ULAN COAL CONTINUED OPERATIONS: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT VOLUME A
A report to
UMWELT (AUSTRALIA) Pty Limited
PO Box 838 TORONTO NSW 2283
On behalf of
ULAN COAL MINES Limited
4505 Ulan Road ULAN NSW 2850
by
Peter Kuskie SOUTH EAST ARCHAEOLOGY Pty Limited ACN 091 653 048
www.southeastarchaeology.com.au
24 Bamford Street HUGHES ACT 2605
Telephone: 02-6260 4439
October 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ulan Coal Mine is located approximately 25 kilometres northeast of Gulgong in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales. Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) is seeking approval for the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project. The primary works comprise an extension of open cut mining west of the existing pit, underground mining of the Ulan No.3 and Ulan West areas, and new infrastructure primarily associated with the operation of the Ulan West mine, along with continued use and/or modification of existing infrastructure.
A Major Project application under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has been lodged for the project. South East Archaeology has been engaged by Umwelt (Australia) on behalf of UCML to undertake an Aboriginal heritage impact assessment for this project.
For the purpose of the Aboriginal heritage assessment, the study area has primarily comprised those areas within the broader project area in which Aboriginal heritage may exist and which may be subject to impacts from the project. This area measures about 5,431 hectares in area and includes 5,075 hectares of potential subsidence impacts and 419 hectares of potential surface impacts (including about 63 hectares of potential surface impacts that overlap with the subsidence impact area and are excluded from the combined total).
The principal aims of the assessment were to identify and record any Aboriginal heritage evidence or cultural values within the study area, assess the potential impacts of the proposal on this evidence, assess the significance of this evidence, and formulate recommendations for the management of this evidence, in consultation with the local Aboriginal community.
The investigation proceeded by recourse to the archaeological, cultural and environmental background of the locality, followed by a comprehensive field survey undertaken with representatives of the local Aboriginal community, in accordance with the relevant Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) policies and Department of Planning (DoP) requirements.
The field survey was conducted over a period of 104 days between February and November 2008 by archaeologists from South East Archaeology assisted on every day by generally two representatives of each of the four key Aboriginal stakeholder organisations.
The survey involved inspection of 1,888 environmentally discrete survey areas that sampled a total area of about 4,785 hectares (including areas that are now outside of the current study area). Direct survey coverage of a total area of approximately 609 hectares was achieved. As this coverage only refers to an area of several metres width directly inspected by each survey team member, the actual coverage for obtrusive site types, such as rock shelters, grinding grooves and scarred trees, was significantly greater than this. In addition to the current survey, approximately 8.6% of the present study area was recently surveyed by South East Archaeology using the same methodology, consistent with current DECC standards and requirements. As accepted by the Aboriginal stakeholders, this previous survey coverage has been incorporated into the present assessment.
The current and recent surveys have sampled a total of about 4,770 hectares or 88% of the overall study area. Due to property access constraints at the time of the survey or revisions to the study area boundaries subsequent to the completion of the survey, approximately 661 hectares or 12% of the overall study area has not been subject to archaeological survey, mostly within the potential subsidence impact area. The levels and nature of effective survey coverage are considered satisfactory enough to present an effective assessment of the Aboriginal heritage resources identified and potentially present within the study area. The coverage was comprehensive for obtrusive site types (eg. rock shelters, grinding grooves and scarred trees) but limited to some extent for the less obtrusive stone artefacts by surface visibility constraints. Nevertheless, in view of the predictive modelling, the results obtained from a relatively large sample of effective coverage (c. 366,665 m2 in the current survey alone) and measures proposed to address limitations in surface survey coverage, it is concluded that the survey provides a valid basis for determining the probable impacts of the project and formulating recommendations for the management of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources.
In total, 709 Aboriginal heritage sites are known to occur in or within about 50 metres of the study area, along with 296 rock shelters with potential archaeological deposits (PADs). These sites comprise 558 open artefact sites, nine open grinding groove sites, 128 rock shelters with artefacts, art and/or grinding grooves, five scarred trees, five stone arrangements, two ochre quarries, a waterhole/well and a combined groove and artefact scatter site.
The Aboriginal representatives did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs or traditional knowledge, which date from the pre-contact period and have persisted until the present time, within the study area. The representatives also did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with historical associations, which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today (for example, plant and animal resource use areas and known camp sites), within the study area. The representatives did however disclose a number of associations with the study area of contemporary significance and identified the contemporary value of the archaeological evidence.
During the present survey, a total of 8,774 stone artefacts were recorded in detail. In a broader analysis area, comprising the total area sampled during the current survey plus the earlier open cut extension and longwall panels 23-26 and W1-W3 surveys, a total of approximately 9,373 artefacts have been recorded. Quartz is the overwhelmingly most common material used, representing 72.8% of the combined assemblage. Tuff is the next most common material (11.9%) of the combined analysis area assemblage, followed by a low frequency of chert (5.6%) and very low frequencies (less than 3%) of other materials.
Flakes are the most commonly occurring lithic type in the combined analysis area assemblage (40.3%). Flake portions (distal, medial, proximal and longitudinal) account for 19.1% of the combined assemblage and lithic fragments, synonymous with "flaked pieces", 19.3%. These items represent debris from stone knapping. The knapping events can be non-specific or in some cases demonstrably relate to the production of microliths. Formal tool types are evidenced within several of the artefact categories (eg. axe, bondi point, geometric microlith, grindstone and hammerstone), but occur in low frequencies. These items can provide relatively more information for interpretation, as they allow for greater assessment of on-site activities and traditional Aboriginal culture.
A detailed occupation model for the Ulan locality and a predictive model of site location were devised and reassessed during the project. Overall, artefacts occur at a very low mean density of 0.0176 per square metre of effective survey coverage within the analysis area. The spatial distribution and nature of evidence is largely consistent with background discard, interspersed by occasional focalised areas of higher artefact density where activities or repeated activities occurred. This evidence indicates that Aboriginal utilisation of the study area was generally of a low intensity. In large part this probably relates to the limited presence of higher order watercourses within the analysis area (being situated on and around the crest of the Great Divide). Aboriginal community consultation was undertaken in compliance with the DECC Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants policy. The registered Aboriginal stakeholders comprise the Warrabinga Native Title Claimants Aboriginal Corporation, Murong Gialinga Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation, North East Wiradjuri and Mudgee Local Aboriginal Land Council, along with Warranha Ngumbaay. These organisations and individual have been consulted and involved in the investigation in accordance with the DECC policy requirements.
The significance of the Aboriginal heritage evidence has been assessed against criteria widely used in Aboriginal heritage management, derived from the relevant aspects of the ICOMOS Burra Charter. All heritage evidence tends to have some contemporary significance to Aboriginal people, because it represents an important tangible link to their past and to the landscape. The Aboriginal stakeholders expressed an interest in this heritage evidence and its contemporary cultural significance. In overall terms, 74.8% of the sites are assessed as being of low significance within a local context, with 10.7% of sites assessed as being of low to moderate significance, 6.3% of moderate significance, 4.9% of moderate to high significance and 3.3% of high significance. Five sites are assessed as potentially being of significance within a regional context, four of them stone arrangements and one a large artefact scatter site at Old Ulan Village. However, if occupation deposits were to be identified in rock shelters or open contexts that relate to occupation older than say 5,000 years of age, these may also rate as being of regional significance.
The impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage, both direct impacts from surface works, and indirect impacts to the ground surface through underground mining induced subsidence, have been assessed. The greatest potential impact, both in terms of site numbers and significant sites, is from underground mining induced subsidence. Approximately 35% of the total number of sites in the study area (primarily rock shelters) may be subject to subsidence impacts (greater than 10% probability of perceptible impacts), prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. In the absence of appropriate management and mitigation measures, it is concluded that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be high within a local context, but relatively low within a regional context.
A range of mitigation and management strategies have been considered and recommended strategies presented for the 1,005 Aboriginal sites or PADs within the study area/potential impact area. The following key management and mitigation measures have been proposed, with consideration of legal requirements under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the results of the survey and consultation with the local Aboriginal community:
Provisions relating to Aboriginal heritage will be included in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (AHMP) for the project. These provisions will be formulated in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC and specify the policies and actions required to manage the potential impacts of the proposal on Aboriginal heritage after Part 3A approval is granted. The AHMP will comprise detail that, subject to Part 3A project approval, will guide management of the Aboriginal heritage resource in lieu of a Section 90 Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit. The primary elements of the AHMP include:
x Management strategies for every individual site;
x Establishment of the Brokenback Conservation Area;
x Establishment of two Grinding Groove Conservation Areas;
x Avoidance of impacts under the project to the Mona Creek 23-30 and Cockabutta Creek 18-20 rock shelter sites; x Implementation of appropriate site-specific precautionary measures to sites for which impacts will be avoided, but works will occur in close proximity; x Heritage awareness training for all relevant contractors and staff; x Continued maintenance of the UCML Aboriginal Site Database; x Site records will be lodged in a timely manner with DECC for any previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage evidence that is identified within the project area; x Further investigation will occur for specific heritage sites or areas, including: - Detailed recording of the stone arrangements; - Detailed recording of larger artefact scatter sites that were not fully recorded during the current investigation, should any future impacts be proposed to those sites; - Review of the potential impacts on sites that may be affected by small-scale high impact works, once detailed design plans are available; - Implementation of procedures outlined in the UCML Proposed Works Application/Review form followed by implementation of strategies for individual sites should any small-scale impacts be proposed in future, such as those associated with exploratory drilling, other minor works involving ground disturbance, or any post-mining subsidence repair works to surface infrastructure; - Archaeological survey of all potential impact areas and unformed or lightly formed vehicle tracks with heritage potential that could not be sampled during the present investigation, with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and using the same methodology as for the present investigation; - Archaeological survey of all additional facilities that may be designed in future (excluding works within totally modified areas), such as the pipeline to the Talbragar River, but which have not been sampled during the present investigation; x In order to mitigate the impacts of the project on scientific and cultural values and to retrieve and conserve samples of the heritage evidence, mitigation measures will be implemented prior to any impacts occurring, as outlined for individual sites, including: - Salvage of the waterhole/well site and one open grinding groove site; - Temporary removal of the portable rocks hosting grinding grooves in relevant shelters prior to undermining, with these rocks being replaced after subsidence impacts have occurred; - Salvage of stone artefacts by systematic surface collection from specified open artefact sites; - Salvage by broad-area hand excavation of specified open artefact sites; - Salvage by mechanical surface scrapes, and localised hand excavation of any features of significance identified during the scrapes, of specified open artefact sites; and - Mitigation of subsidence impacts to the 77 rock shelter sites of low to moderate or higher significance that are susceptible to impacts, through a four stage process involving selection of a representative sample, an initial small excavation in each shelter within the selected sample to identify the nature of deposits and research potential, revision of the sample and further, more detailed salvage excavation of this revised sample;
x All heritage mitigation and monitoring measures will be adequately documented and reports provided to relevant stakeholders within appropriate timeframes;
x All heritage evidence salvaged will be curated in an appropriate manner as determined in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC during preparation of the AHMP, with the appropriate permit from DECC;
x An educational video will be produced to showcase the heritage resources and cultural background of the study area, and UCML's management of those resources in consultation with the Aboriginal community;
x Provisions will be included to guide the assessment of any future alterations that may be proposed to the mine plan;
x Provisions will be included to guide the management of any previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage sites, including skeletal remains, within the project area;
x Provisions will be included to ensure that Aboriginal community representatives are permitted access to the Conservation Areas or other identified sites in the UCML lease area when requested;
x Archaeological investigations will only be undertaken by archaeologists qualified and experienced in Aboriginal heritage, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, and will occur prior to any development impacts occurring to the relevant areas or sites;
x The registered Aboriginal stakeholders will be afforded the opportunity to be involved in any archaeological field studies as per the DECC Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants policy;
x Monitoring of subsidence impacts will be conducted for a number of rock shelter sites and open grinding groove sites, along with one stone arrangement site; and
x The AHMP will be regularly verified to establish that it is functioning as designed (ie. policies adhered to and actions implemented) to the standard required;
Under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 it is an offence to knowingly destroy, damage or deface an Aboriginal object without obtaining the prior written permission of DECC. Therefore, no activities or work should be undertaken within the Aboriginal site areas as described in this report, in the absence of a valid Section 90 Consent or in lieu, Part 3A approval; and
Copies of the final report will be forwarded to DECC and the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.
After implementation of these management and mitigation measures, it is concluded that the risk of residual impacts to Aboriginal heritage from the proposal will be moderate within a local context and very low within a regional context. TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME A:
Page
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Assessment Requirements 1 1.2 Proposed Development 3 1.2.1 Open Cut Mining 3 1.2.2 Underground Mining 4 1.2.3 Stockpiles 4 1.2.4 Ancillary Mine Support Infrastructure 4 1.2.5 Product Coal Transport 5 1.2.6 Site Access 5 1.3 Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Aims and Scope 6
2. Environmental Context 19 2.1 Location and Current Land Use 19 2.2 Topography 20 2.3 Geology and Soils 21 2.4 Vegetation 22 2.5 Climate 23
3. Aboriginal Heritage Context 35 3.1 Heritage Register Searches 35 3.2 Previous Archaeological Research 37 3.2.1 Ulan Coal Mine 37 3.2.2 Ulan Region 61 3.3 Synthesis 68 3.4 Local Aboriginal Culture 70
4. Historical Context 74
5. Predictive Model of Aboriginal Site Location 77 5.1 Development of an Occupation Model for the Ulan Locality 77 5.2 Site Type Predictions 87
6. Methodology 94 Page
7. Results and Discussion 101 7.1 Survey Coverage 101 7.2 Aboriginal Heritage Evidence 106 7.2.0 Overview 106 7.2.1 Artefact Scatters and Isolated Artefacts 109 7.2.2 Grinding Grooves (Open Sites) 110 7.2.3 Ochre Quarries 110 7.2.4 Scarred Trees 111 7.2.5 Stone Arrangements 111 7.2.6 Waterhole/Wells 113 7.2.7 Rock Shelters with Artefacts 113 7.2.8 Rock Shelters with Grinding Grooves 114 7.2.9 Rock Shelters with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 114 7.2.10 Rock Shelters with Art 115 7.2.11 Rock Shelters with Art and Artefacts 115 7.2.12 Rock Shelters with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 115 7.2.13 Rock Shelters with Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) 116 7.2.14 Cultural Values 116 7.3 Lithic Assemblage 117 7.4 Spatial Distribution 131 7.5 Integrity of Evidence 138 7.6 Chronology 141 7.7 Site Interpretation and Reassessment of Occupation Model 142 7.8 Regional Context 145 7.9 Reassessment of Predictive Model 148
8. Aboriginal Community Involvement 152 8.1 History of Consultation 152 8.2 Consultation as per DECC Policy for Continued Operations Project 155
9. Significance Assessment 177 9.1 Assessment of Significance of Aboriginal Heritage Evidence 177 9.2 Significance of Aboriginal Heritage Evidence within the Potential Impact Area 180
10. Statutory Obligations 189 10.1 National 189 10.2 State 190 10.3 Local 193 Page
11. Potential Impacts 194 11.1 Potential Surface Impacts 196 11.2 Potential Subsidence Impacts 199 11.3 Regional Context 203 11.4 Conclusion 206
12. Potential Mitigation and Management Strategies 208 12.1 General Strategies 208 12.1.1 Strategy A: Further Investigation 208 12.1.2 Strategy B: Conservation 209 12.1.3 Strategy C: Mitigated Impact (Salvage) 210 12.1.4 Strategy D: Unmitigated Impact 211 12.1.5 Strategy E: Monitoring 211 12.2 Assessment of Specific Options for Aboriginal Sites Within the Study Area 212 12.2.1 Management of Broad-Scale High Level Impacts 221 12.2.2 Management of Small-Scale High Level Impacts 222 12.2.3 Management of Low-High Level Continuing Land-Use Impacts 223 12.2.4 Management of Low Level Continuing Land-Use Impacts 224 12.2.5 Management of Subsidence Impacts 225 12.2.6 Conservation Areas 228 12.2.7 Further Investigation Required 228 12.2.8 Mitigation and Monitoring Required 230
13. Recommendations 235
References 240
Acknowledgments 248
Disclaimer 248
Appendix 1: Glossary 249
Appendix 2: Department of Planning Requirements 264
Appendix 3: Department of Environment and Climate Change Requirements 272
Appendix 4: An Assessment of the Significance of Each Aboriginal Site within the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations Heritage Study Area, the Potential Impacts of the Project and Appropriate Management Strategies 286 Page
Appendix 5: Subsidence Impact Assessment 369
Appendix 6: Aboriginal Consultation Database and Supporting Documentation 381 TABLES
Page
Table 5.1: General chronology of Eastern Regional Sequence 78
Table 7.1: Summary of archaeological survey coverage for Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project 102
Table 7.2: Environmental contexts, class of slope and landform elements - summary of survey coverage and artefact density for total analysis area 104
Table 7.3: Counts of Aboriginal sites and rock shelters with PADs recorded within the overall project area and present study area, along with numbers recorded during the present survey 108
Table 7.4: Artefact and stone material counts for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites) 118
Table 7.5: Stone material counts and frequencies for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites) 119
Table 7.6: Artefact counts and frequencies for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites) 120
Table 7.7: Counts of artefacts per size class for each stone material for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites) 125
Table 7.8: Counts of artefacts per size class for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites) 126
Table 7.9: Relationship of rock shelter sites with artefacts and proximity to water and order of watercourse 135
Table 8.1: Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses 160
Table 9.1: Significance of Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area 180
Table 11.1: Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures 195
Table 11.2: Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, with respect to their assessed level of significance, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures 197
Table 12.1: Summary of potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage site types within the study area 213
Table 12.2: Summary of potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, with respect to the assessed level of significance 214 Page
Table 12.3: Summary of potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, with respect to the nature of potential impacts 215
Table 12.4: Summary of potential impacts and management strategies for open artefact sites within the study area, with respect to their assessed level of significance 216
Table 12.5: Summary of potential impacts and management strategies for rock shelter sites (including PADs) within the study area, with respect to their assessed level of significance 217
Table 12.6: Aboriginal heritage sites no longer susceptible to subsidence impacts after establishment of the Brokenback Conservation Area 218 FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1: Location of Ulan Coal Mines 8
Figure 1.2: Ulan Coal Continued Operations project 9
Figure 1.3: Coal handling, preparation and stockpile locations 10
Figure 1.4: Open cut mine, rejects and tailings emplacement areas 11
Figure 1.5: Conceptual mine plan and office complex's infrastructure 12
Figure 2.1: Aboriginal heritage study area, comprising areas presently defined as susceptible to underground mining related subsidence impacts and areas potentially subject to surface impacts 13
Figure 2.2: Land ownership 14
Figure 2.3: Aboriginal heritage study area showing topography 15
Figure 2.4: Geology of project area 16
Figure 2.5: Soil landscapes of project area 17
Figure 2.6: Vegetation of project area 18
Figure 3.1: DECC AHIMS site search areas, potential subsidence impact and surface impact study areas at an early stage of the project and known Aboriginal sites at the start of the project 24
Figure 3.2: Previous archaeological investigation areas within UCML 25
Figure 3.3: Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) survey sample areas within ML1468 26
Figure 3.4: Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) ML1468 "survey units" with the true catchment areas overlain for comparison 27
Figure 3.5: UCML Aboriginal heritage conservation areas as defined under Condition 3.3 of ML1468 Development Approval based on revised versions of Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) original grid references 28
Figure 3.6: Overlap of recent longwall panel assessments with the present study area 29
Figure 3.7: Approximate location of relevant previous archaeological investigation areas in Ulan locality (outside of UCML) 30
Figure 3.8: Moolarben Coal Project, archaeological survey areas (northern area) 31
Figure 3.9: Moolarben Coal Project, archaeological survey areas (southern area) 32
Figure 3.10: Moolarben Coal Project, Aboriginal site locations (northern area) 33 Page
Figure 3.11: Moolarben Coal Project, Aboriginal site locations (southern area) 34
Figure 3.12: Cultural group boundaries in the Ulan locality 73
Figure 7.1: Aboriginal heritage study area and archaeological survey areas 98
Figure 7.2: Comparison of current Aboriginal heritage study area boundaries with the boundaries during the early stage of the survey 99
Figure 7.3: Areas not subject to survey, typically due to property access restrictions at the time of the investigation or late revisions to the study area boundaries 100
Figure 7.4: Aboriginal site locations within the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project area 105
Figure 7.5: Stone arrangement site locations above the proposed No.3 Underground Mine and area of cultural significance to the Native Title claimants 112
Figure 7.6: Distribution of open grinding groove, ochre quarry, scarred tree, stone arrangement and waterhole/well sites within the study area 136
Figure 7.7: Distribution of rock shelter sites within the study area 137
Figure 9.1: Distribution of open artefact sites of moderate or higher significance within the study area 181
Figure 9.2: Distribution of open grinding groove, ochre quarry, scarred tree, stone arrangement and waterhole/well sites of moderate or higher significance within the study area 182
Figure 9.3: Distribution of rock shelter sites of moderate or higher significance within the study area 183
Figure 12.1: Proposed Brokenback Conservation Area 219
Figure 12.2: Proposed Grinding Grooves Conservation Areas 220 TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME B:
B1. Archaeological Survey Coverage Database
B2. Aboriginal Heritage Lithic Site (Artefact Scatters/Isolated Artefact) Database
B3. Aboriginal Heritage Lithic Item Database
B4. Aboriginal Heritage Rock Shelter/Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) Database
B5. Aboriginal Heritage Rock Art Database
B6. Aboriginal Heritage Grinding Groove Database
B7. Aboriginal Heritage Stone Arrangement Database
B8. Aboriginal Heritage Waterhole/Well Database
B9. Aboriginal Heritage Scarred Tree Database
B10. Aboriginal Heritage Quarry Database
B11. Location Maps of Archaeological Survey Areas and Aboriginal Heritage Sites
B12. Site Descriptions - Lithic Sites (Artefact Scatters/Isolated Artefacts)
B13. Site Descriptions - Rock Shelters with Artefacts, Art, Grinding Grooves and/or Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs)
B14. Site Descriptions - Grinding Grooves
B15. Site Descriptions - Stone Arrangements
B16. Site Descriptions - Waterhole/Wells
B17. Site Descriptions - Scarred Trees
B18. Site Descriptions - Quarries 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Assessment Requirements
Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) is located approximately two kilometres from the village of Ulan, within the Mid Western Regional Council Local Government Area (LGA). The site is located approximately 25 kilometres northeast of Gulgong in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales (refer to Figure 1.1). The UCML landholdings comprise 17,959 hectares and are located at the headwaters of the Goulburn and Talbragar River catchments.
Mining at UCML has been undertaken since the early 1920s, with the open cut and underground mining operations as we know them today commencing in 1982 and 1986 respectively. Since the commencement of mining UCML have both modified their existing approvals and received approval for new mining operations and associated infrastructure. As such, UCML currently operates under a number of Development Consents, modifications and auxiliary Development Approvals. To ensure the longevity of the mine UCML is seeking one consolidated Major Project Approval under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to cover current and proposed operations for the next 21 years. The new approval will seek an increase to the amount of product coal that is produced by UCML from 10 million tonnes per annum to 20 million tonnes per annum.
The existing mining operations at UCML consist of Ulan No.3 Underground and associated surface operations. Open cut mining ceased in mid-2008 as the approved resource had been exhausted. To assist in maintaining coal production across the Xstrata coal group, UCML is proposing an extension of the open cut operations, as well as concurrently mining the approved Ulan No.3 Underground and approved Ulan West areas under a modified mine plan. The 21 year conceptual mine plan involves open cut and longwall mining in the Ulan coal seam. The proposed extension of the open cut operation and the modified mine plans of Ulan West and Ulan No.3 areas are shown in Figure 1.2. Both existing infrastructure, some of which may be modified, along with new infrastructure, will be required to support the mining operations. The new infrastructure is primarily associated with the operation of the Ulan West mine and includes conveyors, and support services such as dewatering bores, ventilation fans and service boreholes.
This report examines the Aboriginal heritage issues associated with the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project (herein referred to as the project). The project has been classified as a ‘Major Project’ as defined by the State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) (Major Projects) 2005, and therefore requires approval from the NSW Minister for Planning under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. A Major Project application (MP 08_0184) has been lodged for the project.
South East Archaeology Pty Limited has been engaged by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd (Umwelt) to assess and evaluate the potential Aboriginal heritage impacts associated with the project. As such this Aboriginal heritage assessment accompanies a broader Environmental Assessment of the project being prepared by Umwelt. A glossary defining technical terms used within this report is presented in Appendix 1.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 1 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Planning (DoP), presented in Appendix 2 of this report, and the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC1), presented in Appendix 3.
Aboriginal heritage is noted as a "key issue" in the Part 3A Environmental Assessment requirements issued by the Department of Planning, with DoP requiring that the assessment of the key issues must take into account relevant guidelines, policies and plans. For Aboriginal heritage this is listed as the DECC draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation (DECC 2005), which itself requires conduct of the assessment in accordance with the consultation policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (DECC 2004) and the Aboriginal Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (1997).
The general requirements of the Department of Planning (refer to Appendix 2) of primary relevance to the key issue of Aboriginal heritage include:
A description of the existing environment, using sufficient baseline data;
An assessment of the potential impacts of all stages of the project, including any cumulative impacts associated with the concurrent operation of the project with any other existing or approved mining operations in the region, taking into consideration any relevant policies, guidelines, plans and statutory provisions; and
A description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise, mitigate and/or offset the potential impacts of the project, including detailed contingency plans for managing any significant risks to the environment.
The relevant consultation requirements of the Department of Planning include that during preparation of the assessment consultation must occur with DECC and the consultation process and the issues raised during this process must be described in the environmental assessment. In relation to the DoP requirements, the Mid-Western Regional Council identified in advice to DoP that with respect to heritage, assessment of the heritage significance and impact on indigenous artefacts is required.
The primary requirement of DECC (refer to Appendix 3) is that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal cultural heritage need to be assessed, quantified and reported on, in accordance with the relevant guidelines (as listed above). DECC requested that the assessment consider the cumulative impact of the Wilpinjong Coal Mine, Moolarben Coal Mine (Stages 1 and 2) and current project on Aboriginal heritage and address the issue of potential impacts of subsidence on Aboriginal sites.
