines. As such, the Due Diligence process

must be applied.

Aboriginal Due Diligence Assessment: Clergate Industrial Subdivision. 3


In summary, it is determined that the proposal must be assessed under the Due Diligence Code.

The reasoning for this determination is set out in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Determination of whether Due Diligence Code applies.

Item Reasoning Answer

Is the activity a Part 3A project declared The proposal is assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. No under section 758 of the EP&A Act?

Is the activity exempt from the NPW Act The proposal is not exempt under this Act or Regulation. No or NPW Regulation?

Do either or both of these apply: No

Is the activity in an Aboriginal place? The activity will not occur in an Aboriginal place.

Have previous investigations that meet No previous investigations have been conducted within the study the requirements of this Code identified area. Aboriginal objects?

Is the activity a low impact one for which The proposal is not a low impact activity for which there is a No there is a defence in the NPW defence in the NPW Regulation. Regulation?

Is the activity occurring entirely within The proposal is not within areas which are considered to be No areas that are assessed as 'disturbed disturbed as per the Due Diligence guidelines. lands'?

Due Diligence Code of Practice assessment is required

2.3 APPLICATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE CODE OF PRACTICE TO THE PROPOSAL

To follow the generic Due Diligence process, a series of steps in a question/answer flowchart

format (DECCW 2010: 10) are applied to the proposed impacts and the study area, and the

responses documented.

2.3.1 Step 1

Will the activity disturb the ground surface or any culturally modified trees?

Yes, the proposal will impact the ground surface and may impact culturally modified trees.

The proposal involves the subdivision of Lot 1 DP 1085646 in preparation for the expansion of

the Clergate Industrial Estate. The subdivision of land is a local government administrative

procedure that does not involve surface ground disturbance and will not affect any culturally

modified trees. However, industrial development is proposed to occur after the subdivision is

complete and this development will disturb the ground surface and could affect culturally modified

trees, if present.

The current assessment is working under the assumption that future development of the study

area will involve ground disturbances related to construction, such as clearing and excavation.

2.3.2 Step 2a

Are there any relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature information

on AHIMS?

No, there are no previously recorded sites within the study area.



A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) database

completed on 31 August 2020 returned 26 results for Aboriginal heritage sites within a 6 x 6 km

search area centred over the study area (GOA 2020 Zone 55 Eastings: 693305 - 699305,

Northings: 6317021 - 6323021)

Figure 2-1 shows all previously recorded sites in relation to the study area and Table 2-2 shows

the types of sites that are close to the study area.

Table 2-2: Site types and frequencies of AHIMS sites near the study area.

Site Type Number % Frequency

Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) 8 31

Artefact site and PAD 8 31

Artefact site 7 27

Modified tree 1 4

Stone quarry 1 4

Site information restricted 1 4

Total 26 100

Figure 2-1: Previously recorded sites in relation to the study area.

I Ill

• t'

Artefact O Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) Stone Quarry A Artefact and Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) [ Study area

Drainage 4 OzArk

The most common site feature across the search area are potential archaeological deposits

(PADs) (16), half of which are associated with a surface artefact expression (8). There are a low



number of modified trees (1), likely reflecting the high level of clearing across the urban and semi

rural search area.

Most sites (20) are clustered in an area approximately 1 km northeast of the study area. While

this area associated with drainages of Summer Hill Creek has a high number of recorded sites,

this concentration is likely the result of it being one of the few areas in the search area that has

been extensively surveyed.

While the study area contains landforms (low slopes and crests) similar to the area with the

highest proportion of previously recorded sites, it is more distant to water and the high prevalence

of PADs in the search area is not expected to be encountered within the study area. Artefact sites

are predicted to be most likely due to consistent occurrence across the search area. The

proportion of scarred trees is artificially low in the search area and the site type may be present

within the study area if remnant vegetation is present.

2.3.3 Step 2b

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

No, there are no other sources of information that would indicate the presence of

Aboriginal objects in the study area.

