GUNLAKE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Transcription

1 GUNLAKE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN CHARMAIN O'HALLORAN GUNLAKE QUARRIES

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT BACKGROUND INDIGENOUS CONSULTATION LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PREDICTIVE MODELLING SITE TYPES AND THEIR LOCATIONS MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES CITED

3 Gunlake Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan 1 August 2008 PROJECT DETAILS 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The proposed Gunlake Quarry and associated haul road is located approximately eight (8) kilometres northwest of Marulan, accessible by Brayton Road. For the purposes of this management plan, the area of impact associated with the proposed quarry site and the proposed by-pass road will be identified as the study area. Maps 1 and 2 indicate the boundary and location of the study area. 2

4 Australian Archaeological Survey Consultants (AASC) were contracted by Gunlake Quarries, a division of Rollers Australia Pty Ltd to undertake a cultural heritage assessment of the lands proposed for the development of a hard rock quarry at Marulan, NSW, in June The fieldwork component of the cultural heritage assessment for the project was completed by Dave Johnston (AASC Archaeologist), Peter Falk (representing Gavin Andrews of the D harawal Knowledge Holders) and Justine Boney (Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council Representative). The survey was carried out on the 6 th and 13 th June The study area for the 2007 study incorporated the rock quarry, approximately 230 hectares in area, the Gunlake Quarry internal haul road and the future extby-pass road. The internal haul road is approximately two (2) kilometres in length and nine (9) metres wide, traversing from the proposed quarry site northeast to Brayton Road. The haul road then continues southeast along Brayton Road. The Brayton Road easement, approximately four (4) kilometres in length, is not a component of the study area. The proposed by-pass road commences at Brayton Road, travelling east, approximately three (3) kilometres to the intersection of the Hume Highway. During the course of the field survey five (5) Indigenous archaeological sites were identified. The sites consisted of one (1) isolated find and four (4) small artefact scatters containing less than 10 artefacts. All sites were assessed as being of very low Archaeological significance, in accordance with scientific assessment criteria. Summary details of these sites are provided in Table 1 below. Site Name Site Type Grid Reference (WGS84) GL1 Artefact E Scatter N GL2 Artefact E Scatter N GL3 Artefact E Scatter N GL4 Isolated Find E N GL5 Artefact E Scatter N Table 1 AASC Site Summary Details Site Details 6 artefacts on erosion scald on saddle 6 artefacts on gently sloping dirt track 4 artefacts on erosion scald on gently sloping flat 1 artefact on west bank of creek 2 artefacts on moderate hill slope Site Significance Rating Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Condition 32(c) of the Project Approval states 32. The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Director-General. The plan must: (c) include a: description of the measures that would be implemented for the mapping, and salvage or relocation of the archaeological sites GL1-5; description of the measures that would be implemented if any new Aboriginal objects or relics are discovered during the project; and 3

5 protocol for the ongoing consultation and involvement of the Aboriginal communities in the conservation and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage on the site. Further this plan has been prepared in consultation with the DECC The management recommendations allocated to the above sites by AASC were: 1) Salvage and relocation of all sites (GL1 5) should be completed prior to the commencement of works. The salvage should be completed in accordance with the NPW Act 1974 (NSW).. The salvage program should be completed by a qualified Archaeologist and with representatives of the relevant Indigenous organisations. 2) Copies of the archaeological report should be supplied to: NSW DECC; Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council; Peter Falk (representative for Gavin Andrews of the D harawal Knowledge Holders); Goulburn Mulwaree Council. 4

6 2 INDIGENOUS CONSULTATION Bowdler (1983:26) recognises two kinds of sites that are significant to Aboriginal people. The first relates to pre-contact times, the second to the period since colonisation. Some of these sites may be recognisable due to landscape modification or material remains whereas others may consist of a noticeable but natural physical feature. Bowdler (1983:30) stresses that:..identification of sacred sites and sites of significance to Aboriginal people is of necessity a matter for Aboriginal people. No-one else can decide either the fact of significance or the degree of that significance to an Aboriginal community, except members of that community. It is for this reason that members of the Aboriginal community are consulted during heritage studies such as this. The NSW DECC also has a policy that Local Aboriginal Land Councils and Native Title Claimants should be consulted and actively involved in the Cultural Heritage Assessment process. In accordance with the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (2004) requests for registration of interest were sought prior to the commencement of the preliminary assessment completed by AASC through public notification via an advertisement in the local print media. A record of responses to this notification is included in the Environmental Assessment. Written notification was provided to: Local Aboriginal Land Council(s); Registrar of Aboriginal Owners; Native Title Services; Local council(s); Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). Respondents to the notification included: Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council Peter Falk (representative for Gavin Andrews of the D harawal Knowledge Holders) Respondents provided either written or verbal registration of interest. All respondents were contacted by phone to confirm their registration of interest and provided with the proposed methodology for the preliminary phase of field investigations. The respondents provided verbal agreement to the proposed field methodology during telephone communications. Both respondents participated in the fieldwork and compilation of the recommendations as discussed in section 5 of this plan. 5