In relation to Aboriginal cultural heritage values, DECC (refer to Appendix 3) identified eight issues to be addressed:
1) Address the draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation (DECC 2005); 2) Demonstrate that comprehensive and effective consultation with the Aboriginal community has been undertaken in accordance with the Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (DECC 2004);
1 DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) was previously known as DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) and the NSW NPWS (National Park and Wildlife Service).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 2 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 3) Identify the nature and extent of Aboriginal cultural heritage values across the project area and assess the nature and extent of likely impacts from all mine related activities (including subsidence), along with consideration of cumulative impacts; 4) Identify the nature and extent of any impact on the three existing heritage conservation areas (Mona Creek, Brokenback and Cockabutta Creek), including clear justification for any alterations to these areas (with consideration of the regional significance of any such alterations); 5) Describe the actions that will be taken to avoid or mitigate impacts or compensate to prevent unavoidable impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage values, including assessment of the effectiveness and reliability of the measures and any residual impacts after they are implemented; 6) Where impacts are unavoidable and excavation and/or salvage and/or destruction of Aboriginal objects is proposed, provide detailed methods for the conduct of these activities consistent with archaeological best practice; 7) Where transfer of Aboriginal objects to local community members is proposed in any salvage methodology, the assessment should demonstrate a commitment to and process for meeting statutory obligations under s85A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act); and 8) Where new Aboriginal sites are located during the assessment process and/or at any time during the life of the mine, DECC is notified in accordance with s91 of the NPW Act and details of any new sites recorded during the assessment process are presented in the environmental assessment.
1.2 Proposed Development
1.2.1 Open Cut Mining
The concept plan for the open cut mine is shown on Figure 1.2. Mining will progress to the west of the current open cut. Mining in the open cut is scheduled to commence soon after approval is granted, nominally 2010, for a period of approximately seven years. Open cut mining operations will be undertaken using similar methods to the current operations, that being a combination of dragline and truck and loader methods.
At the end of the open cut mine life, the final voids will continue to be utilised for emplacement of coarse and fine reject material from the Coal Handling Preparation Plant (CHPP) for the remaining life of the underground mines (refer to Figure 1.4). Filling these voids will continue to form part of the progressive rehabilitation process across the site. Rehabilitation will also include the treatment of the upper batters of the highwall in order to reach a suitable final landform.
Coal will be transported from the pit via truck to the dump slot where it will be transported via conveyor to the CHPP for processing and subsequent transportation via conveyor to the product stockpile pile area in readiness for rail transport off site (refer to Figure 1.3).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 3 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 1.2.2 Underground Mining
The conceptual mine plan for the Ulan West and Ulan No.3 underground mines is shown on Figure 1.2. Underground mining within the Ulan West and Ulan No.3 mines will utilise the retreat longwall method of mining, with a panel width of approximately 400 metres. Mining within Ulan No.3 will continue to progress to the north with alternate panels being mined either side of the main headings, for a period of 10 to 18 years. Mining of the Ulan West resource is scheduled to commence soon after approval is granted, nominally 2010, and continue for a period of approximately 21 years.
Coal will be brought to the surface via conveyor and delivered to the hub stockpile. The low ash coal will be reclaimed from the hub stockpile via a reclaim tunnel system, crushed and conveyed to the product stockpile pile area in readiness for transport off site via rail. High ash coal will be directed to the open cut conveyor system via the link conveyor for processing within the CHPP (refer to Figure 1.3).
1.2.3 Stockpiles
Combined stockpile capacities for Run of Mine (ROM) and product coal for the project are as follows (refer to Figure 1.3 for locations):
Underground ROM: 2,500,000 tonnes;
Open cut ROM: 350,000 tonnes; and
Product coal: 1,120,000 tonnes.
1.2.4 Ancillary Mine Support Infrastructure
UCML proposes to utilise the existing facilities and coal handling infrastructure (conveyors, stockpiles, CHPP and rail facilities) where possible. Upgrades to the existing infrastructure as well as new infrastructure will be required to support the proposed increase in coal production from the UCML complex (refer to Figures 1.3 and 1.5 for location plans), which include but are not limited to:
Coal handling infrastructure (conveyors, stockpiles and crushers etc);
Rail infrastructure/facilities;
Administration and workshop staff facilities;
Ventilation systems, including upcast and downcast shafts;
Service/distribution boreholes - cable drops, ballast and concrete drop holes, etc;
Dewatering bores;
Surface water management infrastructure;
Power supply infrastructure – aerial and underground power lines, substations and switch yards;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 4 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Piped services - potable water supply, mine waste water removal, process/fire water supply, emulsion supply and compressed air;
Access roads and other minor infrastructure within the project area;
Underground mine access (man riding shaft/drift);
Refuelling facilities;
Operation of the Bobadeen basalt quarry; and
Communications and monitoring services, including communication towers, etc.
To manage water on site UCML maintains an extensive water management system, which includes but is not limited to mine dewatering systems, water diversion structures, water storages, the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme and water treatment facilities. UCML generates water in excess of its operational requirement. To manage this water the following activities are currently employed:
Use of water for coal preparation and dust suppression;
Irrigation of fodder and pasture through the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme;
Storage of water in dedicated storages for future operational use; and
Discharging water into Ulan Creek in accordance with UCML's Environment Protection Licence 394.
To assist in the water management requirements on site, a detailed water balance assessment is being undertaken to assess the future water infrastructure needs of the project. This may result in additional infrastructure and new discharge arrangements being required. In addition to the management of water for mining purposes, UCML also manages the existing Moolarben Creek Dam as an alternate water supply for its operation and other users.
1.2.5 Product Coal Transport
The UCML rail loop is located in the south of the project area, adjacent to Ulan Road and connects to the Maryvale - Sandy Hollow railway line (refer to Figure 1.3). Coal from the project will be transported off site via rail.
1.2.6 Site Access
The main access to the open cut and underground offices/facilities will be via the two existing access roads off Ulan Road as illustrated in Figure 1.5. Access to the Ulan West mine is proposed to be via the existing underground access road. The mine can also be accessed via Ulan Village. It is proposed to maintain the use of this access point during the construction phase when establishing the Ulan West mine and the infrastructure upgrades associated with this project.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 5 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The surface infrastructure areas supporting the Ulan No.3 mine are accessed via Bobadeen Road which is located approximately six kilometres north of the Ulan No.3 entrance or via the internal road network (Figure 1.5). To enable all weather access, safe passage and heavy vehicle access into surface infrastructure areas, some existing internal trails will require upgrading, including but not limited to, culvert/bridge crossings, drainage control and road surface improvements. Bobadeen Road will also be used to access the proposed Ulan West surface facilities. Wonga Roo Road can also be used to access the underground mining areas. Wonga Roo Road will be used as an infrequent access point for light vehicles and equipment associated with the exploration drilling program.
1.3 Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Aims and Scope
The principal aims and tasks of this Aboriginal heritage investigation and impact assessment are to:
Undertake register searches, research, Aboriginal community consultation and an archaeological survey to identify and record Aboriginal heritage evidence or areas of potential evidence or cultural values within the study area;
Assess the potential impacts of the project upon the identified or potential Aboriginal heritage evidence or cultural values;
Assess the significance of any Aboriginal heritage evidence identified;
Provide details of any Aboriginal heritage evidence recorded in accordance with the DECC requirements;
Consult with the local Aboriginal community as per the DECC (2004) policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants;
Present recommendations for the management of identified Aboriginal heritage evidence and potential heritage resources and cultural values; and
Prepare a formal assessment report to meet the requirements of DoP and DECC, including the draft DECC Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation (2005) and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (1997).
The heritage investigation has been undertaken by archaeologists with appropriate qualifications and experience in Aboriginal heritage, in accordance with the DoP and DECC requirements and guidelines.
The assessment is reported in two volumes:
Volume A, comprising the text, figures, tables and appendices; and
Volume B, comprising the survey coverage, heritage site and lithic item databases, detailed site location maps and detailed descriptions of each heritage site. Volume B contains information of sensitivity to Aboriginal stakeholders about the nature and location of Aboriginal heritage sites and as such is not suitable to be made publicly available without the prior agreement of these Aboriginal stakeholders.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 6 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 For the purposes of this Aboriginal heritage assessment, the project area is delineated by the solid blue line on Figure 1.2 and includes all existing and proposed works that form part of the project. In places, the project area extends outside of the existing UCML mine lease area (solid red line on Figure 1.2).
Many facilities are either in existence and located in areas or are proposed to be located in areas that have been extensively impacted by earthmoving works, such that there is negligible potential for any Aboriginal heritage evidence to survive. These areas can be classified as modified and do not require detailed assessment as to the potential impacts of the project. Consequently, the Aboriginal heritage study area (or study area) referred to herein should be taken to mean those areas within the project area in which Aboriginal heritage may exist and which may be subject to impacts from the project. This area measures about 5,431 hectares in area. Hence, the study area excludes both areas within the project area that will not be subject to impacts and areas within the project area that are totally modified, irrespective of whether continuing or additional impacts will occur.
The study area can be subdivided into:
1) Surface impact area - Areas in which the primary impacts will occur from surface works (eg. open cut mining near the existing pit, pleuger sites, ventilation fans and roads). These impacts could affect the entire range of Aboriginal heritage evidence present; and 2) Underground impact area - Areas in which the primary impacts will occur from underground mining related subsidence, with minimal direct surface impacts (eg. potentially limited to small areas from continued use of existing access tracks and exploratory drilling). These impacts will generally be limited to the site types (eg. rock shelters, grinding grooves and scarred trees) that are susceptible to impacts from subsidence (refer to Figure 2.1).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 7 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 1.1: Location of Ulan Coal Mines (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 8 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 1.2: Ulan Coal Continued Operations project (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 9 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 1.3: Coal handling, preparation and stockpile locations (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 10 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 1.4: Open cut mine, rejects and tailings emplacement areas (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 11 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 1.5: Conceptual mine plan and office complex's infrastructure (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 12 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 2.1: Aboriginal heritage study area, comprising areas presently defined as susceptible to underground mining related subsidence impacts and areas potentially subject to surface impacts (excluding totally modified areas that may be subject to impacts).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 13 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 2.2: Land ownership (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 14 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 2.3: Aboriginal heritage study area showing topography (Narragamba 8833-4-S, Gulgong 8833-3-N, Wollar 8833-2-N and Durridgere 8833-1-S 1:25,000 AMG topographic maps, reduced).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 15 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 2.4: Geology of project area (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 16 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 2.5: Soil landscapes of project area (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 17 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 2.6: Vegetation of project area (courtesy Umwelt).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 18 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
2.1 Location and Current Land Use
The project area is located approximately two kilometres from the village of Ulan and 45 kilometres northeast of Mudgee, in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales (Figures 1.1 and 1.2).
The total project area measures about 13,470 hectares or 134.7 square kilometres in area. However, the study area for the purposes of the Aboriginal heritage assessment comprises a smaller area than this, of approximately 5,431 hectares or 54.3 square kilometres, primarily being the:
Areas potentially susceptible to subsidence impacts associated with the proposed Ulan West and Ulan No. 3 underground mines;
The potential surface impact zone associated with infrastructure to support these underground mines; and
The potential surface impact zone associated with proposed Open Cut Extension (Figure 2.1).
UCML is situated in a rural area, primarily surrounded by rural landholdings, native bushland and primary industries including agriculture, forestry and extractive industries. The area to the south and south-west is dominated by rural residential landholdings. The open cut mining area and surface infrastructure is located within an area dominated by extractive industries, with the Moolarben Coal Mine adjacent to the southern and eastern boundary of the project. The Wilpinjong Coal Mine is located approximately 10 kilometres to the southeast of the project area. Grazing is widely spread throughout the surrounding area occurring at a number of properties located along Blue Springs Road, Cope Road and Ulan Road.
The alluvial lands located along the Talbragar River approximately three kilometres to the north of the UCML northern mining boundary, are used for intensive cropping, with cropping activities also undertaken throughout the area to the northeast of the project area from the Golden Highway to Ulan Road. UCML also undertakes grazing activities on their lands associated with the Bobadeen Irrigation Scheme. Forestry activities are undertaken in the Durridgere and Cope State Forests to the east and southwest respectively of the project area.
Significant areas of National Park also exist in close proximity of the project area, with the Goulburn River National Park located immediately to the east and Curryall State Conservation Area located within the northeastern extent of the Mining Lease. The Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve is situated about 20 kilometres to the southeast of the project area.
The UCML landholdings comprise 17,959 hectares. The majority of the land within the project area is either owned by UCML or comprises Crown Land under lease to UCML (refer to Figure 2.2).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 19 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The project area has been subject to various recent land use impacts
Vegetation removal, associated with historical rural use, timber extraction and early and more recent mining operations, along with clearing related to recent mine infrastructure;
Pastoral activities (eg. grazing, fencing, general rural land use);
Agriculture (cultivation, for example the crops grown under the Bobadeen irrigation scheme; refer to Figure 2.1); and
Focalised impacts (such as mining, infrastructure, exploratory drilling, essential services, roads and other vehicle tracks).
The survival and integrity of Aboriginal heritage evidence may have been affected to some extent by these activities. In terms of the study area, the majority of the landscape comprises remnant forest which can be expected to have been subject to fewer recent land-use impacts than the cleared areas.
2.2 Topography
The study area straddles the Great Dividing Range, which represents the watershed between the Goulburn River catchment to the east and the Talbragar River catchment to the west (Figure 2.3). Primarily the terrain comprises gently undulating rounded hill tops and plateaux, which are more dissected and moderately inclined in numerous places, with sandstone rock formations exposed. Much of the study area is located between about 440 and 580 metres above sea level.
Tributaries of Ulan Creek, Bobadeen Creek and Curra Curra Creek drain the study area to the east of the Great Divide, while tributaries of Mona Creek and Cockabutta Creek drain the study area on the western side of the Divide. However, due to the location of the study area around the Great Divide, typically the watercourses are minor (lower order) ephemeral drainages that represent the headwaters of these catchments. Only small portions of higher order watercourses occur within the study area.
For the purposes of the archaeological analysis, four classes of slope were delineated across the analysis area2 (refer to Section 7.1 and Table 7.2), following McDonald et al (1984):
Level to very gently inclined slopes of less than 1q45´, which occupy about 19.6% of the analysis area;
Gently inclined slopes greater than 1q45´ and less than 5q45´, which occupy about 55.9% of the analysis area;
Moderately inclined slopes greater than 5q45´ and less than 18q, which occupy about 21% of the analysis area; and
Steeply inclined slopes greater than 18q, which occupy about 3.6% of the analysis area.
2 Analysis area refers to the total area sampled during the current survey, plus the earlier open cut extension and longwall panel 23-26 and W1-W3 surveys. It is used within the present assessment for some data analysis. Approximately 76% of the analysis area corresponds to the current study area (potential impact area).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 20 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 For the purposes of the archaeological analysis, nine landform elements were identified within the analysis area (refer to Section 7.1 and Table 7.2), following McDonald et al (1984):
Drainage depressions, which occupy about 19.4% of the analysis area;
Flats, which occupy about 0.2% of the analysis area;
Hillocks, which occupy about 1.1% of the analysis area;
Ridge crests, which occupy about 5.1% of the analysis area;
Scarps, which occupy about 1.2% of the analysis area;
Simple slopes, which occupy about 57.4% of the analysis area;
Spur crests, which occupy about 15% of the analysis area;
Terraces, which occupy about 0.01% of the analysis area; and
Valley flats, which occupy about 0.5% of the analysis area.
2.3 Geology and Soils
Ulan Coal Mine is located at the western limit of the geological formation known as the Sydney Basin and at the southern end of the Gunnedah Sub-basin, adjacent to the Lachlan Fold Belt.
The geology of the study area is presented in Figure 2.4. Much of the study area, particularly the proposed Ulan West underground mine, is dominated by Triassic era Narrabeen Group sandstone, mudstone and conglomerate. Outcrops of Narrabeen sandstone may form poorly consolidated layers and overhangs, resulting in largely unstable rock shelters with horizontal ceilings, sloping floors and protruding shelves comprised of thin layers of harder rock (Haglund 1999a). Much of the No.3 underground mine is dominated by Jurassic era Pilliga Sandstone and also Late Jurassic Purlawaugh Formation sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and coal. Tertiary age Liverpool Range Volcanics, with basalt, dolerite, conglomerate, sandstone and shale, extrude at a number of locations in the north of the study area. The proposed open cut area is dominated by Late Permian age Illawarra Coal Measures, with sandstone, mudstone, claystone, coal, torbanite and tuff. Quaternary Alluvial clay, silt, sand and gravel is also mapped in the north of the study area around Mona Creek (Figure 2.4). Quaternary deposits may be of Pleistocene age in some contexts within the project area (cf. Barham in Kuskie and Clarke 2005a).
Sandstone rock formations occur widely in the study area, including boulders, shelters, overhangs and open surfaces. These can host evidence of Aboriginal occupation, such as deposits of artefacts and cultural material in rock shelters or overhangs, rock art on surfaces of shelters or overhangs, and grinding grooves on exposed bedrock or isolated cobbles/boulders.
The presence of tuff within the geology of the Illawarra Coal Measures and quartz and quartzose rich conglomerates indicates that stone materials suitable for manufacturing Aboriginal artefacts may occur in various locations throughout the study area.
Deposits containing evidence of Aboriginal occupation that is older than 10,000 years of age (ie. Pleistocene) may exist both within rock shelters and certain open contexts.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 21 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The Department of Land and Water Conservation soil landscape maps (Murphy and Lewis 1998) indicate soil landscapes or areas of land with identifiable features and characteristic soil types. Six soil landscapes occupy much of the present study area (Figure 2.5).
The Turill Soil Landscape comprises low undulating hills and small flats adjacent to creeks and contains Narrabeen Sandstone, mudstone and Jurassic shale and sandstone. On the upper and mid-slopes, yellow and brown earthy sands and siliceous sands are present, while on the lower slopes and flats, red podzolics occur. Yellow and grey podzolic soils are present along larger drainage lines. Grey duplex soils are present in isolated areas with laterite type soils which form ridges with gravelly red earths near the Goonoo Soil Landscape (Murphy and Lewis 1998).
The Lees Pinch Landscape consists of rolling hills and steep rocky slopes and valley sides and contains Narrabeen sandstone conglomerate, shale conglomerate, mudstone, chert, coal and torbanite seams. Shallow sandy soils, extensive rock outcrops, sandstone cliffs and debris slopes are present. It also includes grey and yellow earths and yellow podzolic soils on lower slopes (Murphy and Lewis 1998). It is mainly located in the Ulan West portion of the study area and around the margins of the open cut area.
The Bald Hill Soil Landscape comprises basalt in low hillocks and small basalt caps with moderate to steep slopes. Euchrozems are present on crests and euchrozems-chocolate soils on mid-slopes, with rock outcrops and floaters. Shallow stony loams are present on steeper slopes near crests and brown clays often occur with linear gilgal on lower slopes (Murphy and Lewis 1998).
The Munghorn Plateau Soil Landscape is made up of low undulating hills on sandstone plateaux with rock outcrops. Mainly siliceous sands and shallow soils are present on crests and upper slopes. Yellow earths and yellow podsolic soils are present on lower slopes and in drainage depressions. Some peats are also present in these depressions (Murphy and Lewis 1998).
The Ulan Soil Landscape comprises low undulating rises and flats with shale, sandstone conglomerate, chert, coal and torbanite seams. Yellow podsolic soils are present on lower slopes and drainage lines with patches of yellow solodic soils in association with salt sands. Yellow and brown earths are also present on footslopes with minor areas of earthy sands (Murphy and Lewis 1998).
The Goonoo Soil Landscape comprises undulating rises and low hills, with Jurassic Pilliga Sandstone. Yellow solodic soils are present on lower slopes and drainage lines. Earthy sands, siliceous sands, sandy red earths and yellow and grey earths are present elsewhere (Murphy and Lewis 1998).
2.4 Vegetation
The vegetation formations of the project area have been mapped by Umwelt (Figure 2.6).
Portions of the study area are dominated by Grassland Formation, and are typically utilised as pasture for cattle. Vegetation in these areas includes improved pastures, native and exotic grasses, remnant native trees, and shrubs and ground layer plants. The previous native vegetation probably consisted of Box Woodlands. The cleared areas are mainly confined to portions of the proposed No.3 underground mine, the northern portion of the Ulan West underground mine and part of the open cut extension area, comprising about 2,761 hectares of the entire project area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 22 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Much of the remainder of the study area is dominated by Forest/Open Forest Formation. This is a highly variable formation, with Ironbark Open Forest Complex representing the most widespread community. This community comprises a number of variants and a variety of structural forms, such as dry open forests, low forests, woodlands and heathlands that occur in mosaic patterns across the sandstone hillslopes and crests. The Ironbark Open Forest Complex dominates the northeast portion of the No.3 Mine area, in association with the Goonoo Soil Landscape. Stringybark - Ironbark Open Forest and Rough Barked Apple Open Forest also occur within the Formation. Throughout the study area, wattle, oak and Sifton Bush (Cassinia arcuata) commonly form an understorey. The Forest/Open Forest Formation comprises about 8,040 hectares of the entire project area.
Minor portions of the study area are dominated by Woodland Formation. This is another variable formation with communities occurring in a variety of landscape positions, including upper slopes and hillcrests, gently sloping to level sandy plains below sandstone cliffs and steeper slopes, fertile Tertiary basalt-derived soils in the Bobadeen and Box Hill regions, sandy flats and lower slopes on colluvium, and along drainage lines throughout the Bobadeen region. White Box Woodland, Scribbly Gum Woodland, Grey Box Woodland and red gum/rough- barked apple assemblages occur within this Formation. The Woodland Formation comprises about 1,582 hectares of the entire project area.
Very small portions of the study area comprise Dry Heathland, which occurs in small patches (often 10 x 10 metres or less) that are generally restricted to sandstone rock outcrops, cliff ledges and crests with skeletal soils and sandstone outcropping. The Dry Heathland Formation comprises only about 10 hectares of the entire project area.
Mature native trees, which are anticipated to occur frequently in the Forest/Open Forest and Woodland Formations, have the potential to host Aboriginal scars or carvings.
2.5 Climate
The climate of the study area is characterised by warm to hot summers with dry electrical storms and cold winters with frequent frosts.
The Ulan climate is comparable to meteorological data from Gulgong. Average daily summer temperatures range between 21.3 and 22.4 degrees Celsius (ºC), with the highest monthly average daily temperature occurring in January (22.4ºC). The highest temperature recorded in 84 years was 42.2ºC. The average daily temperatures in winter vary between 8.3 and 9.6ºC and the lowest monthly average daily temperature occurs in July (9.2ºC).
Average annual rainfall is approximately 630 millimetres, with a slight increase in rain during the summer months. While slight to moderate droughts in the Ulan area occur infrequently, severe and prolonged droughts have been recorded in the past.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 23 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.1: DECC AHIMS site search areas, potential subsidence impact and surface impact study areas at an early stage of project and known Aboriginal sites at the start of the project (UCML Aboriginal Site Database Revision 7 - refer to Section 3.1).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 24 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.2: Previous archaeological investigation areas within UCML.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 25 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.3: Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) survey sample areas within ML1468.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 26 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.4: Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) ML1468 "survey units" (orange lines, labels) with the true catchment areas (light blue lines, labels) (courtesy Umwelt) overlain for comparison.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 27 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Mona Creek Conservation Area
Brokenback Conservation Area
Cockabutta Creek Conservation Area
Figure 3.5: UCML Aboriginal heritage conservation areas as defined under Condition 3.3 of ML1468 Development Approval based on revised versions of Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) original grid references.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 28 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Proposed Ulan No. 3 Underground Mine
Panels W2-W3 Panels 23-26
Panel W1
Proposed Ulan West Underground Mine
Figure 3.6: Overlap of recent longwall panel assessments with the present study area (panels 23-26 and W1, Kuskie and Clarke 2005b, and panels W2 and W3, Kuskie and Clarke 2007).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 29 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Brigalow Belt (Purcell 2002)
BOB/1 (Moore 1970)
Wollar to Wellington (OzArk 2005)
Beryl to Ulan (Cubis 1981)
Botobolar 5 (Pearson 1981) To: Kerrabee Dam (Haglund 1980b)
Figure 3.7: Approximate location of relevant previous archaeological investigation areas in Ulan locality (outside of UCML).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 30 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.8: Moolarben Coal Project, archaeological survey areas (northern area) (Hamm 2006a:Figure 4).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 31 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.9: Moolarben Coal Project, archaeological survey areas (southern area) (Hamm 2006a:Figure 5).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 32 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.10: Moolarben Coal Project, Aboriginal site locations (northern area) (Hamm 2006a:Figure 6).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 33 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 3.11: Moolarben Coal Project, Aboriginal site locations (southern area) (Hamm 2006a:Figure 7).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 34 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 3. ABORIGINAL HERITAGE CONTEXT
3.1 Heritage Register Searches
Searches of the DECC Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) were undertaken in January 2007, with additional searches undertaken in February 2009 to cover extensions to the project area and incorporate evidence recently recorded at Moolarben. The area covered by the DECC searches is shown on Figure 3.1. It includes the Ulan lease area, the project area and some adjacent land.
UCML maintains an Aboriginal Site Database that lists known Aboriginal sites within the Ulan lease areas and some adjacent areas (typically areas that have been subject to archaeological surveys in relation to UCML projects). Prior to the commencement of this project, approximately 444 Aboriginal sites were listed on the UCML Aboriginal Site Database (Revision 7)3, along with an additional 23 rock shelters with Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs). These sites are shown on Figure 3.1 and comprised:
206 artefact scatters; 85 isolated finds; 107 rock shelters with artefacts; 6 rock shelters with art; 6 rock shelters with art and artefacts; 2 rock shelters with art and grinding grooves; 2 rock shelters with grinding grooves; 9 rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts; 1 rock shelter with possible burial; 7 grinding grooves; 4 grinding grooves and artefact scatters; 2 ochre quarries; 4 scarred trees; 2 scarred trees and artefact scatters; and 1 stone arrangement.
3 The UCML database (Revision 7) contained approximately 176 sites that were not registered on DECC AHIMS at the time of commencement of this project (recorded by Haglund 1980, 1981a, 1999a, 1999b, and Edgar 1997). Approximately 48 of these sites may have been destroyed or subject to Consents (Kuskie and Clarke 2003). Only two of the 110 Aboriginal heritage sites recorded by Haglund (1999a, 1999b) were entered onto AHIMS.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 35 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Approximately 107 sites were listed on the UCML Aboriginal Site Database (Revision 7) within the study area4, along with 11 rockshelters with PADs. These sites comprised:
62 artefact scatters; 9 isolated finds; 1 grinding groove and artefact site; 3 rock shelters with art and artefacts; 24 rock shelters with artefacts; 2 rock shelters with grinding grooves; and 5 rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts.