Ethnohistoric information

According to Tindale's (1974) and Horton's (1994) maps of tribal or ethno-linguistic boundaries,

the Wiradjuri occupied the northern parts of the South Eastern Highlands bioregion in the vicinity

of Orange and Bathurst. As such, the study area falls within the Wiradjuri ethno-linguistic group.

The Wiradjuri are typically described as a large language group or tribal nation extended over a

considerable area of New South Wales, comprising many individual groups. Pearson (1981: 81)

suggests that one Wiradjuri clan occupied the Wellington area, another occupied the Bathurst

region and another the Mudgee-Rylstone locale.

Local archaeological context

Archaeological assessment of the Orange area has covered similar landscape and landforms to

relevant to the study area.

Gresser (1960s) was an amateur archaeologist, ethno-historian and collector of aboriginal

artefacts who documented the first major recording of sites and oral accounts in the Bathurst

Orange area. Pearson (1979) reassessed some of these sites and concluded that open camp

sites are most commonly located on well drained areas accessible to fresh water and adequate

fuel. A sunny aspect, elevation above cold air drainage channels in winter and adequate breeze

in summer also appeared to be important factors in site location. Gentle hillslopes, level areas on



ridges, river flats and creek banks were the most common places in which open camp sites were

located.

An assessment of the Suma Park and Spring Creek Reservoirs near Orange was undertaken by

Oakley (2002). Seven sites were located on low gradient spurs, and many were either just visible

above the water line of both reservoirs.

In 2006, OzArk undertook survey of 212 ha between Leeds Parade and the Ophir Road Orange,

NSW for the Orange City Council Local Environmental Study. The Aboriginal heritage study

occurred on hilly country interspersed with ephemeral and permanent creeks (Summer Hill Creek

and a tributary of Blackmans Swamp Creek). The assessment recorded nine Aboriginal sites and

one PAD. Recorded sites types included isolated finds and scarred trees. Artefacts were

manufactured from quartz sources with a volcanic scraper also recorded. All recorded scarred

trees were yellow box trees and were identified in a cluster.

OzArk (2009) also conducted an archaeological assessment of an area referred to as 'Area 51

Recreation Park'. Seven Aboriginal sites were recorded, including five artefact scatters, one

scarred tree, and one isolated find. Open artefact scatters were commonly located on valley

floors, including creek banks and nearby terraces, and the gently sloping lower slopes of adjacent

hills. Common stone artefact material types included: quartz, quartzite and fine-grained siliceous

materials, with greywhacke, hornfels and chert also present in low quantities.

In 2014, OzArk completed the salvage on SPR-5 (44-2-0128) in accordance with Aboriginal

Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) C0000423. SPR-5 was one of eight sites recorded during part of

a broader assessment area for a previous design for the project (Oakley 2002). A total of 298

artefacts were salvaged from SPR-5. All but two of these artefacts were retrieved from within

10 m of the waterline of the Suma Park Reservoir. Two main trends were identified from the

salvaged artefacts: many artefacts are flakes and the vast majority are made from the same grey

volcanic material. Among the artefact types there was also a significant amount of debitage and

shatter. Five scrapers were recorded in the salvage and five other artefacts (blades and flakes)

were also backed. Many more artefacts were salvaged from SPR-5 than was expected based on

previous recordings of the site. Only three artefacts were recorded within SPR-5 during the 2013

inspection, although it is important to note that water levels were significantly higher than in 2002

and 2014.

In 2016, Biosis assessed a proposed rezoning area approximately 1 km north of the current study

area. 20 Aboriginal sites were recorded during the assessment, 16 of which include PADs. Most

sites were recorded on ridge/slope landforms that comprise the majority of landforms within the

study area.



Archaeological context: conclusion

In summary, artefact scatters and isolated artefacts are the most likely site types to be

encountered in the Orange region. Artefacts are most likely to have been manufactured from

quartz, silcrete, quartzite, chert and volcanics. Artefact scatters are more likely to be located

adjacent to drainage lines, particularly on flat or gently sloping landforms, or on the crests saddles

and benches of ridge and spur landforms. Artefact scatters are less likely to be identified on low

lying areas adjacent to drainage lines due to poor drainage and cold temperatures experienced

in the winter months. Culturally modified trees are more likely to be located close to the drainage

lines or where mature trees exist. Quarries for the procurement of raw materials used to

manufacture stone tools are known to be present where outcropping material of good quality is

present.

No Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments appear to have been undertaken in the study area.

As such, there are no known cultural values or Aboriginal sites pertaining directly to the location

of the proposed work. No Aboriginal community members accompanied the current visual

inspection.

2.3.4 Step 2c

Are there any landscape features that are likely to indicate presence of Aboriginal objects?

No. The study area does not contain landforms with identified archaeological sensitivity.

The study area is gently undulating with a low crest in the southwest. A highly ephemeral drainage

line intersects the central portion of the study area on an east-west alignment. The closest semi

permanent sources of water to the study area include Summer Hill Creek, located 2.7 km to the

east and Goulding Creek, located 920 m to the west. Remnant box tress are present in the south

of the study area on the rounded crest. The remainder of the study area has likely to be subject

to vegetation clearance.

Due Diligence assessment

The Due Diligence Code (DECCW 2010) specifies a number of landscape features which are

most associated with the likely presence of Aboriginal objects and which therefore require further

assessment if present. These are areas that are: within 200 m of waters; located within a sand

dune system; located on a ridge top, ridge line or headland; located within 200 m below or above

a cliff face; within 20 m of or in a cave, rock shelter, or a cave mouth and is located on land that

is not disturbed.

The study area is not located near to, or contain any landforms identified as having increased

archaeological potential. The most relevant landscape feature to the study area and surrounds is

'waters'. The drainage line which intersects the study area would only contain water immediately

following substantial rain events and only hold water for short periods of time. An ephemeral



drainage line such as this would not have attracted Aboriginal occupation for periods of time

which would be the case for semi-permanent or permanent water resources. As such, it is not

regarded that this type of waterway satisfies the term 'waters' in the Due Diligence guidelines.

A 'no' answer for Step 4, results in the following outcome (DECCW 2010):

AHIP (Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit) application not necessary. Proceed with

caution. If any Aboriginal objects are found, stop work and notify Heritage NSW (131

555 or [email protected]). If human remains are found, stop work,

secure the site and notify NSW Police and Heritage NSW.

Although not required by the Due Diligence process, the proponent has elected to apply the

precautionary principle and proceed to visual inspection of the study area (Section Error!

Reference source not found.) in order to ground-truth the findings of the above desktop level

assessment.

Predictive model

Through examination of the landscape features present and previous assessments completed in

the surrounding region, it is predicted that there is a low potential for Aboriginal sites to be

recorded. Culturally modified trees could exist in the study area given the presence of mature,

native trees however the likelihood of such sites being identified distant from semi-permanent

and permanent water sources is reduced. Artefact scatters are also a commonly recorded site

type within the local area. As the study area is generally undulating and distant to semi-permanent

and permanent water, this site type is not predicted to be common within the study area. It is

likely that any sites associated with such landforms are likely to have a low artefact density and

a low complexity of tool types as the sites are either one-off events or only infrequently used.

These site types also have a high likelihood of being disturbed from a variety of land use practices.

Quarries for the procurement of raw materials used to manufacture stone tools are possible if

suitable sources of outcropping stone exist in the study area.



3 VISUAL INSPECTION RESULTS

3.1 RESULTS

Visual inspection of the study area was undertaken by OzArk Senior Archaeologist, Stephanie

Rusden, on 4 September 2020. Standard archaeological field survey and recording methods were

employed (Burke and Smith 2004). The study area was inspected via pedestrian means with

emphasis placed on landforms with increased archaeological potential and adequate ground

surface visibility (GSV). All trees deemed to be of sufficient age to contain Aboriginal scarring or

carving were inspected for cultural modifications.

GSV and exposure were utilised in conjunction with background research regarding the potential

for Aboriginal site locations to assess the archaeological potential of the landforms present.

Pedestrian track data was captured via handheld GPS as shown in Figure 3-1. Representative

photos of the study area are shown in Plates 1 to 8.