7 3 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES The protection of Indigenous cultural heritage in New South Wales is principally governed by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) ("the NSW Act"). Artefacts do not require registration or listing to be protected under the NSW Act (Boer, 1995: 18). For the purposes of dealing with indigenous land issues, NSW has been 'divided' into areas each of which are under the control of Local Aboriginal Land Councils ("LALCS"). The Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) requires that 'sufficient consultation' be undertaken with each LALC in which the development is to take place. In addition, DECC requires that registered Indigenous groups must also be included in the consultation process. Failure to achieve sufficient consultation with LALCs and Native Title claimants may result in rejection by the DECC of the overall development application. Section 86 of the NSW Act requires that any disturbance of the land (to collect indigenous artefactual material) or collection of that material can only be undertaken under a permit issued by the NSW DECC. The permit will be issued subject to any terms and conditions that the Director General of DECC thinks fit (s.88). Again these terms and conditions will include sufficient consultation with LALCs and Native Title claimants. Failure to do so will result in a rejection of the permit application and the inability to undertake any collection of artefactual material (outside of the developmental area) or sub-surface testing. Penalties payable under the NSW Act (s.90) for damage/destruction etc of indigenous cultural heritage (relics or areas) are: $5, for individuals + restitution costs and/or 6 months' gaol; and $22, for Corporations + restitution costs Litigious remedies are also available. Any person (whether they have a 'legal interest' in the area or not) can bring proceedings against a person damaging or destroying indigenous cultural heritage in the Land and Environment Court (NSW) to prevent or remedy that damage or destruction (s.176). In addition to individual penalties of up to $11,000, an order can also be made that compensation is to be paid for the damage or destruction of the relic or area. If the Director-General of DECC believes that an action will or could have a significant effect on the 'environment of native plants' (which is also an indigenous issue) he can issue a Stop Work Order for 40 days, without any prior notice needed to be given (ss.91aa-ee). That Order can be extended for as many 40 day periods as the Director-General sees fit. If the action that has been stopped is not able to be modified sufficiently to protect the environment in question, the Director--General must recommend an Interim Protection Order be made (s.91ee) that will last for up to 2 years (s.91d). The Director-General can also direct that an Interim Protection Order be put in place if, in his opinion, an area of cultural significance is at risk of damage (s.91a). 6

8 Each person has a duty to report the discovery of a relic to DECC within a reasonable period of time unless they have reason to believe that DECC is already aware of its existence (s.91). The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) can be accessed at the following Website: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Indigenous cultural heritage is also protected by Federal legislation in the form of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987 (Cth). Any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person or organization may apply to the Commonwealth Minister for a temporary or permanent 'Stop Order' for protection of threatened areas or objects of significant indigenous cultural heritage. Accordingly failure to carry out a thorough assessment and management process pursuant to the State requirements may result in such an application being made to the Commonwealth, with resultant delays in development. The Commonwealth Act 'overrides' State legislation if the Commonwealth Minister is of the opinion that the State legislation (or undertaken process) is insufficient to protect the threatened areas or objects. Thus, in the event that an application is made to the Commonwealth Minister for a Stop Order, the Commonwealth Minister will, as a matter of course, contact the State Environmental Protection Agency to ascertain what protection is being imposed by the State and/or what mitigation procedures have been proposed by the land user/developer. In addition to the threat of a 'Stop Order' being imposed, the Act also provides for the following: If the Federal Court, on application by the Commonwealth Minister, is satisfied that a person has engaged or is proposing to engage in conduct that breaches the 'Stop Order', it may grant an injunction preventing or stopping such a breach (s.26). Penalties for breach of a Court Order can be substantial and may include a term of imprisonment; If a person contravenes a declaration in relation to a significant Aboriginal area, penalties for an individual are a fine up to $10, and/or 5 years gaol and for a Corporation a fine up to $50, (s.22); If the contravention is in relation to a significant Aboriginal object, the penalties are $5, and/or 2 years gaol and $25, respectively (s.22); In addition, offences under s.22 are considered 'indictable' offences that also attract an individual fine of $2,000 and/or 12 months gaol or, for a Corporation, a fine of $10, (s.23). Section 23 also includes attempts, inciting, urging and/or being an accessory after the fact within the definition of 'indictable' offences in this regard. The Commonwealth Act is presently under review by Parliament and it is generally accepted that any new Commonwealth Act will be even more restrictive than the current legislation. In addition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987, amendments recently made to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) enables the identification and subsequent listing of indigenous heritage values on the Commonwealth and/or National Heritage Lists (ss. 7