A number of these sites (particularly those recorded prior to 2000) are not currently listed on the DECC AHIMS register. This issue is being addressed through the conduct of the current assessment and lodgement of site records with DECC for all sites that have not been registered as yet. Also of relevance to note, the UCML Aboriginal Site Database does not incorporate all sites recorded within the broader DECC search areas (Figure 3.1).
For the current project, all Aboriginal sites are referred to by the Ulan ID Number (ID#) where one exists, or alternatively by the DECC AHIMS number where a Ulan ID# does not exist (eg. sites outside of the project area). The Ulan ID Numbers are not necessarily continuous, due to the deletion of several earlier duplicate entries or evidence later clarified by Haglund as not being of Aboriginal origin.
Descriptions of previously recorded sites that are located within the present study area are presented in Volume B (databases in B2-B10 and site descriptions in B12-B18). The locations of these sites are marked on 1:10,000 scale mapping in Volume B11.
It is also noted that there are issues with site identification and nomenclature at Ulan, relating to variations in definitions, surface visibility conditions over time, methodology between different archaeological surveys, and the overlap of areas surveyed at different times. Several sites have been recorded more than once and hence attributed multiple names and AHIMS numbers. The grid references of many of these sites, particularly those recorded prior to the year 2000, had at the commencement of this project not been verified. Hence, the accuracy or the status of these site descriptions was not certain. These issues have largely been resolved for the study area via the present assessment, with many of the previously recorded sites relocated and re-recorded, with accurate location details. The current version of the UCML Aboriginal Site Database at the completion of this project is Revision 10, as discussed in Section 7.2.
No Aboriginal heritage sites are listed within the study area on other heritage registers or planning instruments, including the Mid-Western Regional Interim Local Environmental Plan 2008, which recently replaced the Mudgee Local Environmental Plan 1998 following the inclusion of Mudgee Shire within the amalgamated Mid-Western Regional Council, or other registers under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003, such as the Register of the National Estate, Commonwealth Heritage List and National Heritage List.
4 The study area boundaries have changed sinced the commencement of the project. This calculation refers to an earlier boundary used for the preliminary assessments (Kuskie 2007, 2008).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 36 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The rock art complex known as ‘Hands on Rock’ is located approximately four kilometres from the study area. The site contains a frieze of hundreds of hand stencils and is listed for indigenous values on the Register of the National Estate (ID #1360).
The Talbragar Reserve, or Talbragar Fish Fossil Reserve as it is known, is located in the northwestern portion of the study area. A Crown Land Reserve (#88025) of about four hectares was gazetted on 27 November 1970 for the preservation of this internationally significant fossil site. The site is an example of a Jurassic fresh water lake deposit. This item is listed for natural values on the Register of the National Estate (ID #465) and in Schedule 5, Environmental Heritage, of the Mid-Western Regional Interim Local Environmental Plan 2008 (item #2070410).
3.2 Previous Archaeological Research
A number of archaeological surveys and excavations have been undertaken within the UCML lease areas and surrounding locality, principally in relation to environmental impact assessments for the coal mining industry. Discussion of the most relevant investigations will highlight the range of site types and variety of site contents in the region, identify typical site locations, and assist with the construction of a predictive model of site location for the study area.
3.2.1 Ulan Coal Mine
Haglund and Associates have completed many of the heritage assessments at Ulan Coal Mine prior to the year 2000 and South East Archaeology has undertaken investigations at Ulan since that date.
Portions of the study area have previously been investigated by Haglund (1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1992, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d), Kuskie (2002, 2004) and Kuskie and Clarke (2005a, 2005b, 2007, in. prep.). Other relevant investigations within the project area (eg. Corkill 1991, Edgar 1997, Haglund 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 2001a, 2001b, Kuskie 2000a, Kuskie and Clarke 2003, Kuskie and Webster 2001, and White 2001a, 2001b) are also discussed below. The approximate locations of the key investigation areas are marked on Figure 3.2.
Haglund's (1980, 1981a, 1981b) initial studies:
Haglund’s (1980) initial work involved a preliminary archaeological survey of the Ulan Colliery and No. 2 Underground Mine areas (lease CCL741), which extend into the Open Cut Extension and southeastern corner of the Ulan West portion of the current study area.
This survey resulted in the identification and recording of six sites and numerous isolated finds, largely within the area proposed for open cut mining (Haglund 1980). Haglund (1980:220) differentiated "sites" and "occasional finds", with the latter defined by the presence of "only one or two artefacts" or "individual artefacts were at least some five metres apart". Surface visibility was high at the time of Haglund's (1980) survey due to a recent drought, which had eliminated much of the grass and undergrowth cover usually present.
Haglund (1980) documented discussions with various landowners, such as the Loughrie and Byers families, which indicate the identification and collection of stone artefacts from within the project area by local non-indigenous residents (some of which now reside with the Gulgong Museum, Haglund 1981a:49), and the use of rock shelters by non-indigenous travellers.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 37 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 As a result of the number of sites located during this study and the integrity of the evidence, Haglund (1980) recommended that more extensive survey occur, along with the test excavation of selected sites.
Subsequently, further archaeological studies were conducted of this area by Haglund between 1980 and 1981 (Haglund 1981a, 1981b). These studies involved the collection of historical and ethnographic information for the region, an intended minimum 50% survey coverage of areas to be affected by the proposed open cut mining and associated works, sampling of sites to be directly impacted by the mining activities, and test excavations of rock shelters and other sites.
During the surveys, 12 artefact scatters, seven rock shelters with archaeological deposits, one rock shelter with art, one rock shelter with art and a deposit, one grinding groove site and 13 scarred trees (three of which were not considered to be the result of Aboriginal activity) were recorded (Haglund 1981a, 1981b). Numerous isolated finds and ‘minor scatters’ were noted across the study area, although details of these artefact occurrences were not recorded (Haglund 1981a, 1981b). Samples were collected from nine of the open artefact sites. For example, 154 artefacts were collected from a 5 x 3 metre portion of ID# 79, 30 artefacts from a 20 x 20 metres portion of ID# 75, nine artefacts from a 20 x 5 metre portion of ID# 65, and 88 artefacts from a 5 x 5 metre portion of ID# 62.
Test excavations were conducted at 14 rock shelters (typically a 0.5 x 0.5 metre square unit in each), eight of which possessed archaeological deposits (Haglund 1981a, 1981b). Few details are presented of the test excavation results.
The disturbance levels on low gradient slopes and flats adjacent to watercourses was assessed as high, due to clearing of vegetation, erosion and agricultural activities (Haglund 1981a, 1981b). Although the rock shelter sites present along the ridge crests were not as highly disturbed, Haglund (1981b) noted that the type of occupation within the shelters would not have been of the same nature or duration as the open camp sites found adjacent to sources of water. Haglund (1981a, 1981b) assessed the evidence as representing Aboriginal activity over the last 5,000 years, although noted that older deposits may be present at some shelters.
Corkill's (1991) study of a conveyor and other infrastructure:
Corkill (1991) undertook an archaeological survey along a four kilometre route of the coal conveyor between the ROM stockpile and just east of the Underground Office, and a 400 x 150 metre area to be impacted by mine infrastructure development northwest of the Underground Office, within CCL741. A proposed diversion channel for Ulan Creek was also investigated.
Two artefact scatters and one isolated find were located during the survey (Corkill 1991). One artefact scatter site (ID# 30, "UC1"), located on a level bench on the west bank of Ulan Creek in the vicinity of the confluence with an unnamed tributary, comprised 50 to 100 artefacts, predominantly of quartz and chert (Corkill 1991). The other artefact scatter site (ID# 32, "UC2") comprised four artefacts on a long exposure adjacent to a road junction and would not be impacted by the proposed works (Corkill 1991). Chert and quartz were also present at this site, which had a high level of disturbance due to earlier roadworks (Corkill 1991). An isolated find (distal end of a quartz flake) was located on a vehicle track (Corkill 1991). Corkill recommended the full recording of site UC1 and arrangements made to ensure the protection of the site during construction works (Corkill 1991).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 38 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Haglund's (1992) study for the northward extension of the No.3 Underground Mine and other infrastructure:
Haglund (1992) undertook further archaeological surveys at Ulan Coal Mine, in relation to a preliminary investigation of:
A northward extension of the No. 3 underground mine within Authorisation A428 (now largely ML1341);
A basalt quarry at "Knob Hill", west of the open cut;
Mine entries, ventilation shafts and surface facilities at "Upper Ulan"; and
A new access road between "Upper Ulan" and the Ulan - Gulgong Road, traversing the current Open Cut Extension area.
The underground investigation area extended into the southern portion of the Ulan West portion of the current study area.
Sixteen Aboriginal sites were recorded during these investigations, which included "intensive" survey of the areas of proposed surface facilities and access routes and "reconnaissance" inspection of the underground extension area, including minimal coverage directly within the present study area. Samples were surveyed south and west of the Bobadeen Loop Road. Fifteen of these sites consisted of rock shelters located in or adjacent to the underground extension area. Many of the shelter sites had an aspect towards the rising or setting sun (Haglund 1992:32), however the sample size on which this conclusion was based was relatively small. Further information was recorded about several sites, including ID# 65 and 79.
Haglund's (1996a) salvage excavation of ID# 116:
A shelter site recorded during Haglund's (1992) investigation, ID# 116 (S38, DECC #36-3-177), was subsequently the focus of a salvage excavation (Haglund 1996a), which remains one of the few rock shelters to be excavated within the locality. This site is located about 2.5 kilometres east of the southern portion of the current Ulan West study area, and about three kilometres north of the Ulan Underground Office. Salvage was considered necessary because longwall mining of panels 10 and 11 was scheduled to occur and the potential for the site to be detrimentally affected by subsidence could not be discounted (Haglund 1996a).
ID# 166 is a long and narrow shelter, 15 metres wide by up to 2.5 metres deep and about 7-8 metres high at the dripline. Haglund (1996a) views it as a "medium-sized" shelter in the Ulan context. Its aspect is to the east-south-east over a steep slope to a gentle valley. It is located at the base of a scarp, above the steep slope. A minor tributary of Spring Gully Creek is located 100 metres from the shelter. Several artefacts were initially visible around the dripline (Haglund 1996a).
The salvage excavation of ID# 116 was conducted over four days in February 1996 with a total area of 20 m2 excavated (Haglund 1996a). This comprised 14 m2 within and just in front of the shelter, 2 m2 just below this, and 4 m2 on more level parts of the adjacent slope.
A total of 391 lithic artefacts and 374 flaking debris items smaller than five millimetres in length were recovered from the excavation (Haglund 1996a). Haglund (1996a) noted that given a volume of deposit of 8.2 m3 (or 5 to 6 m3 excluding major rocks) was excavated, the quantity of artefacts recovered was relatively low. In fact, incorporating all lithic items (765) and assuming a total deposit of 5.5 m3, the density equates to 139 artefacts/m3.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 39 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Haglund (1996a) observed that the artefacts derived from the upper 0.3 metres of deposit, and although there was not visibly separate layers (stratigraphy), the evidence appeared to arise from multiple occupations. Through the association of artefacts, Haglund (1996a) identified approximately 108 separate discard events.
The predominant stone material was quartz, forming 68% of the assemblage. "Chert" comprised 28% of the items, while igneous rock and petrified wood were also present. Significantly, Haglund (1996a) notes that "chert" is a term used to describe a range of fine-grained siliceous rock, including some that may be better termed "indurated mudstone/silstone/tuff". Many of these items are in fact probably tuff. The bulk of the excavated assemblage comprised flakes (52%) and flake fragments (26%) (Haglund 1996a). Other artefact types recovered included cores, core fragments, flaked pieces and modified flakes (a category which incorporates backed blades, geometric microliths, retouched flakes and flakes with use-wear) (Haglund 1996a).
Haglund’s (1996a) investigation of reduction sequences at ID# 116 largely followed Witter’s (1992) technological analysis methodology. Witter (1992) views stone technology as a dynamic system, with artefacts changing size and shape during the reduction process. The relative thickness of the artefacts and debitage produced are seen to be reflective of the overall reduction strategy. Witter (1992) defined this in a reduction chart, a scattergram involving the plotting of Block Length x Block Width (X-axis) against Block Thickness (Y-axis). The chart was intended as a visual representation of an assemblage, not as a statistical technique, which provides a summary of the size and shape of an assemblage.
Witter (1992) identifies eight methods of reduction associated with backed artefact production, not all of which were necessarily present in the Central Tablelands. However, Witter (1992) basically concluded that ‘the technology existed to instantly produce flakes with a standardised cross-section for backing purposes’ and noted that elongated flakes were not necessarily characteristic of microblade reduction strategies.
Witter (1994) proposed an occupation model for ID# 116, involving one or more of three possible functions:
"Transient overnight camp" for small groups of people. Length of occupation would be limited to overnight stays;
"Day camp/foraging station" utilised as a daytime base for operations away from the domestic camp; and
"Vantage point/crafts station": The location of the shelter may have enabled the monitoring of game movements and, in addition, the repair or manufacture of equipment, especially hunting gear, may have taken place while waiting.
Witter (1994) identified the assemblages and attributes that would characterise and distinguish each of these three functions:
Activities at a transient overnight camp would involve incidental repair, primarily resulting in an artefact assemblage at the site of debitage (with a wide range of sizes), mostly resharpening flakes, and possibly from some flake tool production. Flake tools may be used for light wood-working but these would be removed from the site;
Casual maintenance of equipment would occur at a day camp/foraging station. This activity would result in the presence of abundant "resharpening" flakes and implements with little reduction. The production of medium and light duty flakes for brief use may also be represented; and
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 40 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Casual to intensive manufacturing of artefacts is described for a vantage point/crafts station. Microblade core reduction would take place, ranging from production of a few blades for quick repair to the complete reduction of a microblade core. In addition, activities such as intensive wood-working, involving resharpening and reduction of nuclear tools to produce large amounts of small debitage may be present. Also, hafted flakes for specialised carving work and flakes with fine use-wear used for decorating wooden gear may also occur.
Haglund (1996a) assessed ID# 116 using this occupation model and analysed the stone tool assemblage in terms of the profiles forwarded by Witter (1994). According to Haglund (1996a), the assemblage recovered from the excavation most resembled that described for a vantage point/crafts station. Haglund (1996a) concluded, however, that the assemblage did not fit any one suggested model in particular and although the evidence from the site may represent each model to some extent, the occupation model by Witter for the region may require further modification.
Haglund’s interpretation of the Aboriginal heritage evidence recovered from ID# 116 was one of sporadic occupation associated with artefact manufacture and/or repair and the shelter may represent a vantage point site at which casual manufacture took place (Haglund 1996a). The age of the site was assessed by the stone artefact assemblage as being within the last 5,000 years, although no datable material such as charcoal that could be confidently attributed to human activity was found (Haglund 1996a).
Haglund's (1996b) survey of a proposed access track and drill site:
Haglund (1996b) located an isolated find north-west of ID# 116 during a survey of the potential location of an access track and drill site. The isolated find was a quartz flake with retouch and use-wear and interpreted by Haglund as representing discard or an item lost in transit (Haglund 1996b).
Haglund's (1996c) survey of Spring Gully area, longwall panels 11 and 12:
During another archaeological survey in 1996, Haglund (1996c) recorded eight rock shelter sites and three artefact scatters south and east of the current study area. These sites had the potential to be affected by longwall mining subsidence and the construction of a pumping station, access track and powerline associated with longwall panels 11 and 12 (Haglund 1996c).
Haglund (1996c) recommended sub-surface test excavations for the artefact scatters that were to be impacted by the pumping station and associated works, and that the route of the access track be altered to avoid the sites. Further investigation and consultation was recommended in relation to the shelter sites to be impacted by longwall mining subsidence (Haglund 1996c).
Edgar's (1997) survey of longwall panels 13-17:
Edgar (1997) conducted a survey over seven days in 1996 in order to assess the archaeological potential of longwall panels 13-17, within ML1366, east and south of the current study area. The survey focused on cliff lines, where the potential risk for subsidence damage to sites was assessed as higher (Edgar 1997). The survey area was divided into three landform units: ridge sides, gully/creek bottoms and ridge tops. The total area inspected for Aboriginal heritage evidence during the survey was not recorded. The main detection limiting factor across the ridge crests, simple slopes and flats was vegetation, which limited surface visibility in these landform units to less than 1%, while visibility surrounding scarps and cliff lines was recorded as high (85%) (Edgar 1997).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 41 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Sixteen sites were recorded by Edgar (1997), in addition to the 13 sites previously identified in the area by Haglund (1996c). Nine rock overhangs were considered to have PADs (Edgar 1997). The sites were named after the initials of Spring Gully with consecutive numbers following the initials (SG1, SG2 etc). Eleven of these sites were situated outside of the longwall panels 13-17 boundary, including three sites (ID# 150-152) located immediately north of Longwall 17.
ID# 152 (SG25) was assessed as potentially being an ochre quarry and of high scientific significance (Edgar 1997). ID# 149 (SG22), which was associated with a rock pool, was also considered to have high scientific significance (Edgar 1997). Recommendations to further investigate, monitor and salvage ID# 132, 136, 147 and 152 and one PAD were outlined, however, a number of additional sites were considered to be at low risk or of insufficient scientific significance to warrant salvage (Edgar 1997).
Mills (1996) assessed the potential subsidence effects of the longwall mining of panels 13-17 upon the sites identified by Edgar (1997) and Haglund (1996c). Shelter site ID# 132 (SG5) was considered to be at high (>30%) risk of rock falls, while two other shelters were assessed as being at moderate (10-30%) risk (Mills 1996). Eight shelter sites were considered to be at low (<10%) risk and the remaining sites were unlikely to be affected in any way by the mining, due to their nature or location (Mills 1996). ID# 132 (SG5) was later affected by substantial cracking and minor rock fall as a result of the mining activities (Haglund 1999b, Mills 1999, personal observation). Mills (1999) concluded that the site is very close to experiencing more extensive rock falls.
Haglund's (2001a, 2001b) and White's (2001a, 2001b) salvage of ID# 132 (SG5) in longwall panel 13:
The SG5 (Spring Gully 5) rock shelter site (ID# 132), above longwall panel 13, was subject to an extensive salvage excavation in May 1998, prior to undermining. The results are reported by Haglund (2001a, 2001b) and White (2001a, 2001b), with a section on use-wear and residue analysis by Therin (2000).
Site SG5 is located in a sandstone rock formation bordering Spring Gully (approximately 170 metres distant), a higher order but ephemeral tributary of the Goulburn River. It is situated east and south of the current study area, four kilometres north-north-east of the Ulan Underground Office. The shelter is relatively large, about 30 metres in width and up to five metres deep, with a ceiling up to three metres high (extending even higher over the dripline). It is situated at the base of a cliff, above gentle slopes and the drainage. The aspect is to the west-south-west. Initially, three grinding stones and an estimated 100+ artefacts were noted, at the dripline, around loose rock slabs, and extending for 40 metres down the gentle slope.
The SG5 salvage was conducted over a 12 day period by ten archaeologists and two Aboriginal community representatives. A total of 37 m2 was subject to salvage excavation, comprising 32 m2 within or marginally in front of the shelter and 5 m2 on the adjacent slope (referred to as "Area II"). The main floor area of the shelter was almost totally excavated (referred to as "Area I"), and a smaller chamber partially excavated ("Area III"). Units measuring 0.25 x 0.25 metres were dug and the deposit sieved through nestled 5 mm and 2.5 mm mesh (Haglund 2001a).
There are significant discrepancies between the areas excavated as presented by Haglund (2001a) and White (2001a) in Volume 2 (artefact analysis). White (2001a) identifies that 16.5 m2 was excavated within Area I, 5 m2 in Area II and 4 m2 within Area III. This total of 25.5 m2 differs from Haglund's (2001a) total of 37 m2, which apparently relates to the inclusion in Haglund's total of squares that were thin layers of sediment resting on rock shelves, that were exposed by brushing rather than excavation.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 42 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A number of charcoal samples were retrieved and subject to radiocarbon dating. Three samples were relatively recent and several were older, with one dating to more than 4,000 years Before Present (BP):
346 ± 60 years BP (NZA 10763), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations (95.4% probability) of 515 - 290 calBP5 (1435 - 1660 AD);
393 ± 70 years BP (NZA 10765), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations of 538 - 298 calBP (1412 - 1652 AD);
433 ± 60 years BP (NZA 10761), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations of 545 - 317 calBP (1405 - 1633 AD);
952 ± 70 years BP (NZA 10767), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations of 976 - 717 calBP (974 - 1233 AD);
3,080 ± 60 years BP (NZA 10762), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations of 3438 - 3081 calBP (1489 - 1132 BC); and
4,147 ± 60 years BP (NZA 10766), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations of 4840 - 4446 calBP (2891 - 2497 BC).
A total of 10,002 stone artefacts were recovered from the excavation and surface collection, comprising:
6,535 from Area I, the main floor area, including 5,513 subject to analysis, 29 from "lens 1", 18 from burrow fill and 975 from squares E7 and E8 under the dripline (refer to White 2001b for their separate analysis);
233 from Area II on the slope;
3,004 from Area III, the smaller chamber, including 2,978 subject to analysis and 26 from wall collapses;
189 from surface collection; and
41 unprovenanced.
Quartz and "chert" (also including volcanic tuff) dominated the Area I assemblage (41.4% and 49.8% respectively), with very low frequencies of other igneous, petrified wood, chalcedony, quartzite, silcrete and sandstone materials. Artefacts classified as "debitage" represented 91.6% of the Area I assemblage, with very low frequencies of retouched artefacts, retouched and/or used tools, cores and core fragments, backed artefacts, backing debitage, grindstones and fragments, hammerstone and anvil fragments, ground debitage, tool retouch debitage, manuports and ochre (White 2001a).
Artefact densities are subject to a limited comparison by White (2001a) in relation to the number per conflated square metre per five centimetre thick "spit". Deposit volumes are not available and calculations of artefact density per cubic metre of deposit are problematic in their absence. This also renders comparison with other excavated sites at Ulan and elsewhere problematic. At a very gross level, a mean of around 385 artefacts was present per conflated square metre, using White's (2001a) excavation total.
5 Calibrated age in radiocarbon years to two standard deviation (95.4% probability) Before Present (1950AD).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 43 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Vertical displacement of artefacts was noted as likely to have occurred, particularly in the upper four spits (0.2 metres of deposit). White (2001a) identified in Area I some evidence of the horizontal spatial separation of activities in spits 1-3, and also evidence of "cleaning" of the site by its occupants. Higher densities in spits 4-6 limited analysis of the spatial separation of activities. No evidence of site cleaning was identified in spits 5-7 (with too few artefacts in the lower spits for meaningful analysis).
Haglund (2001a:19) initially postulated that the site may represent a domestic base camp, a place where people camped for successive nights, possibly repeatedly, and/or for an unknown but possibly extended duration. From the camp people may have hunted and gathered in the surrounding area, returning to the camp to process food and maintain equipment. As such, the site was expected to contain evidence of generalised food processing activities, a wide range of implement and stone material types, a high ratio of used to unused implements and flakes, and possibly a full range of reduction strategies and debris reflecting tool manufacturing (or "gearing-up") strategies.
Such a base camp would be different to other "smaller sites" at which specific activities occurred or occupation was short-term in nature (Haglund 2001a:20). Witter had termed these sites in various ways (eg. "transient", "small, overnight camps", "foraging stations" and "vantage points/crafts stations"). Haglund (2001a:20) identified that this model could not be adequately tested by the program of salvage as it was limited to only the one site.
White (2001a) analysed a large sample of the stone artefacts, particularly in terms of technological characteristics and comparison with the "Eastern Regional Sequence". In terms of activities, it was concluded that the SG5 shelter was used by family groups, with the focus of use on the main shelter ("Area I"). Artefact discard rates varied widely across Area I and more non-stone tool activities may have been carried out than in other parts of the site. Area I was viewed as more fully representing the nature of occupation and range of activities over time, than the other smaller excavated areas.
White (2001a) inferred that in the lowest spits (7-10) of Area I, the earliest period of occupation, the site was visited by small groups of people and the floor area was smaller. Quartz was the main material used and although backed artefacts were discarded, there was no evidence that they were made on site at that time (at least in spits 8-10, as backing debitage was present in spit 7). Artefact discard rates were low. In the middle layers of Area I (spits 5-6), more artefacts were discarded, which White (2001a) infers represents more intense activity or larger groups of people and/or longer duration visits. Chert overtook quartz as the dominant stone material used. Backed artefacts were both made on site at this time and discarded. In the upper layers of Area I (spits 1-4) White (2001a) noted a number of changes. The discard rate was lower, inferred to represent a greater emphasis on non-tool using activities than a decline in intensity of site use. Quartz regained importance as a material, but only marginally over chert. Backed artefacts were still made and discarded, but White (2001a) infers that their role was reduced. Grindstones and fragments thereof were present, on the surface and in spits 2 and 4.
White (2001a) argues that artefacts from the earlier occupation dated c.4,100 BP (actually 4,840 - 4,446 calibrated BP) show evidence of much stone rationing and a portable toolkit, whereas later occupation involved less stone rationing and a less portable toolkit. White (2001a) concludes that "less mobility" is indicated by the presence of grindstones in the more recent deposits (last 1,000 years). It is noted however, that White's detailed analysis of lithic sequences with respect to the dates and other dated sites makes use of the conventional radiocarbon date, not the calibrated date.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 44 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 White (2001a) presents a revised occupation model, with strong reference to the "Eastern Regional Sequence" and involving comparisons with other dated sites in the northern Sydney Basin. White (2001a) identified some intra-regional variation, with respect to the frequency of quartz and backed artefacts:
Sites in more rugged sandstone country tend to have lower frequencies of backed artefacts compared with sites in the more open country of the Goulburn River valley and Wollombi Brook; and
The use of quartz resulted from stone procurement strategies operating as local site-specific responses to changes in mobility and occupation.
In relation to Area II on the slope, White (2001a) concluded that artefacts represent a range of activities and may represent the most recent period of site use (ie. the Late Bondaian, or less than 1,000 years ago).
In relation to Area III, the smaller chamber, White (2001a) concluded that there were similarities with Area I and changes over time, but although most changes tended to be gradual, many variables differed considerably between spits 3 and 4 indicating substantial technological changes. The deposits in Area III also appeared to have had less post-depositional disturbance than those in Area I, and appeared to represent a more limited range of activities, focusing on stone reduction and stone tool use.