Exposure across the study area was generally low (20 per cent) with the majority of the study

area covered in thick grass. GSV was afforded by ant hills, exposures along fence lines, along

dams and areas of erosion along the drainage line. GSV within exposures was generally high at

70 per cent. GSV within exposures was obscured by leaf litter, bark, branches and rocks.

Fragments of quartz were observed throughout the study area however the quartz observed was

determined to be of relatively poor quality for procurement and subsequent stone tool making.

Additionally, outcropping rock was identified within the study area, particularly the crests, however

the outcropping material present was naturally fragmented and not considered suitable for the

manufacture of stone artefacts. Cuttings along the crests also exposed the soil profile of these

landform which show that they have thin A-Horizon soils (approximately 5 centimetres [cm])

before bedrock is encountered.

The predictive model discussed in Section 2.3.4 indicated that site types such as isolated finds,

artefact scatters and scarred trees were the most likely sites to be present within the study area.

However, no Aboriginal sites were recorded during the field inspection and all landforms were

assessed as having low potential to contain Aboriginal objects in subsurface archaeological

deposits.



Figure 3-1: Survey coverage within the study area.

0 100 200 300 400 m A OzArk

Scale I: 6 000 GDA 2020 255 Source: Google

Pedestrian transect D Study area

3.2 CONCLUSION

The Due Diligence process has resulted in the outcome that an AHIP is not required. The

reasoning behind this determination is set out in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Due Diligence Process application.

Item Reasoning Answer

Will the activity disturb either of the The proposal will lead to works that would disturb the ground surface Yes following through excavation and construction. . the ground surface where The proposal will impact mature, native vegetation.

archaeological deposits are likely

• mature, native trees that may be culturally modified.

Are there any relevant records of AHIMS indicated no Aboriginal sites within the study area. No Aboriginal heritage on site (AHIMS or No landscape features in the study area indicate the likely presence from other sources), or landscape of Aboriginal objects. features that are likely to indicate presence of Aboriginal objects?

Will the activity impact Aboriginal objects There are no known items of Aboriginal significance present in the No or landforms with archaeological study area, and landforms with identified archaeological sensitivity potential? are not present.

Does the desktop and/or visual Desktop searches found no known items of Aboriginal heritage in the No assessment confirm that Aboriginal study area. objects will be harmed? The visual inspection did not record any Aboriginal sites and it is

assessed that there is a low likelihood of there being subsurface archaeological deposits within the study area.

AHIP not necessary Proceed with caution



4 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The undertaking of the Due Diligence process resulted in the conclusion that the proposed works

will have an impact on the ground surface, but, no Aboriginal objects or intact archaeological

deposits will be harmed by the proposal.

To ensure the greatest possible protection to the area's Aboriginal cultural heritage values, the

following recommendations are made:

1) The proposed work may proceed at the study area without further archaeological

investigation under the following conditions:

a) All land and ground disturbance activities must be confined to within the study

area, as this will eliminate the risk of harm to Aboriginal objects in adjacent

landforms. Should the parameters of the proposal extend beyond the assessed

areas, then further archaeological assessment may be required.

b) All staff and contractors involved in the proposed work should be made aware of

the legislative protection requirements for all Aboriginal sites and objects.

2) This assessment has concluded that there is a low likelihood that the proposed work will

adversely harm Aboriginal cultural heritage items or sites. However, during works, if

Aboriginal artefacts or skeletal material are noted, all work should cease and the

procedures in the Unanticipated Finds Protocol (Appendix 2) should be followed.

3) Work crews should undergo cultural heritage induction to ensure they recognise

Aboriginal stone artefacts, particularly those commonly found within the Orange area (see

Appendix 3) and are aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal objects under the

NPW Act and the contents of the Unanticipated Finds Protocol.

4) The information presented here meets the requirements of the Due Diligence Code of

Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales. It should be retained

as shelf documentation for five years as it may be used to support a defence against

prosecution in the event of unanticipated harm to Aboriginal objects.



REFERENCES

Burra Charter 2013 International Council on Monuments and Sites 2013. The Burra Charter: The

Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.