9 341D & 324D respectively). Substantial penalties (and, in some instances, gaol sentences) can be imposed on any person who damages items on the National or Commonwealth Heritage Lists (ss. 495 & 497) or provides false or misleading information in relation to certain matters under the Act (ss ). In addition, the wrongdoer may be required to make good any loss or damage suffered due to their actions or omissions (s.500). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1987 (Cth) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) can be accessed at the following Website: NB Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained is this document is up to date and legally correct, it cannot be construed as being able to replace comprehensive legal advice provided by a legal practitioner admitted to practice in the relevant jurisdictions. To ensure that you obtain complete and inclusive legal advice in these regards, you should contact such a practitioner. 8

10 4 PREDICTIVE MODELLING 4.1 SITE TYPES AND THEIR LOCATIONS Numerous investigations within Eastern Australia have revealed that the nature and distribution of archaeological sites across the landscape are strongly influenced by environmental factors. The bedrock geology, landforms, soils, vegetation, and climate of a region, all combine to influence the distribution and availability of resources considered to be of importance to prehistoric Aboriginal groups (these being, plant and animal foods, water, raw materials for tool making, ochre and suitable campsites). Such factors will also affect the ease with which people could travel across the landscape. It stands to reason then, that in order to properly understand, or indeed predict patterns of Aboriginal activity within a region, one must first be familiar with the environmental setting in combination with site patterning. The main types of Aboriginal sites, which may occur in the study area are described briefly below. In the following section an analysis is undertaken, based on land systems, to predict how these sites will occur across the Study Area. Open Artefact Scatters This is one of the most common site types identified. These sites take the form of a scatter of stone artefacts lying on the ground surface. The sites can vary in size from a few artefacts to several thousand artefacts, and may be representative of a range of activities, from sporadic foraging through to intensive camping activity. In rare instances, camp sites which were used over a long period of time may contain stratified deposits, where several layers of occupation are buried one on top of another. Open artefact scatters can be found throughout the landscape, however, the larger scatters tend to be situated on flat elevated ground, close to water sources, such as along the creek lines. Away from water, sites may be found but in fewer numbers and in smaller clusters. Stone Procurement and Quarry Sites A stone procurement site is a place where stone materials are obtained by Aboriginal people for the purpose of manufacturing stone artefacts. In Australia, stone procurement sites range on a continuum from pebble beds in water courses (where there may be little or no evidence of human activity) to extensively quarried stone outcrops, with evidence of pits and concentrations of hammer stones and a thick layer of knapping debris. Quarry sites can occur anywhere where the appropriate raw materials are available. The rock types most suited to stone artefact manufacture, include silcretes, chert, quartz, quartzite and fine grained volcanics. These rock types could have been quarried from outcrops or fortuitously exploited as loose pebbles on the surface, or more likely in the creek beds. Axe Grinding Grooves These are regularly shaped depressions, usually in sandstone outcrops, which have been formed through the shaping and sharpening of stone material (usually volcanic) to form ground edged stone implements such as axes. Water is generally a necessary ingredient for the grinding process. As such, grinding grooves are usually situated in sandstone outcrops located near water sources. Such outcrops may be found in the larger creek lines crossing the study area. 9