Therin (2000) conducted analysis of residues and use-wear on 45 flaked tools and four slabs with evidence of grinding. Residues were well-preserved, although no definite blood residues were identified. Therin (2000) concluded that more than 80% of the tools examined showed evidence of plant processing, with one third of the flaked tools having been hafted. The backed artefacts were hafted parallel to the chord, for which Therin (2000) inferred indicated their use as a knife rather than as a barb on a spear. The grinding slabs were used for grinding starchy food, as anvils for knapping, and/or for sharpening other tools. Haglund (2001a:36) concluded that the evidence of women's activities (eg. food processing) and men's activities (eg. sharpening/maintaining hunting, fighting or wood-working tools) is strongly indicative of the use of the site by family groups.
Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) MLA80 (ML1468) EIS:
Further surveys at UCML were undertaken by Haglund from November 1995 to December 1997 as part of the preparation of an EIS for a second longwall mine (Ulan West) and additional lease area (Haglund 1999a, 1999b). This survey encompassed MLA80 (now ML1468) and adjacent land to the east, north and west (which was subsequently excluded from the mining lease application). It included a substantial part of the current study area.
UCML was granted Development Consent (DA 113-12-98, December 1999) and a Mining Lease (ML1468, May 2000). Mining is currently occurring within the Subsidence Management Plan (SMP) approved area for Longwalls 23-26 and W1, which was approved in August 2006. Longwalls W2 and W3 also received SMP approval in February 2009. Future works within ML1468 will be undertaken under a new Part 3A approval, to which the present investigation relates. Hence, the panels within the current SMP approved areas and previously mined areas do not form part of the present study area, other than the margins of panels 26 and W3 where additional subsidence impacts may occur from the mining of new longwall panels to the north (panels 27 and W4) or where ongoing or additional surface impacts are proposed.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 45 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Haglund (1999a) noted that the investigation was undertaken at an early stage of mine planning to assist with that process, and that the study was preliminary in nature and a precursor to future more detailed investigations (such as those that have subsequently been undertaken for specific longwall panels as part of the Subsidence Management Plan process, for example Kuskie and Webster 2001, Kuskie and Clarke 2005b, 2007).
Haglund’s survey focused upon areas liable to be disturbed by the potential effects of longwall mining (such as cracking or cliff collapse) and areas of high archaeological potential (Haglund 1999a, 1999b). The overall coverage of ML1468 was not recorded, but appears to comprise a relatively small sample. Very small portions of the present Ulan West study area were subject to "intensive" survey (75-100% inspection), and relatively small areas were subject to "systematic" survey (25-50% inspection) (refer to Figure 3.3).
A number of landform units were identified within the area surveyed, including gullies, valleys, plateaux, ridge crests, hills, steep and gentle simple slopes, cliff faces and scarps (Haglund 1999a, 1999b). The survey focused on cliff lines and scarps due to the higher risk that the effects of longwall mining may result in impacts to sites found within these contexts, and was opportunistic in nature.
Haglund (1999a) divided the survey area into seven "survey units" (Figure 3.4):
1) Walkerville Unit (WV); 2) Cockabutta Creek Unit (CC); 3) Brokenback Unit (BB); 4) Mona Creek Unit (MC); 5) Curra Creek Unit (referred to as both CK and CU); 6) Bobadeen Unit (BO); and 7) Durridgere Unit (DU).
Haglund (1999b) later added seven additional units further to the south (Figure 3.4):
8) Ulan Creek (UC); 9) Ulan Village (UV); 10) Goulburn West (GW); 11) Goulburn North (GN); 12) Goulburn South (GS); 13) Sportsmans Hollow (SH); and 14) Spring Gully (SG).
The divisions between the seven units were made using arbitrary high points of ridge and spur crests and as a result, the seven units do not comprise distinct and/or unique landform elements but are claimed to be generally similar in landform content. In some, but not all cases, the units coincide roughly with catchment areas, although the scale of mapping used probably limited more accurate division. Sites within each unit were named after the initials of the unit and a consecutive number. Hence, this system of classification is of limited benefit to the present study and is further complicated by the mislabelling of the Curra Creek Unit (effectively the Bobadeen Creek catchment) and Bobadeen Unit (effectively part of the Ulan Creek catchment), as two examples. The true creek catchment areas are also depicted on Figure 3.4 for comparison.
Rather than complicate an already problematic system of site labelling, Haglund's site nomenclature based on her "survey units" has been continued, but the primary reference herein to all sites at Ulan is per the Ulan ID Number.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 46 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A total of 59 shelters with archaeological deposits were found and at least seven shelters with rock art were also recorded during the survey (Haglund 1999a, 1999b). Five rock shelters were associated with grinding grooves, both portable and permanent (Haglund 1999a, 1999b). Sixteen artefact scatters were located on crests, simple slopes and valley floors, and a grinding groove site was recorded on a flat with exposed sandstone, leading Haglund to comment that “the general landscape contained evidence of past Aboriginal presence” (1999a:37). Due to the amount of Aboriginal heritage evidence in the survey area, Haglund (1999a) concluded that the activity represented was that of intense occupation over a long period of time.
Mills (1997 and 1999) conducted a study into the causes, process and probable long and short term effects of longwall mining subsidence in the area of MLA80 (now ML1468). The information presented by Mills (1997) was used by Haglund (1999a) to assess the potential effects of subsidence on areas of archaeological sensitivity and potential. The potential effects on artefact scatters was considered to be minimal, with the only possible impacts to these sites resulting from cracking underneath the site or changes to drainage or erosion patterns (Haglund 1999a). Rock shelter sites were considered to be at a higher risk of impacts from subsidence (Haglund 1999a).
Mills (1997) noted that at Ulan, large and continuous cliffs located across longwall panels are most susceptible to rock falls, but that rock falls are rare outside the area of longwall mining. Cracking of large rock formations can occur however, outside the area that is mined, adjacent to the longwall panels (Mills 1997). At Ulan, experience to date indicated that about 25% of sandstone rock formations (greater than three metres in height) are affected by rock falls when they are undermined, while 50-70% of formations are affected by cracking and minor slabbing (Mills 1999). Haglund (1999a) noted that the only way to provide effective protection to sites located within sandstone rock formations is to align the longwall panels in such a manner that they avoid formations known to contain Aboriginal heritage evidence, or to stop mining before they reach an area of archaeological sensitivity.
Based on this information, Haglund (1999a) recommended that the proposed layout of the longwalls and associated features within MLA80 (now ML1468) be planned and constructed to avoid areas of archaeological sensitivity. The mine plan was subsequently modified so that 18 of the 34 shelter sites to be directly impacted by mining were protected, while 12 sites were in areas considered to be of low (<10%) risk of damage (Haglund 1999b).
It is noted however, that the mine plan was modified in relation to the grid references provided by Haglund (1999a) for the identified heritage sites. Further investigation by South East Archaeology, including reconnaissance inspections in March and November 2007, has established that the grid references previously recorded by Haglund (1999a, 1999b) for a number of these sites (particularly within the conservation areas) are in error by up to 750 metres. Consequently, the "modified mine plan" (Haglund 1999b - Figure 7) and conservation area boundaries (refer below) have required revision with respect to the corrected grid references of these heritage sites.
As outlined in Condition 3.3(f) of the ML1468 Development Approval, three conservation areas were established at Ulan to protect a sample of Aboriginal rock shelter sites, comprising the:
Mona Creek Conservation Area, encompassing sites MC23 to MC30 (ID# 180-187). These sites are all rock shelters with artefacts;
Brokenback Conservation Area, encompassing sites BB4 to BB11 (ID# 191-198). These sites are rock shelters with artefacts, art and/or grinding grooves; and
Cockabutta Creek Conservation Area, encompassing sites CC18 to CC20 (ID# 160-162). These sites are rock shelters with artefacts and/or art.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 47 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The location and extent of these conservation areas is provided on Figure 3.5. The ML1468 Development Approval required that the conservation area boundaries be a minimum distance of 150 metres from each specified site and no secondary workings occur beneath each conservation area. Condition 3.3(c) also required that Schedule 3, identifying the site locations and conservation area boundaries, be updated in consultation with DECC prior to the commencement of mining operations. Condition 3.3(f) required that a Conservation Management Plan be prepared for these three conservation areas in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.
South East Archaeology's investigation of the BO5 and BO13 grinding groove sites (Kuskie 2000a):
Kuskie (2000a) investigated the grinding groove site Bobadeen 5 (BO5, ID# 202), within Longwall Panels 25 and 26. The site had previously been recorded by Haglund (1999a) and ML1468 Development Approval (DA 113-12-98) Condition 3.3 (c) (v) stated that the applicant shall:
Not subside any land beneath site BO5 and its immediate area as marked on Schedule 3, or its latest version, unless:
x the risk of additional damage to subsidence is estimated to be 10% or less; x a survey undertaken in comparable landscape contexts to that for BO5 immediately beyond the subsidence area, establishes comparable grinding grooves are located in unaffected or protected area/s adjacent to the mine; or x statements from the Aboriginal community are obtained which agree to subsidence of the site.
Kuskie (2000a) assessed another grinding groove site, Bobadeen 13 (ID# 323), to determine whether conservation of it would satisfy the second DA condition above.
On the basis of physical inspection of the two sites, review of previous archaeological studies in the locality and comparison of the sites on a range of environmental and cultural criteria, Kuskie (2000a) concluded that:
Site BO13 is located close to the Mining Lease boundary, within an area that will not be affected by the mining proposal;
Site BO13 is located in a comparable landscape context to site BO5;
Site BO13 contains comparable grooves and cultural evidence to site BO5; and therefore,
Site BO13 satisfies ML1468 Development Approval Condition 3.3 (c) (v) and
Site BO13 represents a suitable conservation alternative to site BO5.
Haglund's (1999c, 1999d) surveys of the open cut extension and other infrastructure:
Haglund (1999c, 1999d) conducted further heritage investigations at UCML, including within portions of the current study area west of the open cut. The areas were investigated in relation to a previous proposal to consolidate various development consents at UCML and included:
A new ventilation site, access road and services for the northern longwall panels;
An irrigation area northeast of the Underground Mine office;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 48 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Four additional highwall trenches and associated water management measures west of the open cut mine; and
Earthworks at the aircraft landing strip south of Ulan Road.
Survey of the ventilation site, access road and services corridor resulted in the location of three artefact scatters (ID# 155-157, SG28-30 and later re-listed as ID# 309-311, UPL1-3) along the powerline corridor and an isolated artefact (ID# 206, BO-IF1) and artefact scatter (ID# 207, BO10) along the access road corridor. No evidence was identified in the small area inspected at the landing strip south of Ulan Road.
The 70 hectare irrigation area is bound to the east by the Goulburn River, south by Ulan Creek, north by sandstone rock formations and west by the basal slopes of the sandstone ridges. It is situated northeast of the Underground Mine office, about 3-4 kilometres east of the southeastern portion of the current Ulan West study area. At the time of Haglund's (1999d) survey, the area was proposed to be irrigated with waste water derived from the mining operations and revegetated. Haglund (1999d:32) noted that the area had been cleared and subject to repeated ploughing and cultivation, resulting in reasonable conditions of surface visibility at the time of her survey. Two archaeologists examined the 70 hectare area over a period of two days, concentrating on inspection of visible exposures. Landform elements inspected included basal slopes of the adjacent ridges, watercourses and river and creek flats. Haglund (1999d:32) noted that the environmental context of this area was conducive to Aboriginal occupation and it may have been a preferred location for activity. A broad artefact scatter site (ID# 119, Ulan Creek 3) of varying density was identified. Over 130 artefacts, predominantly of quartz, were recorded.
Haglund (1999d:32-33) noted that the distribution pattern may have largely been a function of conditions of surface visibility and concluded that the extensive site probably represents a series of small artefact concentrations indicating activity areas, within a broader sparse 'background scatter'. Haglund (1999d:33) also noted a previous landowner (Edgar Loughrie) often observed artefacts in this locality when ploughing. Haglund (1999d:58-59) noted that considerable impacts had occurred in this area, not only from ploughing, but also from dams, yards, buildings, water pipes, power lines and access tracks. However, the potential for in situ heritage evidence was observed and Haglund (1999d:59) identified such deposits as being of research potential, particularly if compared with nearby evidence in different environmental contexts.
Haglund (1999d:59) concluded that sub-surface test excavations were required to establish whether in situ deposits exist and to fully assess the scientific significance of the site. Haglund (1999d:59) also noted the possible presence of Pleistocene creek terrace deposits in this locality, which have potentially been covered by colluvial slopewash from the adjacent ridge slopes. This potential in the Ulan locality was first identified by then NPWS archaeologist Dr Dan Witter. A geomorphological and archaeological reassessment of this area was undertaken by South East Archaeology in 2005 and the probable presence of Pleistocene age deposits confirmed (refer below).
The four additional highwall trenches investigated by Haglund (1999c, 1999d) are located within the existing open cut mine footprint and extend into parts of the current study area. Artefact scatters were located, and additional information presented on sites previously recorded by Haglund (1980, 1981a). Haglund (1999d) recommended further survey and test excavation with several areas.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 49 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 South East Archaeology's investigations of the irrigation area for a proposed dam:
As part of further development approval processes, South East Archaeology undertook investigations of areas west of the open cut (Kuskie and Clarke 2005a, refer below), along with the trial irrigation area north of Rowans Dam and northeast of the Underground Mine office.
The trial irrigation area had earlier been investigated by Haglund (1999d, refer above). South East Archaeology investigated an area of about 18 hectares in this location for a proposed mine- water dam. The proposal was subsequently discarded, and the results were excluded from the final report of Kuskie and Clarke (2005a).
The proposed dam area was inspected on 30 and 31 March 2005 by Peter Kuskie and geoarchaeologist Anthony Barham of South East Archaeology, assisted by representatives of the Aboriginal stakeholders. One Aboriginal site, UC3 (ID# 119), as identified by Haglund (1999d) extends across the dam study area, including four loci of visible evidence identified during the March 2005 inspection (ID# 326-328 and 330), with another locus situated immediately adjacent to this area (ID# 329).
The primary conclusions for the additional dam study area were that:
There is a strong probability that Pleistocene age deposits occur in the study area where the slope deposits onlap the alluvial margin;
The area mapped as Quaternary alluvium across the study area is imprecise, and the colluvium is unmapped. At present, insufficient data is available to determine whether the sequences of deposits are more or less likely to date to that part of the Pleistocene which overlaps with Aboriginal occupation (ie. the last 30,000 to 50,000 years). The deposit mapping requires refinement, in terms of its sedimentology and age, in order to further assess the potential for Pleistocene age evidence of Aboriginal occupation;
Although evidence for this region is very limited, Pleistocene occupation is likely to have been of a very low intensity in open sites. Therefore, in consideration of these factors, the probability of detecting Pleistocene age evidence of Aboriginal occupation is inferred to be very low in these open site contexts and alluvial depositional settings;
Much of the alluvial sediment at Ulan, both within and adjacent to the study area and mapped as comparable Quaternary alluvium, has already been extensively impacted. The dam study area appears to represent one of the few remaining areas where colluvial soil terrain onlaps largely unaltered alluvial terraces, which are representative remnants of the formerly larger valley floodplain area; and
If Pleistocene age archaeological evidence is present it would be of regional and potentially national significance. At present, insufficient data is available to determine whether the sequences of deposits are more or less likely to date to that part of the Pleistocene which overlaps with Aboriginal occupation (ie. the last 30,000 to 50,000 years).
Further assessment was recommended, including sub-surface geoarchaeological testing on transects downslope across the colluvial/alluvial terrace boundary.
South East Archaeology's investigations of the Open Cut Extension (Kuskie 2004, Kuskie and Clarke 2005a, in prep.):
Further investigations of the area west of the open cut were conducted by South East Archaeology (Kuskie 2004, Kuskie and Clarke 2005a, in prep.).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 50 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Initially South East Archaeology investigated a "Western Open Cut Extension Area" measuring up to 150 hectares west of the existing open cut mine, along with an evaporation pond and chemical storage shed study area of less than two hectares east of Ulan Road (Kuskie 2004). The "Western Open Cut Extension Area" covers much of the present open cut study area. It was investigated using a similar methodology to the present assessment, in accordance with relevant DECC guidelines. The survey was undertaken between 26-30 August 2002 and 19-20 November 2003 by Peter Kuskie of South East Archaeology, accompanied by representatives of the Aboriginal stakeholders.
The western open cut extension area was inspected within 54 survey areas. The total survey coverage (ground physically inspected for heritage evidence) equated to approximately 16.2 hectares. The total effective survey coverage of this area (visible ground surface physically inspected with potential to host evidence) equated to about 1.2% of the study area (Kuskie 2004).
One Aboriginal heritage site, a small artefact scatter, was identified within the evaporation pond study area (ID# 325). A total of 14 Aboriginal heritage sites, comprising 22 spatially separate loci of evidence, were identified within the western open cut extension area during the survey (Kuskie 2004). Seven Aboriginal sites had previously been recorded within this area by Haglund (1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1992), several of which were relocated. However, a number of factors made it difficult to ascertain the nature, location and extent of the previously recorded evidence and therefore the extent to which it was relocated during the subsequent investigation. These factors included the inadequate mapping of evidence or recording of insufficient information during previous surveys, varying site definitions and changing conditions of surface visibility between the various surveys.
A total of 68 lithic items were recorded during the survey, including 66 identifiable stone artefacts and two lithic fragments. The assemblage was dominated by tuff (56% of the combined assemblage) and to a lesser extent quartz (32%), with minor frequencies of chert, quartzite, petrified wood and acid volcanic stone. Evidence was identified for the procurement and initial reduction of tuff at several of the sites (ie. lithic quarry sites). The lithic assemblage was dominated (94%) by items representing non-specific stone knapping, with the only items indicating more specific activities being a single retouched flake, a utilised flake and a utilised microblade portion (Kuskie 2004).
Details of these sites and lithic items are presented here in Appendices B2, B3, B6, B12 and B14. The report by South East Archaeology (Kuskie 2004) was not finalised, due to changes to the proposal which were then reported on separately (refer below).
South East Archaeology undertook further investigations west of the open cut, in relation to proposed disturbance within "strip 25" and a diversionary dam immediately to the south (reported by Kuskie and Clarke 2005a). This area of about 25 hectares was mostly located within the northern section of the previously surveyed "Western Open Cut Extension Area". Additional field inspection was undertaken on 30-31 March 2005 by Peter Kuskie and Anthony Barham of South East Archaeology, accompanied by representatives of the Aboriginal stakeholders, primarily to clarify the location of the previously recorded evidence in relation to the new project boundaries.
In a related assessment, South East Archaeology inspected a proposed walkway immediately to the west of the existing open cut mine. The survey resulted in the identification of one isolated artefact within the walkway area (ID# 324, "Walkway 1"). Two previously recorded sites (Haglund 1980) located within the walkway area (#36-3-37 and ID# 96, "F2") could not be relocated, despite intensive survey in the vicinity of each site location. In consultation with the Aboriginal community, a Section 90 Consent was obtained for these sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 51 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Kuskie and Clarke (2005a) concluded that the evidence within the overall open cut extension area was consistent with low density background discard, that may relate to use of the area by small parties of hunters and/or gatherers for food procurement or transitory movement. The presence of grinding grooves in the main watercourse (an ephemeral tributary of Ulan Creek) was indicative of another activity, the shaping and/or maintenance of ground-edge hatchets. The low number of grooves is consistent with occasional and incidental use during the course of the normal daily round, rather than a special purpose visit. The procurement, use and distribution of the tuff stone material was noted as being a research issue of interest.
More recently, Kuskie and Clarke (in prep.) investigated a revised 155 hectare area for proposed extensions to the western open cut, encompassing portions of the present open cut study area and the southern corner of the Ulan West underground study area. A draft report was prepared by South East Archaeology in 2006 (Kuskie and Clarke in prep.), but was not finalised due to a temporary discontinuation of the project.
The area was investigated using a similar methodology to the present assessment, in accordance with relevant DECC guidelines. The survey was undertaken between 16-18 August 2006 and 7- 8 September 2006 by Peter Kuskie, Edward Clarke and Chris Carter of South East Archaeology, accompanied by representatives of the Aboriginal stakeholders.
The ongoing investigation resulted in the identification of 18 Aboriginal heritage sites with 25 spatially separate loci, comprising:
14 artefact scatter sites with 21 spatially separate loci (of which one, ‘Ulan Creek 11 - NCF5-13/WSF1-5’ - ID# 308, had previously been recorded by Haglund 1999c);
Two rock shelters with artefacts (of which ‘S16’, ID# 80, had previously been recorded by Haglund 1981a); and
Two rock shelters with art (hand stencils).
An additional five previously recorded site loci (reported in Haglund 1980 and 1999c) also occur within the open cut extension area but could not be relocated, despite intensive survey in the vicinity of each site location (Kuskie and Clarke in prep.). Six rock shelters with PADs were also noted by Kuskie and Clarke (in prep.). Details of the relevant sites and lithic items are presented here in Appendices B2-5, B12 and B13.
South East Archaeology's basalt quarry survey (Kuskie 2002):
Kuskie (2002) undertook an archaeological assessment of a 23 hectare section of ML1468, in which a basalt quarrying operation was proposed. This area is located in panel W2, marginally south of the No.3 Underground portion of the present study area. The survey resulted in the identification of one Aboriginal site, an isolated artefact (BQ3, ID# 270), which lay outside of the construction area and would not be directly affected by the proposal. The artefact was a large quartzite core, with probable use-wear, that potentially functioned as a heavy-duty hand- held or hafted chopping implement.
South East Archaeology's consolidated consent report (Kuskie and Clarke 2003):
In 2003, UCML pursued another proposal that was subsequently discontinued, to consolidate existing development consents. It was proposed to consolidate 22 approvals (excluding ML1468) into a single approval.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 52 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 As a component of this process, South East Archaeology prepared a two volume report, with Volume 2 remaining a draft (Kuskie 2004 - refer above) focused on the assessment of new works and Volume 1 (Kuskie and Clarke 2003) involving a comprehensive review of all of the previous heritage assessments at Ulan and associated documentation, along with preparation of a revised site database.
Detailed requirements were provided by DECC (then NPWS) in relation to the review. The project involved:
Review and summary of previous Aboriginal heritage studies at Ulan;
Review and assessment of the recommendations presented by these studies, along with recommendations made by DECC and the Aboriginal stakeholders;
Review of Consents and Permits issued by DECC and compliance with their conditions;
Evaluation of the status of conservation measures and review of subsidence impact studies;
Evaluation of the effectiveness of heritage management plans and assessment of the potential cumulative impact of works undertaken at UCML; and
Presentation of recommendations for the ongoing management of Aboriginal heritage at UCML.
Around 120 documents specifically pertaining to Aboriginal heritage issues at UCML were examined and reviewed as a component of this assessment. Primarily these documents comprise reports, memos, correspondence and minutes of meetings.
The review identified that over a 23 year period, a substantial quantity of work had been conducted at UCML in relation to the assessment of Aboriginal heritage and the mitigation of impacts of open-cut and underground coal mining and associated activities (as documented here). These investigations had resulted in the identification of approximately 300 Aboriginal sites at Ulan by this time.
The review identified that for the most part and where practicable, the recommendations made by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Aboriginal community groups regarding Aboriginal heritage management at Ulan Coal Mine had been addressed by UCML or compromises acceptable to all parties had been reached.
The review identified that at least 11 Section 90 Consents had been issued by DECC to UCML. In addition to meeting the standard requirements for these Consents, all special requirements attached to the Consents appeared to have been or were in the process of being addressed.
One of the key goals of cultural heritage management is to ensure that a representative sample of evidence is conserved and the review identified that important measures had been taken in this regard at Ulan. Conservation zones had been established to protect rock shelters with art and/or deposit, ochre quarry and grinding groove sites. Although a greater proportion of open sites (eg. artefact scatters) that exist within the lower valley floor terrain have been impacted, a number of similar areas exist in the northern portion of the mine that are unlikely to be affected by mining. In addition to the establishment of specific conservation zones, there have been a number of protective measures employed to reduce the risk of damage to Aboriginal heritage sites. These measures have included provision of barricades and exclusion of impacts from areas, realignment and reduction in size of longwall panels, monitoring of sites and subsidence impacts, protective covering over an art site, and relocation of other facilities to avoid impacts (Kuskie and Clarke 2003).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 53 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The review identified that UCML has commissioned studies on a variety of aspects of subsidence in relation to Aboriginal heritage, including regular subsidence predictive assessments and evaluations in advance of proposed works, development of a Subsidence Management Plan for ML1468 and photographic recording of sites and areas which were predicted to be affected by subsidence. In many cases, subsidence evaluations/predictions appear to have been either accurate or pessimistic in terms of their predicted impact on Aboriginal heritage sites. Hence, while some sites may have been predicted to have a relatively high percentage risk of significant damage from cracking or rock-falls, these sites may have been subject to minimal impacts after being undermined. Consequently, a number of sites for which Section 90 Consents had been issued on the basis of potential risk of impact have remained largely or wholly intact. A number of salient points relating to subsidence impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites have arisen from the studies and will be beneficial in the planning of future underground mining operations (Kuskie and Clarke 2003).
The review identified that UCML has implemented three successive Aboriginal Heritage Management Plans. These plans have been instrumental in establishing appropriate forums for the discussion and management of Aboriginal heritage at Ulan.
The key recommendations to arise from the review (Kuskie and Clarke 2003) included:
Regular consultation between UCML, DECC and the Aboriginal community groups had been effective in relation to Aboriginal heritage management at Ulan Coal Mine and should continue to be pursued;
The position of the Aboriginal Heritage Sites Officer should be filled as soon as a resolution between UCML and the Aboriginal community groups can be reached, and the issue of a permanent keeping place for Aboriginal evidence salvaged from the Ulan area resolved;
The process of monitoring and reporting of subsidence effects on heritage sites should continue, particularly within the more sensitive elevated sandstone/escarpment areas which host rock shelters and grinding groove sites;
Where surface development works are to be conducted within the vicinity of known Aboriginal heritage sites, the location of Aboriginal heritage evidence should be adequately fenced, marked on appropriate plans and relevant staff informed of its existence and their legal responsibilities; and
DECC should ensure that the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System is updated to fully encompass the extent of previously recorded evidence at Ulan Coal Mine.