DECCW 2010

Gresser 1965

Horton 1994

DECCW. 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects in NSW. Department of Environment, Climate Change

and Water, Sydney.

Gresser, P. 1965. Unpublished Notes on Aboriginal Sites in the Bathurst

District (1962-1965). Unpublished manuscript: NSW Office of Environment

& Heritage.

Horton, David (ed.). 1994. The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia.

Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Mitchell 2002

OEH 2011

OzArk 2006

Mitchell, Dr. Peter. 2002. Description for NSW (Mitchell) Landscapes

Version 2. Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW.

Office of Environment and Heritage. 2011. Guide to Investigating, Assessing

and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in New South Wales.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.

OzArk Environment and Heritage Management. 2006. Flora, Fauna &

Heritage Assessment: Orange Local Environmental Study, Ophir Road &

Leeds Parade, NSW. Report to Newplan.

OzArk 2009 OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management. 2009. Indigenous Heritage

Assessment: Area 51 Recreation Park, 33km Northwest of Bathurst, NSW.

Report to: Ben Anderson.

OzArk 2014

Pearson 1979

Pearson 1981

Tindale 1974

OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management. 2014. Aboriginal

Archaeological Salvage Report: Suma Park Reservoir Upgrade. Report to

Orange City Council.

Pearson, M. 1979. Aboriginal sites in the Bathurst-Orange development

area: A pilot survey Report to National Parks and Wildlife Services.

Pearson, M. Seen through Different Eyes: Changing Land Use and

Settlement Patterns in the Upper Macquarie River Region of NSW from

Prehistoric Times to 1860. [PhD thesis] Submitted to the Department of

Prehistory and Anthropology, The Australian National University.

Tindale, A. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. University of California

Press.



Whitehead 2003 Whitehead, John. 2003. Tracking and Mapping the Explorers: Volume 1.

John Whitehead, Coonabarabran.



PLATES

Plate 1: View south to a stand of native vegetation in the south of a study area on a crest.

Plate 2: View north across gentle slopes in the north of the study area which has been cleared of vegetation.



Plate 3: View of outcropping rock on the crest.

Plate 4: View north across gentle slopes in the north of the study area which has been cleared of vegetation.



Plate 5: View west a long, gentle slope in the northern portion of the study area.

Plate 6: View north across the western portion of the study area.



Plate 7: View across the ephemeral drainage line intersecting the study area.

Plate 8: View of a cutting on the side of a slope exposing thin A-Horizon soils above a highly fragmented rock material.



APPENDIX 1: AHIMS SEARCH RESULTS

Office of Environment 8. Heritage

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

lour P.ef/PO Number Cleigate

Clie-11tSe-n:ice- ID: 531606

S1te1D S1te-S.lll1''

4-+-2-014 7 Bioomheld Hospt;il Grounds Datu Zone Lasting Nortlung Context AGD 35 6'153C-O 63~70CO Ope-nme-

Contact .U-2-0218 PA.Dot

Re-cordrP Jm1 V.1iC"Cler GDA SS 697024 6322041 Opellsite - H·.:':-0219 PADOS

TRtcssell

GDA 55 u97250 63.:':H,33 Ope-nsite

Contact '4-2-0220 PAD 06

Recorder:: Miss.Sh.am1on Smith CiDA. 55 6975 22 632099 1 Op11ui112

H-2-0221 OA.01

Contact 44-2-0222 QM2 - H-2-0223 0A03

GDA 55 696528 0320390 O~n SIU

Recorrler,; B1osis ?ty Uri - Wollongong,~1~~.Sh;mnon Sllllth GOA 55 696414 632%282 ape.,tte Valid

llrlnlla .,.PtJUd -w•ma l,MlnS!:- 5alith GOA 55 t,97Q'l<;l 6322253 OJ:-N)Slte

f.oat.act 44-Z-G224 OM4

~ B1os1:i Pty L:d - Wollongon~••H~.S~nnon Sm.it!l GOA 55 697Q21 6321577 Opolll9 Valid - H-2-0225 OA05 Recorders Bio Pry Ld - Wollongong.Miss.Shannon Sith GOA