11 Scarred Trees Aboriginal people procured bark from trees for a variety of purposes, including the construction of shelters, canoes, shields and containers. Scars on trees also resulted from Aboriginal people cutting toe holds for the purpose of climbing the trees to procure honey or capture animals. There are natural processes which also cause scarring on trees. These include branch loss, fire, lightening strike and fungal attack. However, scars resulting from these processes will seldom have the distinctive morphology of Aboriginal scarred trees. The practice of creating scarred trees does not appear to have survived into the 20 th century in the region, and therefore any such trees would have to be older than 100 years. Scarred trees are relatively rare, and carved trees are even more uncommon. It is possible that trees with scars may be found in the forested areas where larger original trees are found ubiquitously amongst the regrowth, or along the larger creek lines where some remnant vegetation remains. Carved Trees These are trees which have had motifs carved into them by Aboriginal people. Such sites are very rare and are generally of great importance. In some instances these trees are associated with burials. These trees have the potential, albeit low, to be present where remnant vegetation survives. Rock Holes and Wells Natural rock holes and wells (or water holes) were sometimes enlarged or deepened by Aboriginal people for the purpose of collecting and storing water. In the case of rock holes, often a slab of rock was placed over the hole to keep out leaves and other debris. Aboriginal campsites, represented by stone artefacts and other archaeological remains, are often found in close association with these water features. Rock wells would be most likely to occur in, or near, the creek beds where sandstone has been exposed by fluvial erosion. Burials Aboriginal burial grounds may consist of an individual or multiple iburials. Burials often occur where soft sediments are present, such as alluvial deposits close to larger creek lines. Mythological Sites Other 'sites' associated with the religious side of Aboriginal life are those now called 'sacred, natural or mythological sites'. These are natural features such as rock outcrops, waterholes or mountains which may have been associated with initiation ceremonies and/or the activities of ancestral creators. These sites often have not been altered at all by humans, and are therefore are not archaeologically detectable, without the aid of Aboriginal people with specific knowledge of these sites. Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) Potential archaeological deposits are generally areas defined in the course of professional field or predictive archaeological assessment, and include areas where sites or artefacts are likely to occur, but where ground visibility precludes site or artefact detection or where field survey has not been undertaken. Knowledge of 10

12 regional and/or local patterns of site occurrence and site formation processes is generally prerequisite for the identification of areas of archaeological potential. 11

13 5 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings and in accordance with the legal requirements and advise of the NSW DECC, a series of specific management recommendations have been established for the sites identified within the study area. The recommendations are aimed at minimising the impact of proposed developments on any potential cultural resources present within the surveyed area. Further consultation with all respondents is also recommended to discuss the relocation or keeping place of artefacts following the salvage program, outlined below. 1. In regard to sites GL1, GL4 and GL5, prior to the commencement of works, salvage and relocation of artefacts to a location outside the study area should be completed. The salvage should be completed in accordance with the NPW Act 1974 (NSW). The salvage program should be completed by a qualified Archaeologist and with representatives of the relevant Indigenous organisations. For this investigation when a site is relocated the following variables should to be recorded: Site type: The type of site identified eg. Aboriginal surface artefact scatter. In this survey, sites were classified under the following categories: isolated find (a single artefact); open artefact scatter (2 or more artefacts, each of which is situated within 50m of another); Location: Description of how to get to the site, including the best route either by foot or vehicle. Grid reference: The location of sites have already been plotted on a 1:25000 scale map. The grid references were identified using Global Positioning System (GPS) units. GPS references were recorded at roughly the centre of each site. Environmental setting: This describes the sites environmental context including geomorphology, geology, vegetation and local hydrology. Aspect: Direction and degree of the ground slope at the site. Aspect is thought to be a prime determinant of site location. Site contents: This is a description of the artefacts and/or any other archaeological features that constitute a site. At sites consisting of stone artefact scatters, descriptions involve recording measurements of particular variables on the artefacts, including: raw material, artefact type, presence of retouch or use wear, and any general comments considered relevant. Of course, these variables are only very general in 12