South East Archaeology's survey of longwall panels 18-22 (Kuskie and Webster 2001):
Kuskie and Webster (2001) undertook a comprehensive survey of longwall panels 18-22 in ML1468, south of the current No.3 Underground study area, for an SMP application in advance of underground mining. The 498 hectare area was surveyed over 12 days in June and July 2001, with the assistance of representatives of the Aboriginal organisations. The field survey involved direct coverage of 57.8 hectares (12% of the 498 hectare study area), resulting in an effective survey sample (accounting for archaeological visibility) of about 4.7 hectares (1% of the study area).
The longwall panels 18-22 study area was subdivided into 205 survey areas, all of which were sampled. All different environmental contexts were sampled, including the range of five landform elements and four classes of slope present. Surface visibility was low on average across the surveyed terrain, and very low in the remainder of the property, which was not subject to direct inspection. Vegetation was noted as being the primary detection-limiting factor (Kuskie and Webster 2001).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 54 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The survey resulted in the identification of 58 Aboriginal heritage sites, comprising 56 artefact scatters, one rock shelter with archaeological deposit and one ochre quarry. Three previously reported sites were included in this total (ID# 152, 207 and 215). Another three previously recorded sites (Haglund 1999a) (ID# 199-201) could not be relocated by Kuskie and Webster (2001), despite intensive survey in the vicinity of each site location. In addition, six PADs were also identified. Artefacts were identified at a very low mean density of 0.0025 artefacts per square metre of effective survey coverage (accounting for visibility), across the entire study area sample (Kuskie and Webster 2001).
A total of 117 stone artefacts were identified and recorded in detail. The lithic item assemblage was dominated by quartz (79%), with six other stone materials occurring in much lower frequencies. Sandstone outcrops, alluvial and colluvial gravels, quartz, quartzite, volcanics and ochre were noted within the study area (Kuskie and Webster 2001). A total of 14 lithic item types were recorded, comprising 13 categories of artefacts along with lithic fragments (synonymous with "flaked pieces"). The lithic item assemblage was dominated by flakes and portions of flakes (51% of combined artefact total) and cores (26%). This evidence represents the dominance of non-specific stone flaking activities within the study area. Evidence of microblade manufacturing was low, comprising 6% of the total assemblage. A very low frequency of utilised and/or retouched flaked artefacts was present (2% of the combined assemblage). Very low frequencies of tools indicative of other activities were identified. The flaked artefacts tend to be small in size (often less than 30 millimetres in maximum dimension) (Kuskie and Webster 2001).
This evidence indicates that Aboriginal utilisation of the panels 18-22 study area was of a very low intensity and was probably infrequent and involved low numbers of people. Kuskie and Webster (2001) concluded that occupation was more likely to have been focused in surrounding areas where major watercourses and/or rock shelters suitable for habitation are located.
The scientific significance of evidence within the panels 18-22 area was assessed as ranging from low to high within a local context and a regional context. Fifty-five of the artefact scatter sites were assessed by Kuskie and Webster (2001) as being of low scientific significance in a local context. A subsidence impact assessment report prepared to determine the potential effects of underground mining on the surface sites concluded that none of the sites had more than a 10% chance of being affected by subsidence.
South East Archaeology's survey of longwall panels 23-26 and W1 (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b):
Kuskie and Clarke (2005b) undertook a comprehensive survey of longwall panels 23-26 and W1 for an SMP application in advance of underground mining. This assessment formed the first stage of an ongoing, staged heritage assessment of panels W1-W8 and 23-30, that commenced in February 2005 using a similar methodology to the present assessment, in accordance with relevant DECC guidelines. Effectively, assessment was competed of panels 23-26 and W1-W3 prior to the current Continued Operations project superceding this process.
Panels 23-26 and W1-W3 overlap to some extent with the present study area, around the southern portion of the No.3 Underground Mine and the eastern portion of part of the Ulan West Underground Mine, as shown on Figure 3.6. The area investigated for panel 26 extends on average about 70 metres into panel 27 of the present study area, due to the need to investigate the potential zone of subsidence influence. Conversely, the present study area overlaps for on average about 250 metres into the area investigated by Kuskie and Clarke (2005b) for panel 26 (Figure 3.6). The area investigated for panels W1 and W2 also overlaps with part of the eastern portion of the proposed Ulan West Underground Mine. Potential surface impact areas associated with the present project are also situated within the recently investigated panels (Figure 3.6).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 55 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The 840 hectare area of longwall panels 23-26 and W1 was surveyed by two archaeologists from South East Archaeology over ten days in April and May 2005, with the assistance of representatives of the Aboriginal organisations. The field survey involved direct coverage of 85.8 hectares (approximately 10% of the 840 hectare study area), resulting in an effective survey sample (accounting for archaeological visibility) of about 7.3 hectares (0.9% of the study area) (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b).
The longwall panels 23-26 and W1 area was subdivided into 51 survey areas, all of which were sampled (Figure 3.6). All different environmental contexts were sampled. Surface visibility was low on average across the surveyed terrain, and very low in the remainder of the property, which was not subject to direct inspection. Vegetation was noted as being the primary detection-limiting factor (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b).
The survey resulted in the identification of 65 Aboriginal heritage sites, comprising:
52 artefact scatter sites;
Seven rock shelters with artefacts (including ID# 205 which was previously recorded by Haglund 1999b);
Three grinding groove and artefact scatter sites (all part of the BO5 - ID# 202 complex of sites previously reported by Haglund 1999a);
Two grinding groove sites without associated artefacts (one of which was part of the previously recorded BO5 - ID# 202 complex of sites); and
One scarred tree.
An additional ten previously recorded sites (reported in Haglund 1999a and Kuskie and Webster 2001) occur within the panels 23-26 and W1 area but could not be relocated, despite intensive survey in the vicinity of each site location. These comprised eight isolated artefacts and two small artefact scatters. Five PAD locations, in seven rock shelters (several adjacent to each other were recorded as a single location), were also reported (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b).
Details of these sites and lithic items are presented here in Volume B where relevant to the present assessment.
Artefacts were identified at a very low mean density of 0.0057 artefacts per square metre of effective survey coverage (accounting for visibility), across the entire study area sample (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b). A total of 421 stone artefacts were identified and recorded in detail.
The lithic item assemblage was dominated by quartz (50%), with nine other stone materials occurring in lower frequencies. Sandstone outcrops, alluvial and colluvial gravels, quartz, quartzite, volcanics and ochre were all observed within the study area. Nineteen lithic item types were recorded, with the assemblage dominated by flakes and flake portions (73% of the combined artefact total), cores (10%) and retouched flakes (7%). This evidence represents the dominance of non-specific stone flaking activities within the study area. Microblade production represented 2.1% of the discarded items, while loss or intentional discard of microliths accounted for 0.7% of the lithic assemblage. Also present were very small proportions of non- microlith tools (2.6%) and items representing bipolar flaking (1.2%) (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 56 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 This evidence indicated that Aboriginal utilisation of the longwall panels 23-26 and W1 area was generally of a low intensity and was probably infrequent and involved low numbers of people. Kuskie and Clarke (2005b) concluded that occupation of the area may largely have involved occasional and short-duration visits by small parties of hunters and/or gatherers for food procurement or transitory movement through the landscape. Kuskie and Clarke (2005b) suggested that more intensive occupation may have occurred in the surrounding locality outside of the longwall panels 23-26 and W1 area, where higher order watercourses and more substantial rock shelters are present. These contexts are more likely to have been favoured for camping and resource exploitation.
The scientific significance of evidence within the panels 23-26 and W1 area was assessed as ranging from low to high within a local context. A subsidence impact assessment report was prepared to determine the potential effects of underground mining on the surface sites (Mills 2005). Mills (2005) concluded that mining subsidence was not expected to significantly affect the context of any of the open artefact scatter sites, the scarred tree or several of the rock shelters (BO12 - ID# 205, BO35/A - ID# 344, BO35/C - ID# 346, BO36/A - ID# 347, BO34/A PAD 1 - ID# 343 and BO35/A PAD 2 - ID# 344). However, subsidence was expected to affect rock shelter sites BB14/D - ID# 334, BB14/E - ID# 335 and BB14/F - ID# 336 and grinding groove sites BO5 W1, BO5 W2, BO5 E2, BO5 E1 - ID# 348-351 and CU46/A - ID# 363, along with the rock shelter PADs MC33/A PAD 3 - ID# 399, BB14/A PAD 4 - ID# 331 and BB14/C PAD 5 - ID# 333 (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b, Mills 2005).
In summary, in relation to the potential subsidence impacts within panels 23-26 and W1, Kuskie and Clarke (2005b:88-89) recommended that:
UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent with Salvage permit from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, for the rock shelter with artefact site ID# 335 prior to undermining. Salvage will mitigate the potential impacts of subsidence upon this and other rock shelter with artefact sites. A salvage methodology and scope should be devised to balance the risks of sites ID# 334-336 being effectively sterilised by major cracking or rock fall, with the potential for scientific and cultural benefits. This may involve controlled hand excavation of a small sample of the shelter;
As a precautionary measure, UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, for the rock shelter with artefact sites ID# 334, 336, 205, 344, 346 and 347 prior to undermining;
There are no Aboriginal heritage constraints to the undermining of the rock shelters with potential archaeological deposits, artefact scatter sites or the scarred tree site within the SMP area;
In compliance with condition 3.3 (c) (v) of the ML1468 Development Approval (DA 113- 12-98), UCML should ensure that site BO13 - ID# 323 outside of the mine area is subject to ongoing conservation if the BO5 - ID# 202 grinding groove site complex is to be undermined. UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any impacts occurring to the identified grinding groove sites within the SMP area; and
In compliance with condition 3.3 (g) of the ML1468 Development Approval (DA 113-12- 98), a program of monitoring should be implemented within the SMP area involving inspection of the known heritage sites after mining has occurred, in order to identify and record the effects of subsidence. The program of monitoring should be extended to elsewhere within the panels already mined at Ulan in order to provide sufficient baseline data to assist with an assessment of the potential effects of subsidence on heritage items in future longwall panels.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 57 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In relation to the potential impacts of surface infrastructure and continuing land use within panels 23-26 and W1, Kuskie and Clarke (2005b:89) recommended that:
Several artefact scatter sites located marginally to the east of the SMP area may be subject to some impacts from construction of the vehicle access, power line and/or pumping stations. If impacts cannot be avoided to these or other artefact scatter sites in relation to any proposed surface infrastructure works, UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any impacts occurring. The proponent should give full consideration to any request by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders for their representatives to be engaged to salvage by surface collection any Aboriginal objects from the Consent area;
Artefact scatter sites identified within the SMP area may be subject to impacts from continuation of existing land-use practices, including the use of land by UCML or lessees for pastoral or agricultural purposes. If impacts cannot be avoided to these sites, UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any impacts occurring. The proponent should give full consideration to any request by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders for their representatives to be engaged to salvage by surface collection any Aboriginal objects from the Consent area;
Notwithstanding the above recommendation, sites within panels 18-22 were issued with a Section 90 Consent (#1648) by DECC on 15 August 2003 and should that Consent be renewed upon expiry, additional Consent need not be sought for those sites; and
In relation to the scarred tree, grinding groove and rock shelter sites and the continuation of existing land use practices, in order to minimise any potential impacts, information about the nature and location of these sites should be provided to relevant UCML staff, contractors and lessees, and fencing and signage should be established around these sites to prevent machinery, vehicles and livestock from entering.
South East Archaeology's survey of longwall panels W2 and W3 (Kuskie and Clarke 2007):
Kuskie and Clarke (2007) undertook a comprehensive survey of longwall panels W2 and W3 for another SMP application in advance of underground mining. This assessment formed the second stage of the ongoing assessment of longwall panels W1-W8 and 23-30 (refer above).
Panels W2-W3 overlap to some extent with the present study area, around the southern portion of the No.3 Underground Mine and the eastern portion of part of the Ulan West Underground Mine, as shown on Figure 3.6. The area investigated for panel W3 extends on average about 130 metres into panel W4 of the present study area, due to the need to investigate the potential zone of subsidence influence. Conversely, the present study area overlaps for on average about 300 metres into the area investigated by Kuskie and Clarke (2007) for panel W3 (Figure 3.6). The area investigated for panels W2 (and W1) also overlaps with part of the eastern portion of the proposed Ulan West Underground Mine. Potential surface impact areas associated with the present project are also situated within the recently investigated panels (Figure 3.6).
Although the total SMP Area (W2-W3) measures approximately 478 hectares, the southern 127 hectares encompassed much of panel W1, which had previously been assessed by Kuskie and Clarke (2005b). This area was not reinvestigated, but the results were taken into consideration in the assessment of potential subsidence impacts in panels W2-W3.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 58 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The 351 hectares of the SMP Area (W2-W3) that had not been previously investigated for W1 was surveyed by two archaeologists from South East Archaeology over eight days in January 2007, with the assistance of representatives of the Aboriginal organisations. The W2-W3 area was subdivided into 42 survey areas, all of which were sampled (refer to Figure 3.6). The field survey involved direct coverage of 75.8 hectares (21% of the 351 hectare study area), resulting in an effective survey sample (accounting for archaeological visibility) of about 2.9 hectares (0.8% of the study area) (Kuskie and Clarke 2007).
In total, 28 Aboriginal heritage sites are known to occur within the W2-W3 SMP area, comprising 22 artefact scatters (incorporating 'isolated artefacts'), two rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts, two rock shelters with grinding grooves, and two rock shelters with artefacts. In addition, 13 rock shelters with 'Potential Archaeological Deposits' (PADs) were recorded. These totals include several previously recorded sites and exclude several sites located adjacent to the SMP area (Kuskie and Clarke 2007). Details of these sites and lithic items are presented here in Volume B where relevant to the present assessment.
A total of 80 stone artefacts were identified and recorded in detail during Kuskie and Clarke's (2007) investigation. Artefacts occurred at a very low mean density of 0.0022 artefacts per square metre of effective survey coverage (accounting for visibility), across the sampled area. This evidence indicates that Aboriginal utilisation of the study area was of a very low intensity. It was probably infrequent and involved low numbers of people. Occupation is more likely to have been focused in surrounding areas where major watercourses and/or rock shelters suitable for habitation are located (Kuskie and Clarke 2007).
The scientific significance of evidence within the W2-W3 area was assessed. The artefact scatter evidence was assessed as being of low scientific significance within both local and regional contexts. Of the six rock shelter sites, three were assessed as being of low to moderate significance within a local context, one (ID# 336) as being of moderate significance within a local context, one (ID# 163 - MC1) as being of moderate to high significance within a local context, and one (ID# 164 - MC2) as being of high significance within a local context and low to potentially moderate scientific significance within a regional context (Kuskie and Clarke 2007).
A subsidence impact assessment report was prepared to determine the potential effects of underground mining on the surface sites (Mills 2007). Mills (2007) concluded that mining subsidence was not expected to significantly affect the context of any of the open artefact scatter sites, or several of the rock shelters. However, impacts were expected to occur or could not be totally discounted to several sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 59 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In summary, in relation to the potential subsidence impacts within panels W2 and W3, Kuskie and Clarke (2007:98-99) recommended that:
In order to address Condition 3.3(c)(iv) of the ML1468 Development Consent (DA 113-12- 98), a program of sub-surface test excavations must initially be undertaken, prior to any further consideration of other management strategies (eg. conservation, mitigated impact or unmitigated impact) in advance of undermining. This will require a Section 87 Permit from DECC, obtained in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, for at least the rock shelter sites/PADs ID# 163-166, 470, 472-474 and 476. Further surface inspection is initially required in the portion of this area that lies within panel W4, which is yet to be subject to detailed survey6. The specific aims and methodology of the test excavations should be finalised in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC. Subsequent to completion of the test excavations, documentation of those results in compliance with DECC requirements, and input from the Aboriginal stakeholders on the significance of the sites, management of these Aboriginal sites and PADs will be guided by Condition 3.3(c)(iv) of the ML1468 Development Consent;
As a precautionary measure, UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, for the rock shelter with grinding grooves site ID# 462 prior to undermining;
Subject to an application for Section 90 Consent proceeding for sites ID# 336 and 347, prior to undermining of longwall panel W1, further consideration of management options for these sites is not warranted. However, undermining of these sites should not occur until Section 90 Consent has been obtained;
There are no Aboriginal heritage constraints to the undermining of the rock shelters with PADs ID# 331, 399, 463-466 and 479-481 or the artefact scatter sites within the SMP area; and
Procedures outlined in the UCML Proposed Works Application/Review form should be implemented where post-mining subsidence repair works to surface infrastructure are required, including ascertaining whether any identified Aboriginal heritage evidence will be impacted, and if so, either modifying the works to avoid impacts or obtaining a Section 90 Consent or Section 90 Consent with Salvage Permit from DECC in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any impacts occurring;
In relation to the potential impacts of surface infrastructure and continuing land use within panels W2 and W3, Kuskie and Clarke (2007:99-100) recommended that:
If impacts cannot be avoided to any of the 22 artefact scatter sites located within the SMP Area in relation to the continuation of existing land use practices, UCML should obtain a Section 90 Consent from DECC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any impacts occurring to the identified evidence. The proponent should give full consideration to any request by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders for their representatives to be engaged to salvage by surface collection any Aboriginal objects from the Consent area;
6 Survey coverage of this area has been completed during the present assessment. An additional 15 rock shelter sites or PADs have been identified that may be included in the s87 investigation (ID# 641-647, 651-654 and 679-682).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 60 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Alternatively, if impacts can be avoided to any of the artefact scatter sites located within the SMP Area, Section 90 Consent will not be required for those sites. Avoidance of impacts should be accompanied by the provision of appropriate information to relevant UCML staff, contractors and lessees, along with adequate identification of the artefact scatter sites on the ground (eg. by fencing, stakes and/or signage);
Procedures outlined in the UCML Proposed Works Application/Review form should continue to be implemented for any proposed surface works, including ascertaining whether any identified Aboriginal heritage sites will be impacted, and if so, obtaining a Section 90 Consent from DECC in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any impacts occurring; and
In relation to the six rock shelter sites located within the SMP Area and the continuation of existing land use practices, in order to minimise any potential impacts, information about the nature and location of these sites and the key statutory obligations should be provided to relevant UCML staff, contractors and lessees.
3.2.2 Ulan Region
In the broader Ulan region, there have been several relevant archaeological investigations, both for academic research and commercial contracting purposes (refer to Figure 3.7 for locations).
Moore's (1970) excavation of the Bobadeen rock shelter:
Initial surveys in the Gulgong - Ulan - Cassilis area were undertaken by the Australian Museum in the period 1965 - 1967. A small rock shelter, BOB/1, was excavated during May and June 1967, with the results reported by Moore (1970). The site is located along Bobadeen Creek north of its junction with the Goulburn River, immediately east of the Ulan lease area. Haglund (1999a:34) concluded that this site probably equates to her BO6 (ID# 266) or BO7 (ID# 267).
A relatively high total of 16,609 artefacts were recovered from the small shelter (measuring about 5 x 3 metres). The assemblage was dominated by "small waste flakes" (13,552 items), with "large waste flakes" (1,900 items), small cores (175), large cores (75) and various implements present. Of the implements, a modest number of Bondi points (249) were recorded, along with side and end scrapers (166), eloueras (47), other microliths/backed artefacts (223), points (48), utilised flakes (72), utilised cores (22), ground-edge axes (two), utilised pebbles (three) and other items (Moore 1970:49). A total of 69 bone implements were also found, which Moore (1970) concluded may have been used as scribers for making line decorations on marsupial-skin cloaks. Bandicoot, possum, wallaby and rat kangaroo (bettong) bones, along with freshwater shells and emu eggshell were also recovered.
The predominant stone material was quartz (about 55% of the total assemblage), with a fine- grained grey chert (possibly including chert and tuff) also forming a large part of the assemblage (Moore 1970).
Moore (1970) reported that approximately 140 cubic feet (4 m3) of deposit was excavated, with a resulting artefact density of about 120.6 artefacts per cubic foot as calculated by Moore (1970) which equates to about 4,260 artefacts/m3.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 61 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Moore (1970) compared the stone assemblage from this site with two sites excavated in the upper Hunter Valley (Milbrodale 1 and Sandy Hollow 1) and concluded that backed artefact production at the Bobadeen shelter was more generalised than at the other sites, as the formal "Bondi point" type did not form such a large component at this site as it did at the others. Nevertheless, Moore (1970) also concluded that the industry represented at the Bobadeen site had distinctly higher levels of microlithic stone working (eg. backed artefact production) than did the upper Hunter sites. Moore (1970) identified that the much higher frequency of use of quartz at Bobadeen may have contributed to this result (relating to different fracture properties of the stone materials).
Deposits were excavated to a maximum depth of about 1.2 metres, with stratigraphy evident (Moore 1970). A basal occupation date of 7,750 ± 120 BP (ANU-124) was established using radiocarbon dating, and several other dates were obtained, including in July 1968 when a further section was excavated for this purpose (Moore 1970). However, Moore (1981) subsequently obtained further dates of 5,150 ± 170 BP (ANU-287) and 4,120 ± 175 BP (ANU-790) from charcoal samples obtained from the shelter during the earlier excavations and concluded that occupation of the site began about 6,000 years BP. It is noted that these are conventional radiocarbon dates and are not calibrated.
Moore (1970) concluded that although no specific evidence of contact or trade between people of the upper Hunter and inland groups could be discerned from the excavated material, the similarities of the stone working industries may indicate contact between the two groups.
Pearson's (1981) excavation of the Botobolar rock shelter and PhD research:
Pearson (1981) undertook a broad-ranging PhD study of Aboriginal settlement in the Bathurst - Mudgee - Wellington region and more recent non-indigenous settlement. This included sample surveys for Aboriginal sites in various locations, including the "Mudgee - Cooyal area", extending across the Moolarben, Cooks Gap and Cooyal localities immediately south of Ulan.
Detailed comparisons were made between the site sample areas, particularly in terms of factors relevant to site location/distribution. Pearson (1981:101) noted that the apparently desirable features for camp site locations in all areas were accessibility to water, good drainage, elevation above cold air pools in winter, an adequate breeze in summer, level ground for sleeping on, a sunny leeward aspect and adequate fuel. Pearson (1981:101) identified such areas in the survey sample as being gentle hill slopes and undulating ground, flat areas on ridges (especially at lower levels), followed by river flats and creek banks which has accessibility to water but few of the other desirable attributes. Open woodland was noted as being a favoured vegetation zone for occupation sites in Pearson's (1981) analysis.
Pearson (1981) also undertook excavations at a rock shelter at Botobolar, about 40 kilometres south of Ulan, near Bara Creek. The Botobolar 5 shelter is 12 metres long and 4 metres deep and up to 5 metres high at the dripline. It has an easterly aspect and is 40 metres from Bara Creek. A large number of grinding grooves are located on Bara Creek about 100 metres from the shelter. Significantly, the shelter hosts a large frieze of engravings across a 12 metre x 1.5 metre portion of the wall. The engravings include at least 123 fully pecked motifs, predominantly "animal tracks". Four white and one red hand stencil are also present, along with a slab to the south of the main shelter wall with more engravings and grinding grooves.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 62 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Pearson (1981) excavated a 3 x 1 metre trench across the widest part of the shelter, from the back wall beneath the art to the dripline. The deposit was dug in 0.05 metre spits and all deposit sieved through 4.8 mm mesh. Cultural material was found to a depth of 0.55 metres, with one unit excavated to 0.7 metres. Pearson (1981:124-125) noted that the upper levels of the deposit were considerably disturbed due to animal burrows and fire pits, with a mixed and complicated stratigraphy. Livestock appeared to have used the shelter in the historical period, adding to disturbance to the upper 0.05 metres. However, underlying stratum was less disturbed. Pearson (1981) obtained standard radiocarbon dates of 5,590 ± 190 BP (ANU-1573) from spit B4 and 5,770 ± 100 BP (ANU-1574) from spit B7. Below these levels there was no cultural material.
The Botobolar 5 excavation yielded bone in the upper levels, of possum, wallaby, kangaroo, bandicoot and reptiles, along with emu egg shells which Pearson (1981:129) inferred meant the shelter was occupied on that occasion in late winter to early spring. A small quantity of mussel shell fragments were recovered. Plant food remains included gum nuts, geebung and macrozamia nuts. The lithic assemblage comprised about 2,975 artefacts. Pearson (1981) subdivided the assemblage into Bondaian, characterised by microliths in the upper 0-0.15 or 0.2 metres of deposit, and the lower pre-Bondaian, in which microliths were absent. The 5,590 year date above was obtained from the pre-Bondaian deposit, while the only date obtained from the Bondaian deposit was 1,170 ± 60 BP. The assemblage was dominated by quartz (over 50%) and a high proportion of small flaking debitage. Implements formed a low proportion of the overall assemblage and included Bondi points, geometric microliths, utilised flakes and pieces, thumbnail scrapers, utilised cores, an elouera, a ground-edge flake and a grinding slab.
McBryde's regional survey:
McBryde conducted an archaeological survey that sampled portions of an area of 5,000 km2 in the region of Dunedoo, Gulgong, Wollar and Coolah. Thirty Aboriginal heritage sites were located during this investigation, which was part of research focusing on rock art within the western slopes of the New England region (Haglund 1981a). Half of the sites recorded were rock shelters with art, while the remaining sites comprised shelters with deposits, grinding grooves and quarries (Haglund 1981a).
Cubis's (1981) survey of the Beryl to Ulan power line:
Cubis (1981) investigated the route of a 132 kV power easement between Beryl and Ulan, a distance of approximately 35 kilometres. The route terminated at the Ulan substation. Cubis (1981) traversed the entire route on foot and located several isolated artefacts and artefact scatters, along with several historic relics. No Aboriginal sites were identified in the immediate vicinity of Ulan.
Haglund's (1985) Mudgee Shire regional study:
Haglund (1985) undertook a desktop assessment of the Aboriginal heritage resources of Mudgee Shire. Haglund (1985) collated information from previous archaeological studies, in conjunction with using the DECC site register. The limited nature of investigations undertaken to that date was noted.
From these sources, Haglund (1985) noted that at the time there were about 70 sites recorded on the DECC register within Mudgee Shire. Of these, there were 29 listed open sites (ie. artefact occurrences), 20 rock shelters (including two with a deposit and art, and 15 with art only), two quarry sites, two wells, 11 grinding groove sites, three stone arrangements, four carved trees, two bora grounds and one burial.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 63 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Haglund's (1980b, 1981c) studies of the Goulburn River National Park for the proposed Kerrabee Dam:
The Goulburn River National Park is located between Mudgee and Sandy Hollow and extends east of the present study area. It covers an area of 70,161 hectares, with the adjoining Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve covering a further 5,935 hectares (DECC 2003a).