BlOSlS ~ L'.d - Wollongo:1g,M1~~.Sha.11non ,;nuth 55 697313 6321386 Opnuite - -U->0.:'.:'7 0A0"7

Contact 44-2-0228 0A09

- GOA Bosis Pry Ltd -Wollongong.Miss.Shannon Sith 55 697229 6321788 Open site

.ill<..llim. Val;d

Y,lid

Valid

Valid

Valid

Valid

~ B10sis ~· Ltd \\'ollongong,Mt~~.Shaunon S1mth GOA 5S 697211 63211-47 Opellialll' Yalid

Ste Features Potentlal Archaeoiogic.l.l D1:-pos1t (PAD): >

Pf'rtll!tS

Potl"ntlal Archaeologcal Dt-pom (PAD)

Artefact - Artefart: -.Potentul Archeologcal Dt-p,:.•!lt (PAD)

Pents Artafatt,.,Pateatial Archaeological -(PAD),- - Artefar::, .Potential Archaeologcal D1:pcmt (PAD)

Pent Artafact 1•,PICellt:ul -......... -(PAD),- - Artefact·

Repo1-t;

100685

Rf'p.:,rt genn-at~ b,· ,\Hl~IS We-b Sf-1,1ce ou 31-08; 1020 for Steph.1uu• Rusden fo1- the foUowmg a~a .1t Da.tum :GO,\. Zone: 55 E-lstiugs: 693305 - 699305 Northmgs: 6317011 <•32302:1 with J Buffe-r of O nu>lf'rs Arldthon;;i] Info: S:nn.·e-,· Nmnbe-r of Abonguul ~•te-~ .u1d Ahong111al nhJN'ts found•~ lb

• Office of AHIMS Web Services (AWS) Environment NSW '!. Heritage Extensive search - Site list report

Site1D Srteat D.:itum - - H-2-02.:'9 OAE· GDA

""'""'1 Becardet 44-2-0230 OAU -

C1i.-1n :,t'n.i.-:f' ID• S":Jr,06

- H-2-02H 0Al2 - GD.!\

- 4.:.-.'-0.'>' OAl-l.

f.out.act M-2-0234 PADOl - -t.:.-~-0235 ?AJ O:

Contact U-2.0?36 PAD03 - 4.:.-:-/J2"i-;" OAD3

c=...t U--2-0094 ltesb1diallappied.l'leaNCDllbct:

alwmO ♦iiW..t.dSW.gov.au. - .;-.-2-02C: '.'-IPAPAS . .i..2

Zone ~ Sortinng ~ BillitisptyUd WI I g,Mt-S!t-~ 55 697380 6320984 Open te

Bos Pry Ltd -Wollongong.Mrs.Shanon Sutt 55 697038 6321 lJ7 Opea-.

biosis Py Ltd - Wolle ... ,_ • ..,,__,, .... - 55 696729 631190 Open ate

Becarders Boss Pry Ltd Wollongong.Miss.Shannon Smith GOA 55 6970 26 6!21888 Opell* Ydd

corder Bos Pry Ld -wollongong Mrs Shannon 5mutt GOA SS 696Z75 6321406 Opmta Valid

- _,,,.IJd.,...____ GDA

Recorder; Bos Pry Ltd -Wollongong Ms Shannon Smtt GOA 55 696186 63221!8 Op!llslte Valid

lmmlm. BIOlilPtyLtd-Wda1tpagMt-'ihmnan~ GOA

Yalid

vahd

Becarde Bos Pry Ltd -Wollongong Ms. Shannon Smth Open site Valid

S1to!'fl".1.hires - Art !"far.