14 nature, and for this reason any sites considered to have greater research potential are indicated and the potential avenue of research is discussed. The density and extent of an artefact scatter site would determine if only a sample of the artefacts was to be recorded. Site size: Refers to the dimensions over which artefacts or features are visible. When recording artefact scatters it is often difficult to establish the parameters of a site, due mainly to poor surface visibility. In these instances, site boundaries are defined as the limit of artefact distribution visible on the surface. Using this method, the observed site may be considered to constitute a representative sample of the total site. However, it must be acknowledged that intra-site spatial variations in artefact distribution may bias results to an unknown degree. Site condition: Describes the condition of the site in terms of factors which may have disturbed it (such as road works, fluvial erosion etc.) or which have the potential to disturb. Site Significance: An assessment of the archaeological importance of the site. The basis of assigning a sites significance is discussed below in more detail. Management considerations: This details the potential threat to the site specifically in terms of future potential developments. In addition, specific ameliorative measures are recommended if warranted. Photographs have already been taken of any sites located during the survey, as a supplement to the written record. Conditions of Surface Visibility Clearly conditions of ground surface visibility will affect how many sites are found. Visibility may also skew the results of a survey. If, for example, conditions of ground surface visibility vary dramatically between environmental zones, this in turn will be reflected in the numbers of sites reported for each zone. Zones with the best visibility may be reported as having the most sites (because they are visible on the ground), while another zone with less visibility, but perhaps more sites, will be reported as having very little occupation. It is important therefore to consider the nature of ground surface visibility as part of any archaeological investigation. 2. Sites GL2 and GL3 identified during the preliminary survey will not be disturbed by either the quarry construction works or the quarry operations, however, prior to the commencement of these works, fencing should be erected around the sites using star pickets and fluorescent parawebbing or a product of similar standard. Fencing should be erected approximately five (5) metre diameter from the boundary of the recorded site. Fencing may be removed on the completion of earth moving works within the study area. 13

15 3. Copies of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan should be submitted to the Director-General for approval prior to carrying out of any development on site and be supplied to: NSW DECC; Registered Indigenous respondents; Goulburn Mulwaree Council. 4. Following the relocation of the above Sites updated Aboriginal Site Recording Forms should be submitted to the DECC and also attached to this Plan. 5.2 GENERAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Should there be additional infrastructure, access routes or alterations to the proposed development a cultural heritage assessment should be completed for these areas. This should be undertaken by a qualified Archaeologist and representatives of the relevant Indigenous groups. A cultural heritage management plan should be developed and applied to these additional areas. The following mitigation measures should be implemented in the event that sites or artefacts are identified during the course of monitoring and construction activities. Accidental Discovery of Cultural Heritage Items Step 1 Any person discovering suspected cultural heritage sites or items should notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbance works should stop immediately. Remember health and safety requirements when approaching machinery operators. Step 2 A buffer protection zone of 20m x 20m should be established around the suspected cultural heritage site or items. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed within this archaeological zone until such time as the suspected cultural heritage items have been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures have been carried out. Step 3 If required, an archaeologist should be contracted and requested to assist the Indigenous stakeholders in carrying out an assessment of the cultural heritage find. Step 4 Based on the findings of the assessment, appropriate management recommendations should be developed for the cultural heritage find. These recommendations should be submitted to the Parties for endorsement. Step 5 Once endorsement has been obtained, the prescribed management recommendations should be carried out by the appropriate personnel. 14

16 Step 6 On the completion of the prescribed works, the Parties should advise the Quarry Manager (or other Project Personnel) that construction works may recommence in the archaeological zone. If there are further constraints to construction works in the archaeological zone, then the Quarry Manager should be informed of these. It is the responsibility of the Quarry Manager to inform construction crews of these constraints. Accidental Discovery of Skeletal Material Step 1 Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. If these are human remains, then this area potentially is a crime scene. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence. Step 2 Any person discovering suspected skeletal remains should notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbing works should stop immediately. Remember health and safety requirements when approaching machinery operators. Step 3 A buffer protection zone of 100m x 100m should be established around the suspected skeletal remains. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed with this buffer zone until such time as the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed. Step 4 The police, DECC and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted and informed of the discovery. A time will be arranged for these parties to meet on site to carry out an assessment of the suspected skeletal remains. Step 5 Should the skeletal remains be declared an Indigenous burial site, the following procedures will be implemented. A meeting shall be convened between the Parties to review the circumstances of the find. The Indigenous representatives in consultation with Gunlake Quarries shall request that identified Aboriginal representatives, a qualified archaeologist and the relevant DECC officer shall undertake a site inspection. The purpose of this inspection will be to develop recommendations for further actions required to be undertaken at this site. These recommendations shall be submitted to the Parties for review and endorsement. Once endorsed, these recommendations shall be carried out by the specified personnel. 15

17 6 REFERENCES CITED Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Commonwealth) Bowdler, S (1983) Archaeological Significance as a mutable quality. In Sullivan, S and Bowdler, S (eds.) Site Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology. Department of Prehistory, ANU Canberra. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) 16