Much of what is now conserved as the Goulburn River National Park was proposed to be flooded in the early 1980s as part of the proposed Kerrabee Dam. This dam was to be constructed on the Goulburn River at the junction with the Merriwa River, about 60 kilometres southeast of Ulan. The proposal did not proceed and the National Park was reserved in 1983.
Haglund (1980b, 1981c) undertook a heritage study for the Kerrabee Dam proposal. Surveys were conducted that focused on sampling some of the alluvial flats and lower slopes associated with major watercourses that were likely to be inundated by the proposed dam. A total of 343 Aboriginal sites were recorded, including rock shelters with deposits and/or art, artefact scatters and grinding grooves. Several rock shelters were excavated to reveal deposits with a variety of organic materials (eg. bones of macropods, potoroo, rat, skink, birds, bandicoot and fish, shell, fur and burnt wood) (Haglund 1981c).
Navin's (1990) desktop study:
Navin (1990) conducted a desktop study of Aboriginal heritage in the vicinity of three potential locations for power generation facilities at Broke, Ulan and Gunnedah. Navin (1990) collated information from previous archaeological studies, in conjunction with using the DECC site register, and provided a predictive model for each of the three areas.
In the Ulan area, Navin (1990) noted that 580 Aboriginal heritage sites had previously been recorded within a 50 kilometre radius of Ulan and that nearly half of these sites (47%) were rock shelters with an associated archaeological deposit. The remaining sites comprised artefact scatters (30%), rock shelters with art (11%), grinding grooves (9%) and scarred trees (3%) (Navin 1990). Forming 1% or less of the total recorded site list (as registered in 1990) were bora ceremonial grounds, burial sites, rock engravings, carved trees, quarries, fish traps, stone arrangements and waterhole/well sites (Navin 1990).
In the Ulan region, Navin (1990) assessed the potential for artefact scatters to occur on flats associated with valley corridors and adjacent sandstone slopes within the sandstone ranges and also adjacent to stream lines, particularly permanent sources of water, as high. The potential for artefact scatters to occur along ridge crests was assessed as moderate, with shelter sites also noted as potentially occurring within the same landform elements (Navin 1990). The relatively high number of rock art sites in the area of Ulan and Gulgong was considered to possibly indicate a regionally specific art site tradition, while the potential for ceremonial sites, carved trees and art sites to occur in the area was also noted (Navin 1990).
Purcell's (2002) Brigalow Belt South Bioregion study:
Purcell (2002) undertook a broad regional cultural heritage study of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion, as a part of the regional assessments undertaken by DECC for the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council (RACAC). This bioregion stretches west from the Ulan area to Dubbo and north to Moree and measures over 52,000 square kilometres in area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 64 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Purcell (2002) continued consultation with the Aboriginal community and oral historical and archival research that had commenced with an earlier stage of the project, and undertook field surveys sampling landforms within the bioregion. In a wide-ranging project, over 110 oral history interviews were conducted, 60 traditionally used plant species documented, extensive landform mapping was undertaken, and 1,110 Aboriginal sites were located and recorded.
The heritage surveys primarily sampled government owned land, such as State Forests and Travelling Stock Reserves. The landform mapping was based on subdivision of each of seven broad geographic provinces into landscapes, and on a second level landforms associated with each landscape, and on the finest level, landform elements within each landform. The landform types were classified into four key groups:
Alluvial landforms, including types such as alluvial fan, alluvial terrace, alluvium, channel, floodplain, flood channel, gilgai, wetland/swamp, and palaeochannel;
Deep stable sand landforms, including types such as yellow sand sheets and sand monkey (sandy palaeochannels in the Pilliga Outwash);
Higher contour landforms, including types such as soil mantled slope, colluvial slope, rocky ground, steep rocky ground, rocky ravine, bench and talus; and
Terrace group landforms, including types such as terrace, scald, claypan and overland flow.
Of the 1,110 Aboriginal heritage sites recorded, 849 were recorded during Stage 2 and 250 during Stage 1. Twenty-nine of these sites were located in the "Talbragar Valley province", north of Ulan.
From the oral historical research, Purcell (2002:35-38) identified a number of broad themes, such as the role of plants and animals in Aboriginal life, forests, rivers, movement, living places, aspects of community life and activities, control and suppression through the historical period, work, land management, heritage and attachment to country.
OzArk's (2005) survey of the Wollar to Wellington power line:
Transgrid are in the process of constructing a 330 kV electricity transmission line between Wellington and Wollar. The route traverses alongside the Ulan Road, in the southern portion of the present project area and adjacent to the Ulan landing strip, and diverges northwest of the village of Ulan towards Gulgong.
OzArk (2005) conducted a survey over 14 days for the project, in which inspection was made of various tower locations and access tracks, excluding those areas for which property access was not available. Nineteen artefact scatters and seven isolated artefacts were identified during the survey, including two near Ulan, "SCH IF6" (#36-3-654) and "MC OS 19" (#36-3-656), an artefact scatter. Test excavation was recommended for a number of sites, along with monitoring, collection and avoidance of impacts (OzArk 2005).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 65 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Wilpinjong Coal Mine:
Wilpinjong Coal Mine, approximately 15 kilometres southeast of Ulan, has recently commenced operations. Navin Officer (2005) undertook an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the project, involving surveys in 2004 and 2005. A total of 235 Aboriginal sites were recorded within the Wilpinjong project area during the surveys, including several artefact scatters with over 500 artefacts, numerous other artefact scatters and isolated artefacts, rock shelters with artefacts, PADs and/or art and scarred trees, along with places of other cultural significance. Approximately 144 of those sites were anticipated to be subject to impacts from the proposal, predominantly artefact scatter sites and several scarred trees. No rock shelter sites were located directly within the impact area, due to the nature of the topography and nature of the proposal (open cut mining).
The Aboriginal heritage management plan (Peabody 2008) that was subsequently implemented outlines numerous measures for further survey and recording, salvage collections and excavations, monitoring of construction works and for subsidence impacts, conservation, and cultural heritage training.
Moolarben Coal Mine:
Immediately adjacent to UCML, Moolarben Coal Mine has recently gained approval for Stage 1 operations, which involves three open cut pits, one underground mine area and associated surface infrastructure facilities.
Hamm (2006a) conducted an archaeological survey of the project area, which measured approximately 34.8 km2 (3,480 hectares), for Stage 1 of the Moolarben project. Rather than inspecting the geographic extent of the proposed project area, Hamm (2006a) employed a strategy using transects that sampled only parts of this area, using a team comprising four archaeologists and six Aboriginal representatives over a period of 35 days. These sample areas are shown on Figures 3.8 and 3.9. They contrast with the present study, in which comprehensive survey coverage was obtained across the geographic extent of the project (refer to Figure 7.1 and Appendix B11).
Hamm (2006a) reported that approximately 80% (2,800 hectares) of the project area had no ground surface visibility, due to dense forest cover and/or pastureland grasses. Hamm (2006a:56) reported that approximately 57% of the available project area was effectively surveyed, however these calculations are erroneous and the actual effective survey coverage was only a tenth of that figure (5.7%) which equates to approximately 1.1% of the project area.
Hamm (2006a) identified 222 Aboriginal sites, comprising 156 isolated artefacts and 47 artefact scatters, 17 rock shelters with artefacts and/or art, one scarred tree and one grinding groove site, along with 12 PADs (refer to Figures 3.10 and 3.11). Hamm (2006a) noted that the most concentrated ‘occupation’ areas were the central Moolarben Creek and Bora Creek alluvial flats and the northern ridge lines. Approximately 107 sites were anticipated to be subject to impacts from the open cut mine and 22 from the infrastructure area, predominantly artefact scatters and isolated artefacts (DoP 2007).
Hamm (2006a) recorded 1,298 stone artefacts during the sample survey. Quartz dominated the combined artefact assemblage (81.6%), followed by tuff (10.6%) and low frequencies of silcrete, siltstone, quartzite, chert, mudstone, chalcedony and porcellanite. Flakes, flake portions and flaked pieces dominated the assemblage, with cores, hammerstones and backed artefacts also recorded (frequencies not specified).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 66 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Hamm (2006a) recommended a range of mitigation measures for the sites which may be impacted by Stage 1 of the proposed Moolarben development. These included surface collection for 51 sites, test excavation and salvage for 43 sites, intensive recording and salvage for three sites, subsidence monitoring for 10 sites, and subsidence monitoring and intensive recording for 13 sites, with the remainder to be left in situ to be either impacted or subject to conservation.
In the Moolarben Environmental Assessment Report (WES 2006), it is stated that 302 Aboriginal sites were recorded with 1,598 Aboriginal objects, comprising 219 isolated artefacts, 63 artefact scatters (multiple 'objects'), 18 rock shelters with artefacts and/or art, one scarred tree and one grinding groove site, along with 14 PADs. It is possible that this increase in the originally reported numbers (Hamm 2006a) is a result of the conduct of additional surveys within the project area.
During the EA exhibition period, a number of submissions were made, including many relating to Aboriginal heritage. The Minister for Planning directed that an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) be constituted to examine key aspects of the proposal, such as Aboriginal heritage, in further detail. In a response to the issues raised (Hamm 2006b) reports that three "cultural landscapes" were identified by the Aboriginal stakeholders, comprising the Bora Creek alluvial flats, Goulburn River and "The Drip". The underground mine plan was subsequently revised to reduce impacts to rock shelter sites from underground mining (Hamm 2006b).
An "Aboriginal Heritage Plan" was prepared by Hamm (2008a) for the Moolarben Stage 1 development areas. However, the plan only relates to the construction of the development area of 530 hectares for Open Cut 1 and Main Infrastructure Area and only for the duration of the construction period. A scarred tree, 14 artefact scatters and 60 isolated artefacts had been recorded within this area. Future plans are proposed for the remainder of the Stage 1 project. The plan establishes measures for conservation of 12 sites outside of the development area, surface collection of many sites, and an extensive program of test excavations and salvage for 30 sites, many of which are currently identified as isolated artefacts (Hamm 2008a). The proposed excavation methods include grader scrapes and hand excavation.
Hamm (2008b) has undertaken an assessment for Stage 2 of the Moolarben Coal Project, including development of a fourth open cut pit and two underground mines. The development is anticipated to result in impacts to 22.6 km2 of a 37 km2 project area immediately southeast of Ulan.
Rather than inspecting the geographic extent of the proposed project area, Hamm (2008b) employed a strategy using transects that sampled only parts of this area, using a team comprising two archaeologists and eight Aboriginal representatives over a period of 40 days in October and November 2006 and January and February 2007, with additional surveys in June 2008.
Hamm (2008b) reported that approximately 70% (25.9 km2) of the project area had "no ground surface visibility", due to forest cover and/or pasture grass. The survey resulted in coverage of approximately 7.65 km2 of the 11 km2 said to be "available for foot survey", or about 20% of the overall project area. With effective survey coverage stated by Hamm (2008b:90) as 717,187 m2, this equates to effective survey coverage of about 1.9% of the overall project area. Four-fifths (80%) of the project area was not subject to archaeological inspection.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 67 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Hamm (2008b) identified 258 Aboriginal sites (in addition to several previously recorded sites within the area), comprising 102 isolated artefacts and 150 artefact scatters, five rock shelters with artefacts and one grinding groove site, along with 33 PADs (associated with the open artefact sites, not rock shelters). Notwithstanding a survey sample of less than 20% of the project area, Hamm (2008b) identified the "most concentrated occupation areas" as being:
The central and southern portions of Murragamba Creek, within 100 metres of the channel;
Eastern Creek, a tributary of Wilpinjong Creek, within 100 metres of the channel;
The headwaters of the Wilpinjong North Creek catchment, within 100 metres of the creek; and
Moolarben Ridge, south of Carr's Gap, and "Trig Station eastern flank of the ridge".
Hamm (2008b) recorded 4,825 stone artefacts during the sample survey. Quartz dominated the combined artefact assemblage (76%), followed by tuff (19%) and low frequencies of chert, silcrete, quartzite, sandstone and volcanics. Flakes (22%), flake portions (>50%) and flaked pieces (18%) dominated the assemblage, with cores, axes, hammerstones, anvils, grindstones and backed artefacts also recorded (frequencies not specified).
The significance of the Aboriginal sites was assessed by Hamm (2008b), but clear criteria or justification for the conclusions was not presented. Twelve sites were assessed as being of "high" significance. Extensive issues were raised by members of the Aboriginal community about the heritage assessment and potential impacts of the proposal and future management of the heritage resource. Substantial impacts were anticipated to occur from the open cut mine and infrastructure with potentially 173 sites affected. Minimal consideration was given to the potential impacts of subsidence from the underground mines and few areas of the proposed underground mine appear to have been directly surveyed.
Hamm (2008b) recommended a range of mitigation measures for the sites which may be impacted by Stage 2 of the proposed Moolarben development. These included surface collection for 133 sites, test excavation and salvage for 34 sites, and intensive recording for six of those sites. Minimal details are presented about the rationale for the recommended management strategies, or the methodology of any future mitigation processes.
3.3 Synthesis
Several archaeological investigations undertaken on behalf of UCML have already covered portions of the current study area, including studies by Haglund (1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1992, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d), Kuskie (2002, 2004) and Kuskie and Clarke (2005a, 2005b, 2007, in. prep.) (Figure 3.2). These studies have been outlined above in Section 3.2.
The extent of existing archaeological survey coverage of the current study area is generally limited, with very small areas having been subject to intensive coverage for the MLA80 environmental assessment, although more comprehensive coverage has been achieved during recent studies of the open cut extension area and several longwall panels that overlap with the current study area (Figures 3.3 and 3.6). These recent studies have been undertaken using a methodology consistent with that of the present investigation and current DECC standards.
Other relevant investigations within the overall UCML project area (eg. Corkill 1991, Edgar 1997, Haglund 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 2001a, 2001b, Kuskie 2000a, Kuskie and Clarke 2003, Kuskie and Webster 2001, and White 2001a, 2001b) have also been discussed in Section 3.2.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 68 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Prior to the conduct of the present investigation, approximately 107 Aboriginal sites (UCML Aboriginal Site Database Revision 7) were known within the current study area. These sites comprised 62 artefact scatters, nine isolated artefacts, 34 rockshelters with artefacts, art and/or grinding grooves, and one grinding groove and artefact scatter site. In addition, 11 rockshelters with PADs had been reported.
Archaeological investigations at UCML and elsewhere in the Ulan locality have resulted in the identification of a large number of rock shelter sites with archaeological deposits and/or rock art or grinding grooves, along with many shelters with potential deposits. The large numbers of shelter sites partly reflects the focus of the underground mining related surveys, which have predominantly targeted sandstone rock formations within elevated terrain. These sites have been identified in isolated rock formations and more commonly along more extensive rock formations. The shelter sites vary widely in terms of topographical context (eg. distance to watercourse, size/order of watercourse and aspect), contents, nature (eg. size of shelter and extent of habitable floor area) and potential (eg. depth and extent of potential artefact deposits). Apart from several major sites such as the "Hands on Rock" complex adjacent to the project area, rock art occurs relatively infrequently in the recorded shelters and tends to comprise red ochre hand stencils.
Numerous open artefact occurrences have also been identified in the Ulan locality. The numbers of artefacts vary from minor scatters and numerous isolated finds, for which details have not often been recorded in earlier studies, to dense concentrations of lithic material with hundreds of artefacts present. A conservative conclusion is that artefact evidence is distributed in a widespread manner across the locality, in generally low densities equating to background discard (manuport and artefactual material which is insufficient either in number or in association with other material to suggest focused activity in a particular location; cf. Rich 1993, Kuskie and Kamminga 2000), with occasional higher densities representing more focused occupation (eg. encampments, or events of longer duration or involving larger numbers of people) or repeated occupation in favourable environmental contexts. Such contexts appear to include elevated, well-drained and low gradient flats, terraces, spur crests, ridge crests and simple slopes adjacent to watercourses, particularly higher order watercourses and/or multiple subsistence resource zones. The identified artefact evidence tends to predominantly comprise items associated with non-specific stone flaking, on quartz and to a lesser extent tuff, chert and other stone materials. Other activities are also represented, such as microblade and microlith production, discard of microliths and discard of non-microlith tools, many of which are associated with working of plant and/or animal materials, food preparation or tool maintenance.
Grinding groove sites in the Ulan locality are typically located in sedimentary bedrock along watercourses, but also occur on open surfaces of sandstone in other contexts (eg. simple slopes) and on smaller sandstone slabs or surfaces in rock shelters.
Other Aboriginal site types have been recorded in low numbers within the Ulan locality, including scarred trees, ochre quarries, lithic quarries, stone arrangements and a possible burial. Sites of traditional or historical cultural significance to Aboriginal people (excluding the contemporary significance attached to the site types noted above), have also been reported within the locality.
Although bora grounds, a type of ceremonial site associated with initiation ceremonies, have not been reported at Ulan, the presence of "Bora Creek" is noted immediately east of Ulan Coal Mine in the Moolarben mine lease. Bora grounds have been identified in the wider region (Haglund 1985, Navin 1990). Rock engravings have also not been reported directly in the Ulan locality, but are known elsewhere in the region, along with carved trees, fish traps and waterhole/well sites (Haglund 1985, Navin 1990).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 69 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Excavations at Ulan are limited to the two salvage excavations, of sites ID# 116 and 132, and several smaller test excavations, of which minimal details have been reported for the latter. The excavations of ID# 116 and 132 provide valuable information about the nature of evidence and Aboriginal occupation within single examples of a moderate and a larger sized shelter in this locality. Other excavations of rock shelter sites in the broader area, particularly Moore's (1970) excavation of the nearby Bobadeen 1 shelter, have also provided valuable information. The Bobadeen 1 excavation revealed evidence of bone implements, faunal remains and freshwater shells, while Haglund's (1981c) excavations of shelters in Goulburn River National Park also revealed various organic materials (eg. bones of macropods, potoroo, rat, skink, birds, bandicoot and fish, shell, fur and burnt wood).
The age of occupation of the identified Aboriginal sites at Ulan has been assessed as less than 5,000 years, with several direct dates obtained, including the oldest one for the UCML lease area at ID# 132 of 4,147 ± 60 years BP (NZA 10766), which equates to an age calibrated to two standard deviations of 4840 - 4446 calBP (2891 - 2497 BC) (Haglund 2001a). Moore’s (1970, 1981) investigations of the Bobadeen 1 site immediately east of the project area provide a basal date of about 6,000 years BP for the locality, while Pearson (1981) recovered an occupation date of 5,500 years BP at a shelter at Botobolar, towards Mudgee. Nevertheless, a number of contexts have been identified within the Ulan locality that could host older evidence of Aboriginal occupation extending back into the Pleistocene period (ie. >10,000 years of age), including creek terrace deposits covered by colluvial slopewash and rock shelter sites, such as those within the current study area.
3.4 Local Aboriginal Culture
Traditional Aboriginal culture in south-eastern Australia was complex and varied. The present state of knowledge is based partially on studies of contemporary Aboriginal communities in northern and central Australia and on observations of the south-eastern communities after the immense disruption caused by non-indigenous settlement (Thompson 1985).
Peterson (1976) describes Aboriginal society as being comprised of a hierarchy of organisational levels and groups, with fluid boundaries between them. The smallest group in the hierarchy are ‘families’; a man with one or more wives, their children and frequently some of their parents. The second level are bands; small groups consisting of members of several nuclear families, who perform the normal hunting and gathering tasks together for most of the year. At the next level are regional networks consisting of a number of bands. Members of these regional networks usually share beliefs in a common ancestor and/or have a common language dialect. Network members assemble for specific ceremonies, when the subsistence resources of a locality are plentiful enough to support a large number of people over a period of time (Peterson 1976).
The ‘tribe’ is at a higher level in the organisational hierarchy. ‘Tribes’ are generally recognised as a linguistic unit with flexible territorial boundaries. At the broadest level of social organisation, or the pinnacle of the hierarchy, is the ‘cultural area’. All groups within a ‘cultural area’ share cultural characteristics, such as a common initiation ceremony, and speak closely related languages (Peterson 1976).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 70 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The study area lies within the northeastern portion of the territory of the Wiradjuri people as defined by Tindale (1974) and Horton (1994, 2000), close to the boundary with the Kamilaroi to the north, and the Geawegal and Wonnarua further to the east (refer to Figure 3.12). Tindale (1974) describes the territory of the Wiradjuri people as being "on the Lachlan River and south from Condoblin to Booligal; at Carrathool, Wagga Wagga, Cootamundra, Cowra, Parkes, Trundle; east to Gundagai, Boorowa and Rylstone; at Wellington, Mudgee, Bathurst and Carcoar; west along Billabong Creek to beyond Mosgiel; south west to near Hay and Narranderra; south to Howlong on the upper Murray; at Albury and east to about Tumbarumba".
Pearson (1981:75-76) inferred from the ethnohistorical evidence of Gunther, Lawson, Cox and others, that the upper Macquarie was inhabited by large localised groups of Aboriginal people, who in the normal course of life were divided into small groups of up to 20 people. These groups could easily come together for short periods for subsistence, ceremonial or social reasons and form larger groups of 80 to 150 people.
Pearson (1981:81) inferred that the Wiradjuri in the Upper Macquarie River region was probably subdivided into three groups, one centered in the general Mudgee-Rylstone area and the others in the general areas of Bathurst and Wellington. Haglund (1999a) noted that these groups may have comprised several clans each, with descendants of one of at least two clans in the Mudgee-Rylstone group still living in the locality. Pearson's (1981:81a) map of the hypothetical group distributions places the Mudgee-Rylstone group in the vicinity of the Ulan locality, albeit on the fringe of other (probable Kamilaroi) territory to the north.
Barron Field made an observation in 1822 of Aboriginal people in the Bathurst area:
"Their numbers are diminishing. Not that they retreat before the settlements of Europeans, this they cannot do: the different tribes (few as their numbers are) would resist the invasion of each others territory. Thirty or forty miles will reach the circumference of each family's peregrinations" (Lesson 1824, in Pearson 1981:65).
Haglund (2001a) noted in relation to Howitt's (1904) claim that one group of Kamilaroi lived in the Munmurra Creek area, north of Wollar, that this group may have formed a buffer between the Wiradjuri and Geawegal and Wonnarua. However, the reliability of Howitt's evidence is questionable, due to the late period in which it was obtained and admissions to knowing very little about this region. At the time of non-indigenous contact, there was both friendly and hostile contact between the north-east Wiradjuri and the Kamilaroi and Wonnarua people. Cassilis Gap was a known travel route.
In terms of ethnohistorical references, few if any appear to relate directly to the Ulan locality. However, Pearson (1981) quotes a number of observations by early non-indigenous settlers and explorers that are relevant to the Bathurst region. One relates to an observation by Lesson in 1824 of transitory movement along watercourses:
"…true nomads, who have no fixed abode, but who for the most part follow the banks of the rivers and streams" (Lesson 1824, in Pearson 1981:65).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 71 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A wide variety of subsistence resources were available in the past to the local Aboriginal people in the region. Ethnohistorical and other evidence suggests that the diet of the local Aboriginal people would have included amongst other foods, possum, kangaroo, wallaby, wombat, kangaroo rat, platypus, lizards, snakes, goanna, tortoise, fish, mussels, crayfish, various birds, insects, and various plants (Pearson 1981:335). More than 20 species of native mammals, various reptiles and over 100 species of native birds have been recorded at Ulan, many of which would have been utilised as food resources (Haglund 1999a). Predominantly within the current study area it was the subsistence resources of forested and woodland environments that were available for exploitation.
The material culture of the local Aboriginal population would have included a range of items related to subsistence, cultural and social activities and shelter. However, in the archaeological record, few of these items are preserved. Stone, bone and shell are the materials most frequently represented in archaeological sites. As documented within Section 2, various stone materials were available for exploitation from within the study area.
The influx of non-indigenous settlers into the region had profound effects upon the Wiradjuri, as the newcomers sought to gain the land for agricultural and pastoral utilisation and later for mining the valuable mineral resources present (Clayton and Barlow 1997). In the Ulan area, fighting between non-indigenous and Aboriginal people occurred in the 1820s as settlers sought to establish grazing runs, with hostilities peaking between 1824 and 1826 (Haglund 1999a). The dramatic increase in the number of non-indigenous settlers around Mudgee, Bathurst and Gulgong from the 1850s to the 1870s, during the gold rush, resulted in the displacement of the Aboriginal people and further incidents of warfare (Burless 1997).
Despite all this, the Wiradjuri people survived. In the latter part of the 19th century there was growing concern in NSW about the plight of the Aboriginal people. The Aborigines Protection Association was formed and in 1881 a Protector of Aboriginals appointed. In 1883 the Government established a Board for the Protection of Aborigines to achieve a "more systematic and enlightened treatment of Aborigines". Rural stations were created so that Aboriginal people could remain on their tribal territory (Turner and Blyton 1995).
However, the Board quickly resorted to forcible movement of Aboriginal people onto various missions, often in different tribal areas (Miller 1985). There was not a station in the immediate vicinity of Ulan or Gulgong, the closest being the Mudgee Reserve, which in 1891 estimated the local Aboriginal population at 66 (Burless 1997). Burless (1997) identifies that a number of Wiradjuri families managed to survive in the north-eastern region without entering the mission system.
By the 20th century people moved to the urban areas to escape the oppression of the Aboriginal Protection Board and to find employment. Thousands of Aboriginal children were removed from their families between 1909 and 1967 and placed in institutions (Turner and Blyton 1995).
Following from the era of assimilation policies was a movement towards Aboriginal self- determination. This involved recognition of the rights and ability of Aboriginal people to determine their own future. Moves towards Aboriginal self-determination have culminated in the current process of reconciliation, which is based on the concept of equality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people (Smith 1993:27).
A vibrant Aboriginal population remains in the region today and takes an active interest in the management of their heritage. A number of Wiradjuri people have retained their traditional affiliation to the north-eastern Wiradjuri country (Burless 1997).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 72 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Ulan
Ulan
Figure 3.12: Cultural group boundaries in the Ulan locality (Tindale 1974 above and Horton 2000 below).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 73 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 4. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
An understanding of the history of land use since non-indigenous settlement can assist with identifying activities that may have affected the land surface and therefore the integrity of any Aboriginal heritage evidence and assessing the potential for heritage evidence relating to the contact period.