.E=wll ----- --..,.. -(PAD),- - Deposit (PAD)

Pett ----- -........... -(PAD),- - ;toni!'Q-,1arn:

P•Jtenti.J.! Archaeologc al Depom(PAD)

Pet;

Archeologcal Dff>('Ol'iPAD):;

Pet

SiteTvpe5

1-03106

11.t"portgener;itHt ln ,\HIMS Wrb Sernceon 31,'08, !020 for Stephane Ruden for the followng area at D..itum :GOA Zone• 55 £..1rtmgs: t,9.3305 - u9QJOS J\io11111ng~: 03170ZI - U3!3021 \lllh ~ Bufll'r of O ml"tl'rs. ~dditio1u! Info: S111....-e1·. Number of Abongm.1.I ~ltl"~ .md ,\honguu.l oh1trt$ found 1:; 20

ot gruntedtob fr trom error ono 0Me st Environment ad Hert [NW)nd ts mpiovs duel babbitv for Any et do r omo md nth for ton and conequenaotuch



..W... OHiceof

...... Environment NSW 3ertag AHIMS Web Sei-vices (AWS) Extensive search - Site list report C!ic-nt Sen.ice- lD: 531600

Step SteNme

4+2-0183 MPAl

Lon¢ La:ting

55 699 166 Arldal:l1l.Plllllllbal .......... Depot (PAD) +1 ____ ..,,__,,_.,.,.__.. __ 63.17107 -- - - H-2-0164 MPA2 GOA

Coutact R.ru..rn.ru. 44-2-014-fi __..,., .,., - Recorder

55 oQ9066 o3.::.:09L 0pens1tc- Valid

Nawn Offeer Hentage Consultants Pry Ltd.Mr Adran Cressey ss 694600 6318044 operuo. valid MtJ<,uAppl<Ooo

AI":efact:l

perts - Reports

Report generated b AHIMS \\"e-1., >"nKc- 1;111 31:08. 2020 fo1· Stl"ph,111H' Ru:.dru io1 tlu· ioilowmg AH·A .1t D.llhnn :GD.\. Z<.>nc-: 55. [,1~t111gs: f>C/3305 - 699305 Nortlungs. 631701 l - 632:30.:: l "1th Buffer of 0 ueter. Additional Info; Survey. Nuber of Abong@al sites and Abong.al objects found1 26



APPENDIX 2: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE: UNANTICIPATED FINDS PROTOCOL

An Aboriginal artefact is anything which is the result of past Aboriginal activity. This includes stone

(artefacts, rock engravings etc.), plant (culturally scarred trees) and animal (if showing signs of

modification; i.e. smoothing, use). Human bone (skeletal) remains may also be uncovered while

onsite.

Cultural heritage significance is assessed by the Aboriginal community and is typically based on

traditional and contemporary lore, spiritual values, and oral history, and may also take into

account scientific and educational value.

Protocol to be followed in the event that previously unrecorded or unanticipated Aboriginal

object(s) are encountered:

1. If any Aboriginal object is discovered and/or harmed in, or under the land, while undertaking

the proposed development activities, the proponent must:

a. Not further harm the object;

b. Immediately cease all work at the particular location;

c. Secure the area so as to avoid further harm to the Aboriginal object;

d. Notify Heritage NSW as soon as practical on 131 555, providing any details of the

Aboriginal object and its location; and

e. Not recommence any work at the particular location unless authorised in writing by

Heritage NSW.

2. In the event that Aboriginal burials are unexpectedly encountered during the activity, work

must stop immediately, the area secured to prevent unauthorised access and NSW Police

and Heritage NSW contacted.

3. Cooperate with the appropriate authorities and relevant Aboriginal community

representatives to facilitate:

a. The recording and assessment of the find(s);

b. The fulfilment of any legal constraints arising from the find(s), including complying with

Heritage NSW directions; and

c. The development and implementation of appropriate management strategies, including

consultation with stakeholders and the assessment of the significance of the find(s).

4. Where the find(s) are determined to be Aboriginal object(s), recommencement of work in the

area of the find(s) can only occur in accordance with any consequential legal requirements

and after gaining written approval from Heritage NSW (normally an Aboriginal Heritage Impact

Permit).



APPENDIX 3: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE: ARTEFACT IDENTIFICATION

' 0 2 3 4 5cm

Volcanic blades Quartzite scraper and flake

'

0

Quartz flakes Volcanic scraper

Flake characteristics (scale = 1 cm) Core from which flakes have been removed (scale = 1 cm)


Premise . com au premise. .

appendix e - orange city council

Documents