In 1813, George Evans reached the Central Tablelands after crossing the Blue Mountains and noted that the land was well-watered and suitable for grazing. The suitability of the land for grazing led to the early colonisation of the area, with land west of the Macquarie River reserved for government stock and agricultural stations, while land-grants and grazing permits for the east banks of the Macquarie and Campbell rivers were provided to individuals (Heritage Office 1996).
The government station of Bathurst was established in 1815, west of the Macquarie River, while Kelso was developed by settlers from 1818. From the 1820s onwards, the number of freed convicts and free migrants moving to the area greatly increased and the Mudgee and Gulgong district was settled in 1822 (Haglund 1996a). In 1826 the entire region was opened to private settlement. Numerous large stations and estates were established at this time, including Wellington Valley, Fredericks Valley Creek, Bunnamagoo, Rockley and Burraga. The town of Bathurst was formed by 1833 and Mudgee was built in 1837, with Rylstone, Orange and Wellington established in the 1840s (Heritage Office 1996).
The stock brought to the Central Tablelands initially was cattle, however by 1828 sheep outweighed cattle by four to one in the region as a whole (Heritage Office 1996). In the Ulan area, sheep and cattle grazing was supplemented by agriculture, with wheat and oat crops being cultivated in cleared alluvial flats (Haglund 1981a).
The gold rush began in the 1850s and brought thousands of people to the Central Tablelands and caused the exponential growth of many towns in the region. Alluvial mining was followed by reef and shaft mining across the region, peaking in the 1870s and thereafter declining but continuing into the 1920s (Heritage Office 1996). Gold was found at Gulgong in 1870 and by 1876 a population of 20,000 was living there. However, the gold rush appears to have had little direct impact upon the Ulan area (Haglund 1999a) apart from possibly an increase in land selection between 1873-1877 (Moolarben Coal Mines 2008).
Railway lines reached the Central Tablelands in the 1870s, although the link from Lithgow to Mudgee was not established until the 1880s and a railway line between Mudgee and Gulgong was not created until 1909. With the introduction of the railway, commerce and urban development boomed in many towns, while additional discoveries of coal, copper, silver, zinc, antimony and oil shale led to the creation of a long-lasting mining industry in the wider area (Heritage Office 1996). "Mudgee stone", used for ornamental building, was extracted from near Ulan (Haglund 1981a).
Ulan expanded with the discovery of coal in the 1920s and the subsequent mining industry which, apart from a short period of inactivity, has continued to flourish (Haglund 1999a). Coal deposits were first exploited in the 1920s and sporadically through the 1950s for domestic use. The No. 1 Underground Mine at Ulan commenced in 1942 and the No. 2 Underground Mine in 1957, the latter to supply a power house built near Ulan village in the 1950s. The power station closed in 1969 and mining of the No. 2 Underground continued on a limited basis, becoming fully mechanised in 1977 (Connell Wagner 1995). Mining operations at Ulan expanded substantially in the 1980s, with an Open Cut Mine and the expansion of the No. 2 Underground Mine.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 74 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Roberts (1974) noted that the earliest settlers in the Ulan district were the McDonald family, who lived in the original "Old Stone House", about five kilometres north-east of Ulan on Cassilis Road. The house was built in the 1850s and its location beside a crossing of the Goulburn River led to the use of the house as a hotel and a staging post (Roberts 1974). The house was relocated in the 1980s to the Gulgong Museum as part of the Goulburn River diversion (Godden Mackay 1992).
Ruins of another early hotel are present at Old Ulan, 6.5 kilometres north-north-west of Ulan village and within the southeastern portion of the current study area. The land was first owned by William Robinson (Parish of Ulan map, 1st Edition, 1886). Until the bridge crossing the Goulburn River was built on the Ulan Road, the route north leading through Old Ulan via Bobadeen was often used (E. Loughrie, pers. comm., in Haglund 1981a:19). Significantly, Haglund (1981a:19-20) noted that Aboriginal people may have used this travel route prior to the settlers, although the basis for this conclusion is not reported. Nevertheless, the use by early settlers of Aboriginal pathways is known elsewhere and in all probability also occurred in the Ulan locality.
A heritage assessment of Old Ulan has been prepared by Godden Mackay (1992). The remains include those of three structures (a hotel, a possible small outbuilding for storage and another possible dwelling), a ford and roadway, a graveyard, two sets of stockyards and associated fence lines. Godden Mackay (1992) report that the main building at Old Ulan may have been constructed as early as the 1830s or 1840s, or possibly earlier. The site exists due to the interplay of a number of factors, including the location of permanent water for stock and settlers, the ford across the creek and level ground, all along the route between Mudgee and Cassilis.
Godden Mackay (1992:19) assessed the significance of the Old Ulan site as being considerable:
The Old Ulan remains provide physical evidence of early settlement in the district and make the site an evocative place of historic and social interest within the surrounding rural landscape. The location and nature of the site reveals much about early settlement and communication patterns. The surviving structures evidence early vernacular building technologies. The entire complex has great potential as an archaeological site, which may yield information about Australian history that is not available from other sources.
Bobadeen station, located 11 kilometres north of Ulan village, once extended as far south as Old Ulan and is one of the oldest properties in the area (Haglund 1999a). It was selected by Henry Crossing, an early settler and businessman of the Mudgee and Ulan area. Crossing had substantial landholdings in the study area, along with T. M. Haynes and Henry Hayden (Parish of Bobadeen map, 1st Edition, 1886). Bobadeen Homestead is located within the project area and was built around 1900.
Roberts (1974:9) reports that farming and sheep grazing were conducted on the property, with men engaged shearing, timber cutting, clearing and burning off land, trapping rabbits and fencing. Roberts (1974) notes that in the early days of the station, it was unfenced and a number of shepherds were employed. They lived in basic conditions, camping in the rock shelters and bark huts, tending stock where they could find water and grass in the parishes of Ulan, Bobadeen and Durridgere. Evidence of such encampments has been found in rock shelter sites within the study area. Parts of the station were later enclosed in dingo proof fences, typically consisting of nine strands of barbed wire. These were later replaced in places by high netting fences with double netting, to become both dog and rabbit proof (Roberts 1974:9).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 75 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The village of Ulan was proclaimed in 1897. In 1908, the post office was reported to be serving a district of 35 families and a population of 196 (Moolarben Coal Mines 2008). Extraction of timber, including pine and ironbark, was an important local industry for many early settlers. Timber was notably used for railway sleepers and props in the underground mine.
The landscape itself within the Ulan study area is in a sense a relic of non-indigenous settlement. It reflects a sequence of occupation over the past 180 years, including initial settlement, land clearance and stock management. Recent land use practices/impacts to the study area include:
The widespread clearing of native vegetation (mostly undertaken in the 1800s and 1900s by non-mechanised means such as tree felling and ringbarking), including the extraction and cutting of timber for use as props in the underground mine and for railway sleepers;
Pastoral activities (including the grazing of sheep and cattle, excavation of farm dams, provision of watering troughs, stockyards, residences, survey markers, fencing, establishment of pasture improved grasses and erosion control measures such as contour banks);
Erosion of hill-slopes and watercourses and the subsequent deposition of soils on the middle and lower portions of drainage lines (particularly subsequent to the removal of native vegetation and introduction of hoofed animals);
Provision of essential services and transport (formed roads and unformed vehicle tracks, electricity transmission line easements and telecommunications cables); and
Open cut and underground mining of coal, and associated surface infrastructure.
Hence, the survival and integrity of Aboriginal sites may have been affected to varying extents by these activities and their subsequent effects on natural processes such as erosion.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 76 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 5. PREDICTIVE MODEL OF ABORIGINAL SITE LOCATION
In order for the investigation to contribute most effectively to the management of the heritage resource at Ulan, the following key elements of a research design (cf. Boismier 1991) are essential:
1) Identification of the specific environmental/cultural characteristics of the application area; 2) Construction of a model of Aboriginal occupation for the locality; 3) Definition of the expected nature and distribution of evidence; 4) Formation of a methodology to test the predictive model and relevant research questions, in consideration of the expected nature and distribution of evidence; and 5) Analytical techniques for the evidence recovered that are appropriate to address the research questions and project objectives.
The environmental context of the study area has been outlined in Section 2, and the proposed methodology and analytical techniques are discussed in Section 6. The model of Aboriginal occupation for the locality and expected nature and distribution of evidence are discussed below.
5.1 Development of an Occupation Model for the Ulan Locality
Several occupation models or elements thereof have been proposed during archaeological studies at Ulan, primarily to explain the results from individual sites (eg. Edgar 1997, Haglund 1999a, 1999d, Witter 1994; refer to Section 3.2). These have tended to be narrowly focused on particular aspects of Aboriginal occupation, rather than on the development of a broader model of Aboriginal occupation for the Ulan locality.
Haglund (1996a) noted the wide range of locations, sizes and aspects of rock shelter and artefact scatter sites at Ulan. The occupation of a shelter site did not appear to be dependent solely on characteristics such as size, aspect, view or access to water (Haglund 1996a). The range of site locations and distribution of artefacts led Haglund (1996a) to consider that an important research question for future studies would be how the variation in potential site locations affected mobility and choices.
The distribution of sites was once again noted by Haglund during later fieldwork at Ulan (1999a). Haglund (1999a) considered that the range of site types across all landform units indicated the presence of many scattered former activity areas, some of which were repeatedly used. The explanation for such site distribution was considered to be the relationship of each site to the proximity to water, availability of stone materials and exposure to the sun (Haglund 1999a).
Edgar (1997) and Haglund (1999a) presented an occupation model for the Ulan region involving:
Regular seasonal occupation by a local Aboriginal group, resulting in evidence of a range of economic activities associated with repeated long term occupation, including hearths, stone tool manufacture and curation;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 77 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Intensive but short-term occupation by Aboriginal people from the surrounding regions for special ceremonies. Stone tool assemblages would reflect intensive food gathering and preparation, extensive art and other special activities; and
Ephemeral occupation (overnight and short term camping) resulting from travel through the area between the coast and further inland regions.
Edgar (1997) considered that the results of his survey supported aspects of each of these occupation models and recommended that further work be conducted in the region in order to test these models more conclusively. A later survey by Haglund (1999a) provided evidence which, although it could support all three models, was inferred to primarily support the first model, that of regular occupation.
More recently, White (2001a) has discussed broader regional models of occupation (eg. Hiscock 1994, McDonald 1994) in relation to the ID# 132 salvage excavation, particularly with respect to changes over time. White (2001a) concluded that the salvage results provide some support for McDonald's model, with the most intensive shelter use during the Middle Bondaian at c.3,000 to 1,000 BP, with the cessation of use of shelters as residential bases after 1,000 BP as the population and group size increased (more extensive open sites were used). Nevertheless, elements of Hiscock's model that relates to use of backed artefacts as a risk reduction strategy that assisted people in their occupation of new environments or rapidly changing environments were also supported by the excavation results, particularly that increased sedentism occurred in the Late Bondaian.
White (2001a:120) characterises the chronology of the Eastern Regional Sequence based on her extensive research and the work of Attenbrow, McDonald and Hiscock (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: General chronology of Eastern Regional Sequence (White 2001a:120).
Phase Attenbrow McDonald Hiscock and McDonald's 1994:68 1987:Table 4.7 1994:347 Attenbrow 1988 Characterisation of Phases large heavy artefacts, uniface pebble tools, core tools, denticulate saws, scrapers, Pre-Bondaian pre-5,000 BP pre-5,000 BP pre-7,000+ BP hammerstones, and some bipolars and burins
introduction of Small Tool Tradition with tools made on small blades and fine- grained siliceous materials being Early Bondaian 2,800 - 5,000 BP 3,000 - 5,000 BP predominant (silcrate/tuff/chert), along with continued features of the Pre-Bondaian but with backed implements and edge-ground implements introduced
frequency of backed artefacts increased and exceeded that of bipolar artefacts; edge- Middle Bondaian 1,600 - 2,800 BP 1,000 - 3,000 BP ground implements increased; frequency of quartz increased
backed artefacts became rare or absent from sites, while eloueras, edge-ground axes and bipolar artefacts increased; quartz Late Bondaian 1,840 AD - 1,600 BP contact - 1,000 BP became the predominant stone material; bone and shell implements present at some sites
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 78 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 White (2001a:8-9, 144-146), on the basis of the salvage excavation and extensive regional comparisons, presents a revised model of the Eastern Regional Sequence for the region:
Pre-Bondaian phase: The region was visited sporadically from the end of the Late Pleistocene, probably by small groups of highly mobile people. Tool-kits are inferred to have been highly portable, but inter-site variation is expected in relation to the nature of locally available stone materials and tasks performed, potentially along with the duration and nature of occupation (eg. rare/occasional use of a site or more frequent use);
Early-Bondaian phase: Occupation of the region increased in the Early Bondaian, but people remained highly mobile. Backed artefacts were more numerous than other retouched and/or utilised tools and were used for a variety of on-site and off-site tasks. Figurative pigment art and possibly open engraved art were developed at this time with increased social interaction (cf. McDonald 1994:348);
Middle-Bondaian phase: Occupation of the region was well established, and people remained highly mobile. Backed artefacts were an integral part of the toolkit and still outnumbered other retouched and/or utilised tools. Backed artefacts were produced en masse, particularly in or in proximity to more open valleys. The high discard rate in shelter sites was probably a result of backed artefact production rather than more intensive occupation. McDonald (1994) identifies that pigment and engraved art were important for negotiating increased social interaction during this phase, and backed artefacts and their production techniques may also have related to social factors; and
Late-Bondaian phase: Group mobility decreased markedly, with people occupying residential sites for longer periods of time, although not semi-permanently or in a sedentary manner. Toolkits changed (probably relating to a shift in emphasis towards the production and use of wooden items), with less discard of backed artefacts, increased discard of edge- ground artefacts, eloueras and grindstones, and increased use of bipolar flaking. McDonald (1994) argues that people stopped using shelters as residential sites (leading to a decline in artefact density), but began to live in larger groups and as such, preferred open site locations for residential camping, using shelters only to escape wet weather or on short-term trips by small numbers of people. White (2001a) however identifies that at ID# 132 lower artefact densities were also a result of the way stone technology was organised at the site.
Kuskie and Clarke (2005, 2007), on the basis of the longwall panels W1, W2-W3 and 23-26 results, proposed several elements that may relate to a general model of occupation for the Ulan locality. For the purposes of the present assessment, Kuskie (2007) further extended and developed this model, and identified the nature of evidence to test the model, so that ultimately through field survey and test excavation of rock shelters the model could be tested and refined.
The general model of occupation for the Ulan locality is outlined below (after Kuskie and Kamminga 2000, Kuskie 2005, Kuskie and Clarke 2005, 2007) with the nature of expected archaeological evidence to test the individual elements specified in italics:
Members of the north-eastern clan of the Wiradjuri, that was centered around the Mudgee- Rylstone area, predominantly occupied the study area. Interactions with and visitation from members of neighbouring cultural groups (particularly the Kamilaroi) may also have sporadically occurred;
No specific evidence expected of particular cultural groups.
Occupation primarily occurred within the past 5,000 years, but may have extended as far back as 30,000 - 40,000 years BP (although it is uncertain that any evidence for this may remain);
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 79 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Charcoal in a cultural context may be radiocarbon dated or other forms of dating may be used to establish the age of occupation. Specific artefact types may also provide evidence on the age of occupation.
Occupation was predominantly focused on the relatively more abundant and diverse resource rich zones within the north-east Wiradjuri territory (eg. the junction of multiple resource zones) particularly along higher order watercourses (eg. the Goulburn River and Talbragar River). Within these primary resource zones, such occupation could include nuclear/extended family base camps, community base camps and occasional larger congregations of groups where resources permitted. Encampments in more favourable locations (eg. abundant resources and water) may have been the subject of stays of longer duration and more frequent episodes of occupation than in other areas (eg. secondary resource zones, refer below);
Substantially higher counts and densities of artefacts and numbers of activity areas, along with a greater range of stone material and artefact types may occur in the primary resource zones than in other areas. Encampments in more favourable locations used for longer durations and more often may exhibit greater superimpositioning of activity areas, greater quantity and density of evidence, and evidence of different episodes in the form of in situ deposits with stratified or vertically separated evidence of activity events and datable material. Refer below for discussion of expected evidence for different occupation types.
Outside of the primary resource zones sporadic occupation of secondary resource zones, focused on the watercourses and swamps/wetlands, particularly within close proximity of higher order watercourses and associated flats and terraces (eg. in the Ulan locality, the higher order portions of Ulan Creek, Bobadeen Creek, Cockabutta Creek, Spring Gully, Wilpinjong Creek, Moolarben Creek, Narragamba Swamp, etc.). These zones were utilised for encampments by small parties of hunters/gatherers and nuclear/extended family groups during the course of the seasonal round. There was a strong preference for camping on level ground, adjacent to reliable water sources and more abundant subsistence resources. A greater range and frequency of activities were undertaken at the encampments, rather than in the surrounding landscape. Camp sites near the watercourses were occupied by these small groups of people for varying lengths of time (but of typically short duration), during both the course of the seasonal round and in different years. Occupation of these camp sites was predominantly sporadic, rather than continuous;
Moderately higher counts and densities of artefacts and numbers of activity areas, along with a relatively broad range of stone material and artefact types may occur in the secondary resource zones than in other areas, but to a much lesser degree than in the primary resource zones. Refer below for discussion of expected evidence for different occupation types and identifying whether occupation is sporadic or continuous.
Occupation outside of the primary resource zones and secondary resource zones tended to involve hunting and gathering activities by small parties of men and/or women and children, along with transitory movement between locations and procurement of stone materials. However, the utilisation of these areas (eg. typically simple slopes, ridge crests, spur crests and lower order watercourses) was far less intense than along the higher order watercourses or swamp margins where encampments were situated and potable water and more abundant resources present. These areas outside of the primary and secondary resource zones were probably typically exploited during the course of the normal daily round by inhabitants of encampments located in the primary or secondary resource zones, foraging within an area of up to ten kilometres radius from their campsites;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 80 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Evidence of low intensity occupation that may include low to very low artefact counts and densities and low numbers of activity areas, along with dates/stratigraphy indicating sporadic occupation over time, not continuous occupation. Refer below for discussion of expected evidence for different occupation types.
Occupation outside of the primary and secondary resource zones also involved special purpose journeys (eg. to procure stone or ochre from a known source or to access an area for ceremonial/spiritual purposes) and non-secular activities (eg. ceremonial activities);
Evidence of lithic or quarry sites may occur at stone/ochre sources. More abundant evidence at a particular location may indicate repeated and special-purpose visits, as may the absence of evidence associated with other occupation types. Refer below for discussion of expected evidence associated with ceremonial activities.
Thus, occupation extended over the entire tribal territory, with varying intensities and involving different activities, and occurring at different times of the year and different periods within the overall time-span of occupation;
Evidence of occupation at different times of year may be tested only if specific seasonal plant/food evidence and/or associated tool types involved in their processing can be identified in association with occupation. Identification of different episodes of occupation over time would require in situ deposits with stratified or vertically separated evidence of activity events and datable material.
Activities such as food procurement (hunting, gathering and land management practices such as burning-off), food processing, food consumption, maintenance of wooden and stone tools, production of stone tools (including systematic production of types such as backed artefacts, as well as hafting of implements and casual, opportunistic production of other items on an as needed basis), production of wooden tools and other implements, procurement of stone, erection of shelters, children's play, ceremonial activity, spiritual activity, human burials and social and political activity were among the types of pursuits engaged in by the local Aboriginal people across the tribal territory;
Food procurement (including hunting, gathering and land management): minimal evidence expected for most types of food procurement, apart from the presence of stone artefacts such as eloueras, wooden implements where preserved, such as digging sticks, or food refuse (eg. shell and bone) in sites. Food processing and consumption: evidence expected includes tools with specific use- wear/residues on cutting/chopping/pounding edges, specific tools that are related to processing certain foods (eg. eloueras, seed grinding slabs), evidence associated with hearths or ovens, and food refuse (eg. shell and bone) in sites. Production and maintenance of wooden implements: expected evidence includes stone and shell tools with design and/or use-wear/residues consistent with working wood, and the presence of wooden implements in sites. Production of stone tools: evidence expected includes hammerstones, anvils and most abundantly knapping debitage (eg. cores, flakes, flake portions, microblades, etc), along with some of the finished tools themselves. Production of backed artefacts: evidence expected includes finished microliths (unused), bondi point preforms, backing flakes, chimblers/hammerstones, high quantities of debitage including a high frequency of elongated flakes (microblades); Maintenance of stone tools: expected evidence includes cutting-edge rejuvenation flakes (eg. flakes from utilised edges of eloueras or other tools), portable whetstones, and axe- grinding grooves in sandstone. Procurement of stone: presence of stone sources and evidence for procurement at those sources (lithic quarry sites).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 81 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Ceremonial activity: presence of ochre in sites, and evidence of ceremonial sites (bora grounds, stone arrangements, carved trees, rock engravings, etc). Spiritual, social and other activity: presence of ochre in sites, evidence of ceremonial sites (bora grounds, stone arrangements, carved trees, etc) and rock art and engravings.
Activities varied in frequency and occurrence within the landscape (and between the different occupation site types), probably in relation to numerous variables such as topography, distance to resource zones, distance to water, aspect, slope and cultural choice. However, few activities will be evident within the archaeological record other than those involving the use of stone, or where preservation conditions permit, other materials such as bone, shell and wood. The majority of evidence within an archaeological context will relate to the reduction of stone, but some evidence will exist of hearths, food processing, food procurement and ceremonial and other activities;
Predominance of stone artefacts as the surviving physical evidence of occupation. Occasional evidence of hearths and other activities (refer elsewhere in this section).
The stone materials tuff and quartz were favoured for stone working activities, with the relatively intensity of use of each material dependent upon the proximity of local colluvial and alluvial gravels and terrestrial outcrop sources;
Predominance of tuff and quartz within the artefact assemblages. Evidence of nature and location of stone sources and attributes on individual artefacts that can potentially be linked to sources (eg. cortex, size, extent of reduction).
Stone was typically procured during the course of normal daily and seasonal movements, without the need for special purpose trips. The conservation of the most commonly used stone materials was not a priority. However, high quality less commonly utilised materials may have been procured from more distant sources by special purpose journeys and/or trade;
Presence of stone sources and evidence for procurement at those sources (lithic quarry sites). More abundant evidence at a particular location may indicate repeated and special-purpose visits, as may the absence of evidence associated with other occupation types. Particular stone materials may be traced by chemical/physical tests.
Casual and opportunistic reduction of stone or selection of flakes to meet requirements on an 'as needed' basis was a widespread occurrence. Suitable flakes (sometimes after being retouched) were used in domestic tasks such as fashioning or repairing a wooden implement, while a higher proportion of flaked products were simply discarded at the site of their manufacture, without use;
Limited evidence of activity areas associated with microblade/microlith production, and presence of artefacts relating to non-specific knapping with a low proportion of items possessing retouch or use-wear may be expected.
A low frequency of items was knapped using bipolar technology. This technology is largely, although not entirely, restricted to the reduction of quartz. It is likely that this technology was mainly employed to reduce small pebbles rather than as strategy to prolong the use-life of existing cores;
Presence of artefacts associated with bipolar knapping in relatively low frequencies, and mostly on quartz.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 82 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Exposed sandstone bedrock was used for the shaping and/or maintenance of ground-edge hatchets. This activity may have been occasional and incidental to transitory movement or short-term occupation during the course of the normal daily hunting/gathering round, rather than a result of special purpose visits;
Sites with grinding grooves may exhibit evidence consistent with transitory movement or hunting/gathering without camping. Sites with extensive evidence of grinding and limited evidence of other activities will not occur.
Plant foods were processed and consumed at temporary hunter/gatherer encampments, at family base camps, and where larger groups of people congregated, as well as at the sites of procurement. A range of plant resources was available in the region. Women played a much larger role than men in obtaining and processing plant foods;
Evidence relating to food processing and consumption occurring in association with evidence representative of these site types.
Animal foods were processed and consumed at temporary hunter/gatherer encampments, at family base camps, and where larger groups of people congregated, as well as at the sites of procurement. Men hunted for larger game, while women played a key role in obtaining smaller game.
Evidence for consumption and processing of animal food located in association with evidence interpreted as representing these occupation types.
The proposed model of occupation for the Ulan locality has been derived from archaeological, ethnographic, ethnohistorical and anthropological information. However, as these data are generally scant and subject to biases and other constraints, the proposed model is highly inferential and speculative in nature and subject to reassessment by more detailed future investigations throughout a wide range of environmental/cultural contexts in the region.
In general terms, the nature of occupation at each site identified within the study area could represent a variety of circumstances (Kuskie and Kamminga 2000), for example:
Transitory movement;
Ceremonial activity;
Hunting and/or gathering (without camping);
Camping by small hunting and/or gathering parties;
Nuclear/extended family base camp;
Community base camp; or
Larger congregation of groups.
The evidence could represent a single episode or multiple episodes of one or more of the above types of occupations. The episodes of occupations could have occurred at different times over the entire time-span of occupation in the region. Each episode of occupation could also have been for a different duration of time.
Unless the archaeological evidence for individual activity events is readily identifiable, it can be highly problematic to determine the types of occupation, number of episodes, and times and duration represented by evidence at a particular site. Suitable circumstances are rarely present in open sites, due to mixing of evidence by post-depositional processes and the superimpositioning of evidence caused by repeated episodes of occupation.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 83 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Listed below is a brief description of the nature of each type of occupation and the material circumstances or evidence that may relate to such occupation types within the present study area (cf. Kuskie and Kamminga 2000):
Transitory movement:
May occur when an individual or group of people are moving between base camps, or from a campsite to resources or a ceremonial or other special purpose site; Duration would be less than a day and probably less than a few hours; Total numbers of people would generally be relatively low; Could occur on most topographical units and classes of slope, but possibly more frequently on ridge and spur crests and along watercourses and valley flats; Could occur in any type of rock shelter (ie. any size, topographic location, or distance from water source) where shelter may be sought from inclement weather; Proximity to potable water was probably not important; Proximity to food resources was probably not important; Evidence may represent accidental discard, repair of hunting or gathering equipment, children's play or knapping activity; Quantity and density of evidence and range of artefact and stone types are expected to be low, consistent with 'background discard', with few discrete activity areas unless repeated episodes have occurred causing superimpositioning;
Ceremonial activity:
May occur when a group of people gathers at a particular location to perform a ceremony; Evidence may be present of ceremonial site features such as earthen rings or stone arrangements, or ochre; Evidence of large encampments (similar to that expected for the 'larger congregation of groups' listed below) may be present nearby, including in locations with an aspect towards the ceremonial site;
Hunting and/or gathering (without camping):
May occur when an individual, or more likely a small group of closely related people, engage in hunting activities (more likely to be a party of men) or gathering activities (more likely to be women and children); Duration would be less than a day, with people returning to a base to sleep; Total numbers of people would be relatively small; Would be expected to occur where food resources were available, which for different foods may be a seasonal or annual occurrence; Could occur in any type of rock shelter (ie. any size, topographic location, or distance from water source) particularly where shelter may be sought from inclement weather; Proximity to potable water was probably not important; Evidence may represent accidental discard, loss during use, repair of hunting or gathering equipment, children's play or knapping activity; Quantity and density of evidence and range of artefact and stone types are expected to be low, consistent with 'background discard', possibly with a few discrete activity areas. Loss or discard of specific tool types may be a useful indicator (particularly items with use- wear/residue that are not in association with evidence of their manufacture or maintenance). Repeated visits to particularly food sources may cause a build up of unrelated evidence over a period of time in a specific location.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 84 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Camping by small hunting and/or gathering parties:
May occur when an individual, or more likely a small group of closely related people, that are engaged in hunting activities (more likely to be a party of men) or gathering activities (more likely to involve women and children) camp overnight near the resource being procured; Duration would be one or several days; Total numbers of people would be relatively small; Would be expected to occur close to where food resources were available, which for different foods may be a seasonal or annual occurrence; Would be expected to occur in open contexts and also in rock shelters, particularly relatively larger rock shelters with sufficient habitable floor areas for activities and sleeping. Aspect of the rock shelter towards the rising or setting sun may have been important; Proximity to potable water probably was important, although temporary sources may have been sufficient; Evidence may represent accidental discard, repair of hunting or gathering equipment, children's play, stone knapping activity, food processing or temporary camp fires; Quantity and density of evidence and range of artefact and stone types are expected to be low to moderate, and distinguishable from 'background discard', with at least several activity areas. A reasonably broad range of artefact and stone types may be discarded (although not as diverse as expected at a base camp). Items likely to be cached for future use at a base camp, or unlikely to be carried around on a hunting or gathering journey (eg. grindstones) are not expected to occur. Time-consuming activities like construction and use of ovens or heat treatment pits are also unlikely to have occurred.
Nuclear/extended family base camp:
May occur when a single nuclear family or extended family camps together; Duration uncertain but probably dependent on availability of food resources and potable water in the locality; Total numbers of people would be relatively small; In open sites, probably situated on level or very gently inclined ground, close to potable water and close to food resources; In rock shelters, probably occurred in shelters close to potable water (with greater potential near higher order sources), close to food resources and only in large rock shelters with sufficient habitable floor area for activities and sleeping. Aspect of the rock shelter towards the rising or setting sun may have been important; The encampment area in open contexts may consist of a several small huts, dispersed in a spatial patterning depending on the social mix of the people; Evidence may represent accidental discard, repair of equipment, children's play, stone knapping activity, food processing, campfires, heat treatment of silcrete and manufacturing of tools; Quantity and density of evidence and range of artefact and stone types discarded are expected to be high. Discrete activity areas should occur. Repeated visits to a camp site or stays of long duration may cause a build-up of evidence over a period of time in a specific location. Items are likely to have been cached for future use at a base camp. Specific artefact indicators include grindstones. Evidence of casual knapping and production of tools is expected to be common. The significant differences with a temporary hunter/gatherer's camp include the possible presence of features such as heat treatment pits and ovens, broader range of artefact and stone types, presence of specific artefact indicators, higher density of evidence (reflecting more activity and longer duration of use) and relatively common evidence for the production of tools.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 85 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Community base camp:
May occur when a number of nuclear families camp together; Duration uncertain but probably dependent on availability of food resources; Total numbers of people could be relatively large (30+); Probably situated on level or very gently inclined ground in open contexts; Probably situated close to potable water; Probably situated close to food resources (eg. conjunction of wetlands and forest zones); 2 The encampment area may exceed 100 m and consist of a number of individual groups and huts, dispersed in a spatial patterning depending on the social mix of the groups; Quantity and density of evidence and range of artefact and stone types discarded are expected to be high. Spatially discrete evidence of individual camp sites would be expected (if the resulting evidence has not been affected by disturbance or superimpositioning). Items may not have been cached for future use. Specific artefact indicators include grindstones, relatively more common evidence of food processing and possibly ochre. Evidence of casual knapping and production of tools is expected to be common. However, features such as heat treatment pits may not occur.
Larger congregation of groups:
May occur in relation to special events (eg. major ceremonies) or when a particularly desirable food was most abundant; Probably of short duration (eg. <1-2 weeks) but potentially for longer duration (eg. up to several months); Total numbers of people could vary widely, but possibly exceed 100; Probably situated on level or very gently inclined ground in open contexts; Probably situated close to potable water; Probably situated close to food resources; A large area or areas of encampments would be expected, possibly covering hundreds of square metres or more; Spatially discrete evidence of individual camp sites would be expected (if the resulting evidence has not been affected by disturbance or superimpositioning); Quantity and density of evidence and range of artefact and stone types discarded are expected to be high (similar to community base camp). Items may not have been cached for future use. Specific artefact indicators include grindstones, relatively more common evidence of food processing and possibly ochre, and possibly evidence of processing uncommon foods for which the gathering may be related. Evidence of casual knapping and production of tools is expected to be common. However, features such as heat treatment pits may not occur.
To distinguish whether single or multiple episodes of occupation occurred, several factors can be examined. Multiple episodes of occupation would tend to exhibit superimpositioning of artefact evidence (eg. mix of unrelated stone materials and artefact types and activity areas). However, identifying which items belong to which activity events can be problematical. Also, distinguishing the effects of post-depositional disturbance from cultural superimpositioning is problematical (cf. Koettig 1994). The analysis of distributions of stone material and artefact types is of benefit in some circumstances. In a stratified deposit, multiple episodes of occupation would be indicated by evidence in different stratigraphic layers, particularly discrete activity areas to exclude the possibility that items have moved vertically through the deposit by bioturbation.
Another indicator of multiple occupation is an expectation of a relatively higher density of artefacts within a locality (combined with superimpositioning as discussed above). Larger areas of occupation may also result, when occupations only partially overlap (eg. Camilli 1989).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 86 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Identification of different episodes of occupation over time would require in situ deposits with stratified or vertically separated evidence of activity events and datable material (eg. charcoal or midden deposits).
Identification of the duration of individual episodes of occupation may prove very difficult. Where a single episode of occupation has occurred, a greater quantity of items, frequency of discrete activity events and size of contemporaneous shell midden deposit may be indicative of a longer stay.
Identification of the types of occupations when multiple episodes have occurred may prove highly problematical. Unless specific artefact indicators for different types of occupation are present, the superimpositioning of evidence from unrelated occupations (eg. transitory movement over a nuclear family base camp) may not be possible to determine.
5.2 Site Type Predictions
A predictive model of site location was constructed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) during preliminary studies for the project to identify locations where there is a probability of archaeological evidence occurring, so it can be used as a basis for the planning and management of Aboriginal heritage. Predictive modelling involves reviewing existing literature to determine basic patterns of site distribution. These patterns are then reviewed according to the specific environment of the study area to form a predictive model of site location. A sampling strategy is employed to test the predictive model and the results of the survey used to confirm, refute or modify aspects of the model (refer to Sections 6 and 7).
The use of land systems and environmental factors in predictive modelling is based upon the assumption that they provided distinctive sets of constraints that influenced Aboriginal land use patterns. Following from this is the expectation that land use patterns may differ between each zone, because of differing environmental constraints, and that this may result in the physical manifestation of different spatial distributions and forms of archaeological evidence (Hall and Lomax 1993:26).
The predictive model is based on information from the following sources:
Identification of land systems and landform units;
Previous archaeological surveys conducted within the region and portions of the study area;
Distribution of recorded sites and known site density;
Traditional Aboriginal land use patterns; and
Known importance of any parts of the study area to the local Aboriginal community.
In certain circumstances, such as where low surface visibility or recent sediment deposition precludes effective assessment of the potential archaeological resource, sub-surface testing may be a viable alternative for further testing the predictive model and assessing the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 87 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Notwithstanding the number of surveys undertaken at Ulan Coal Mine, only two rock shelters have been excavated and reported on in any detail (refer to Section 3.2). These surveys give some indication of the nature and distribution of heritage evidence within the Ulan locality, and the excavations give some indication of the nature of the expected evidence within the rock shelter sites. These expectations are summarised below for the study area, with respect to the different Aboriginal site types, although it is noted that our present understanding of the nature of evidence within the rock shelter sites is seriously constrained by the limited excavation and investigation of such deposits to date.
Artefact Scatters:
The definition of an artefact scatter ‘site’ is often an arbitrary one, which can offer benefits from a heritage management perspective but is a source of theoretical/analytical debate for heritage practitioners. In most archaeological contexts, an artefact scatter has been defined as either the presence of two or more stone artefacts within 50 or 100 metres of each other, or a concentration of artefacts at a higher density than surrounding low density ‘background scatter’. Due to the nature of the underlying evidence, its identification only within exposures created by erosion or disturbance, and the limited suitability of existing definitions, artefact scatter sites are defined within this study as the presence of one or more stone artefacts within a survey area (cf. Kuskie 2000b). The survey areas are based on discrete, repeated environmental contexts or archaeological terrain units (eg. a particular combination of landform unit and class of slope).
Each spatially discrete location of evidence within a survey area is defined as a site locus, with the boundaries of the site locus defined by the visible extent of artefacts (ie. Aboriginal objects protected under the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974). However, as such a definition is somewhat arbitrary and does not necessarily reflect true cultural sites (temporally and spatially related evidence) and previous survey results lend support to the argument that artefacts are distributed across the landscape in a virtual continuum, but with evidence only identified in surface exposures or areas of disturbance, it is assumed that there is a similar probability for comparable evidence to occur elsewhere within the same survey area. Hence, while the visible site loci boundaries are defined by the extent of visible evidence (consistent with the definition of an Aboriginal object under the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974), across the entire survey area in which a site is identified there exists a potential resource of comparable evidence.
An artefact scatter may consist of surface material only, which has been exposed by erosion, or it more typically involves a sub-surface deposit of varying depth. Other features may be present within artefact scatter sites, including hearths or stone-lined fireplaces, and heat treatment pits.
Artefact scatters may represent the evidence of:
Camp sites, where everyday activities such as habitation, maintenance of stone or wooden tools, manufacturing of stone or wooden tools, management of raw materials, preparation and consumption of food and storage of tools has occurred;
Hunting or gathering events;
Other events spatially separated from a camp site (eg. tool production or maintenance); or
Transitory movement through the landscape.
The detection of artefact scatters depends upon conditions of surface visibility and ground disturbance and whether recent sediment deposition has occurred (cf. Dean-Jones and Mitchell 1993). Vegetation cover and deposition of sediments generally obscures artefact scatter sites and prevents their detection during surface surveys. High levels of ground disturbance can also obscure or remove evidence of a site.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 88 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Artefact scatters are a common site type in the Ulan locality and the broader Central Tablelands region. In the Ulan lease area, over 206 artefact scatter sites and 85 isolated artefacts had been recorded prior to the present survey, often in environmental contexts similar to those within the present study area.
Kuskie (2007, 2008) concluded that there is a very high potential for further stone artefact evidence to occur within the study area. This evidence may comprise a widespread distribution of variable density across virtually all landform units, apart from in areas which have been substantially impacted by recent land-use (ie. areas in which the A unit or upper soil horizon has been totally removed). In general, the stone artefact evidence may be of a low to very low density consistent with background discard, interspersed by a low number of activity areas (with consequent higher artefact density). The artefact evidence may involve a broad range of artefact and stone types, but will predominantly comprise evidence associated with non-specific stone flaking, on quartz and tuff stone materials.
However, a higher artefact density and potentially deposits of research significance may occur where more focused occupation (eg. encampments, or events of longer duration or involving larger numbers of people) and/or repeated Aboriginal occupation has occurred. These contexts may comprise elevated, well-drained and low gradient flats, terraces, spur crests, ridge crests and simple slopes adjacent to watercourses, particularly higher order watercourses. The potential for deposits of research significance may be enhanced by the presence of a relatively deeper A unit soil and/or lower levels of ground disturbance. In certain circumstances, the impacts of post-depositional processes can also be identified and controlled for (cf. Koettig 1989, Kuskie and Kamminga 2000).
Bora/Ceremonial Sites:
Bora grounds are a type of ceremonial site associated with initiation ceremonies. They are usually made of two circular depressions in the earth, sometimes edged with stone. Bora grounds can occur on soft sediments in river valleys and elsewhere, although occasionally they are located on high, rocky ground where they may be associated with stone arrangements. Pearson (1981:104-105) identified that the location of ceremonial sites appears to have related to a desire to isolate the site in a secret or seldom visited location.
The potential for bora/ceremonial sites to occur within the study area was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as low, due in part to the recent history of land use, but cannot be discounted. The presence of "Bora Creek" is noted immediately east of Ulan Coal Mine and Cassilis Road, in the Moolarben mine lease.
Burials:
Human remains tended to be placed in hollow trees, caves, rock shelters or sand deposits. The location of burials may once have been marked by carved trees (eg. Etheridge 1918:85), although subsequent tree clearing and the long passage of time since the disruption of this practice has rendered these markers extremely rare. Pearson (1981:102-104) noted on the basis of recorded burials and ethnohistorical observations that burials in the region took place relatively close to encampments, due to the fact that most people unless killed by hunting accidents or in warfare tended to die in or close to camp, and movement of bodies over long distances by foot was problematic. A number of these observations (eg. by Reverend Gunther and Dr Curtis) identify burials within a mile of a campsite, in soft ground, with trees around carved.
Usually burials are only identified when eroding out of sand deposits or creek banks, or when disturbed by development. The probability of detecting burials during archaeological fieldwork is extremely low.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 89 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The potential for burial sites to occur within the study area was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as low, but cannot be discounted in either sandy soils or rock shelters. One rock shelter "with possible burial" has previously been recorded in the broader Ulan lease area (Ulan ID# 314, Haglund 1999a). This site is situated several kilometres southwest of the study area. It is a hollow in a sandstone rock formation, about 1.5 metres above the ground surface, with pieces of cut timber arranged on the floor of the hollow over possible dry grass and/or bark fibres. Mr David Maynard (MGATSIC) interpeted this evidence as a probable burial.
Carved Trees:
Carved trees were still relatively common in the early 20th century (Etheridge 1918). They were typically used as markers for ceremonial or symbolic areas, including burials.
Both vegetation removal and the long passage of time since the practice of tree carving was prevalent have rendered this site type extremely rare. Consequently, the potential for carved trees to occur within the study area was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as very low, but cannot be discounted.
Cultural Significant Sites or Areas:
Sites of cultural significance to Aboriginal people (excluding the contemporary significance attached to the other site types listed here) can take three forms:
Sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs and traditional knowledge, which date from the pre-contact period and have persisted until the present time;
Sites or places associated with historical associations, which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today (for example, plant and animal resource use areas and known camp sites); and
Sites or places of contemporary significance (apart from those areas for which Aboriginal objects remain, which are discussed elsewhere here), for which the significance has been acquired in recent times.
Although these sites do not qualify as Aboriginal objects under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 they can be declared as Aboriginal places under the Act.
Mythological sites, or other sites of traditional, historical or contemporary significance to Aboriginal people, can occur in any location. Often natural landscape features may be related to important mythological stories. Consultation with the local Aboriginal community is essential to identify the presence of such cultural significant sites. Physical evidence of historical contact can occur in the form of artefacts manufactured from introduced materials (eg. porcelain or glass).
Grinding Grooves:
Grinding grooves are elongated narrow depressions in soft rocks (particularly sedimentary), generally associated with watercourses. The depressions are created by the shaping and sharpening of ground-edge hatchets or chisels. Other depressions in sedimentary rock can also be ground out for other purposes, such as processing plant foods (eg. seeds) or to assist with storage of water ("water-hole/well").
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 90 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Grinding grooves are typically located in sedimentary bedrock along watercourses, but also occur in the Ulan lease area on open surfaces of sandstone in other contexts (eg. simple slopes) and on smaller sandstone slabs or surfaces in rock shelters. In the Ulan lease areas, 13 rock shelters were known to host grinding grooves, and another 11 grinding groove sites were known in open contexts, prior to the present survey. Sandstone rock formations are common within the study area and the potential for additional grinding grooves sites to occur, both in association with rock shelters and in open contexts, was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as very high.
Quarry Sites:
A lithic quarry is the location of an exploited stone source (Hiscock and Mitchell 1993:32). Sites will only be located where exposures of a stone type suitable for use in artefact manufacture occurs.
Stone materials suitable for manufacturing Aboriginal artefacts were anticipated to be present in various locations throughout the study area, including pebbles of quartz, along with other fine- grained materials (eg. chert and volcanics), basalt and tuff. The potential for evidence of lithic procurement within the study area was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as moderate to high.
Ochre quarry sites are an uncommon site type, however, two have been previously recorded in the Ulan lease areas, close to the study area (ID# 152 and 158 by Edgar 1997). Ochre quarries take the form of circular depressions or tunnels and are frequently associated with artefacts utilised in the process of extracting ochre (Hiscock and Mitchell 1993:62). The potential for evidence of ochre quarries within the study area was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as moderate.
Rock Engravings:
Rock engravings include outlines or filled-in figures, created on rock surfaces (typically sedimentary stone) by pecking, hammering or scraping.
Rock engravings are more common on exposed sandstone bedrock on ridge and spur crests than in the bases of valleys or margins of steep slopes. Although rock engravings have not been recorded within the Ulan locality, suitable sandstone bedrock is present in the study area and preliminary advice from a registered Aboriginal stakeholder (Mrs Wendy Lewis) is that such evidence could be present. Engravings are known to occur elsewhere in the region (Haglund 1985, Navin 1990). The potential for rock engravings was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as very low, but cannot be discounted.
Rock Shelters With Art, Deposits and/or Grinding Grooves:
Rock shelters include rock overhangs, shelters or caves which were used by Aboriginal people. Rock shelter sites may contain artefacts, deposits and/or rock art or grinding grooves. These sites will only occur where suitable geological formations are present.
In the Ulan lease area, over 130 rock shelter sites had been identified prior to the present survey, many with artefacts and some with art and/or grinding grooves. Numerous other rock shelters have been noted with "Potential Archaeological Deposits" (PADs). Although artefacts may not have been visible at the time of recording, these shelters have some probability of containing artefact deposits, which can be confirmed or refuted by test excavation. These sites have been recorded in isolated rock formations and along more extensive rock formations.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 91 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Rock shelter sites at Ulan vary widely in terms of contents (eg. containing artefacts, potential deposits, painted art and/or grinding grooves), location (eg. topographic context, distance to watercourse, size/order of watercourse and aspect), nature (eg. size of shelter, extent of habitable floor area, number and types of artefacts and stone materials) and potential (eg. depth and extent of potential artefact deposits). Stone artefacts would be the primary form of expected evidence within the rock shelters, in anything from very low to very high densities. Charcoal from fireplaces/hearths may also occur, as may bones and/or shell from fauna used by Aboriginal people for subsistence (or incorporated into the deposit by other means, such as animal activity or natural processes). The presence of other evidence, such as the remains of wooden implements, cannot be discounted, even though their occurrence has rarely been documented in the region. A boomerang was reported by Haglund (1999b) at ID# 164, although the current provenance of this item is uncertain. Pollen may occur which can be useful in reconstructing past environmental conditions.
Apart from several major sites such as the "Hands on Rock" complex adjacent to the project area, rock art occurs relatively infrequently in the recorded shelters and tends to comprise red ochre hand stencils. Hand stencils were part of a complex form of communication and utilised in the representation of signatures, special occasions, individuals, messages, stories, myths and spiritual events. Navin (1990) noted the possibility that Ulan may have had a regionally specific art site tradition.
Sandstone rock formations occur widely in the study area, including boulders, shelters and overhangs. Kuskie (2007, 2008) concluded that there was a very high potential for additional rock shelter sites to occur throughout the study area where suitable rock formations exist, potentially including artefacts, deposits, art and/or grinding grooves.
Scarred Trees:
Scarred trees contain scars caused by the removal of bark for use in manufacturing canoes, containers, shields or shelters. Mature trees, remnants of stands of the original vegetation, have the potential to contain scars.
Six scarred trees had previously been recorded within the Ulan lease area, prior to the present survey. Considering the long period of time that has elapsed since this practice was prevalent and the extent of vegetation removal in the substantially cleared portions of the study area, the potential for scarred tree sites to occur within these cleared areas was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as low, but cannot be discounted where mature native trees remain. The potential for scarred trees to occur in the majority of the study area, which retains mature native vegetation, was assessed as low to moderate.
Stone Arrangements:
Stone arrangements include circles, mounds, lines or other patterns of stone arranged by Aboriginal people. Some were associated with bora grounds or ceremonial sites and others with mythological or sacred sites.
Hill tops and ridge crests which contain stone outcrops or surface stone, and have been subject to minimal impacts from recent land use practices, are potential locations for stone arrangements. Pearson (1981:105-106) noted that no ethnographic records from the upper Macquarie River region pertain to the use of stone arrangements, even though their existence was recorded as early as 1815 (Macquarie's visit to the Mt Pleasant cairns near Bathurst). Pearson (1981:106) noted that stone arrangements in the region typically occur as lines or cairns on bare, exposed hill crests in the plateau/isolated hill areas, or on bare areas of flat land where flatter land predominates. The stone arrangements on hill crests are noted as being often a considerable distance from water, and therefore not within close proximity of any camp sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 92 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 One stone arrangement site has previously been recorded within the Ulan lease area (ID# 177, Haglund 1999a) close to the present study area. The potential for stone arrangements to occur within the study area was assessed by Kuskie (2007, 2008) as low to moderate in the forested areas, and low to very low in the cleared areas.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 93 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 6. METHODOLOGY
The principal aims of this Aboriginal heritage investigation and impact assessment are outlined in Section 1. A project methodology was devised to enable these aims to be addressed, in consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders.
Open cut mining has the potential to cause total impact to any Aboriginal heritage evidence within the zone of surface disturbance. Other surface impacts may also arise from infrastructure and associated facilities or continuing use and maintenance of existing facilities (for example, unformed roads). Underground mining, through subsidence, has the potential to adversely affect particular Aboriginal site types such as rock shelters, grinding grooves, stone arrangements, scarred trees and carved trees, along with artefact scatters and deposits in particular circumstances (eg. cracking of the surface and subsequent remedial works, or erosion/slumping along creek lines). The potential occurrence of these site types relates to various factors, as has been outlined in Section 5. The potential distribution of these site types may be widespread throughout the study area and requires confirmation by field inspection.
In consideration of the occupation and predictive model outlined in Section 5, the potential impacts of the proposal (refer to Section 11), the regulatory requirements (refer to Sections 1 and 10) and project objectives (refer to Section 1), the agreed methodology has involved comprehensive surface inspection of the geographic extent of the study area.
For the purposes of this Aboriginal heritage assessment, the overall project area is delineated by the solid blue line on Figure 1.2 and includes all existing and proposed works that form part of the project. Details of these works are presented in Figures 1.2-1.5 and Section 1.2. However, many facilities are either in existence and located in areas that have been extensively impacted by earthmoving works, or they have not been constructed but are proposed to be located in areas that have been extensively impacted by earthmoving works. In such areas there is negligible potential for any Aboriginal heritage evidence to survive. These areas have been classified as modified and do not require further detailed assessment as to the potential impacts of the project.
Consequently, the Aboriginal heritage study area (or study area) referred to herein should be taken to mean those areas within the project area in which Aboriginal heritage may exist and which may be subject to impacts from the project. Hence, the study area excludes both:
Areas within the project area that will not be subject to impacts; and
Areas within the project area that are totally modified, irrespective of whether continuing or additional impacts will occur.
These areas are shown on Figure 2.1, with areas potentially susceptible to subsidence impacts marked in yellow and areas potentially susceptible to surface impacts marked in light blue. Excluding areas of overlap, the total study area measures about 5,431 hectares in area.
Virtually the entire study area has been subdivided into different survey areas, each representing a specific environmental context, which is a combination of a landform element and class of slope (eg. level-very gentle spur crest or gentle spur crest) (refer to Figure 7.1 and detailed mapping of each survey area in Appendix B11). Each survey area is bordered by different survey areas that represent different environmental contexts (apart from in a few instances where the same environmental context in adjacent areas is represented by separate survey units due to the conduct of the survey on different dates or in relation to variations to the study area boundaries). The definitions are based on those of McDonald (et al 1984) (refer to Kuskie 2000b and glossary in Appendix 1).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 94 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 This subdivision is based on the assumption that Aboriginal people used different parts of the landscape in different ways, relating to things like the distance to water, distance to resources or type of landform unit. Hence, it is also assumed that different heritage evidence may exist in these different environmental contexts.
The methodology involved an intention to survey (physically inspect on foot) a sample from every survey area within the study area. In other words, the survey would sample the entire study area, not just specific contexts such as creek-lines or ridges.
During the course of the lengthy field survey, multiple changes were made to the study area boundaries by the client, as mining and infrastructure plans were refined. For example, the study area as defined in the early stage of the field survey compared with the current study area is shown in Figure 7.2. In addition, property access was not available to portions of the study area on privately owned land, particularly a large area in the northern section of the Ulan West underground mine (refer to Figure 7.3). As a consequence, although a large proportion of the current study area was subject to archaeological survey (approximately 88%), either during the current survey or through recent surveys by South East Archaeology which implemented a similar methodology, small portions of the study area were not directly surveyed during the present assessment (refer to Section 7.1).
As the primary purpose of the assessment was to assess the impacts of continued operations on Aboriginal heritage, the focus and intensity of the survey coverage varies in relation to the nature of potential impacts. Essentially, the study area can be subdivided into:
1) Surface impact area - Areas in which the primary impacts will occur from surface works (eg. open cut mining near the existing pit, pleuger sites, ventilation fans and roads). These impacts could affect the entire range of Aboriginal heritage evidence present; and 2) Underground impact area - Areas in which the primary impacts will occur from subsidence due to underground mining, with minimal direct surface impacts (eg. potentially limited to small areas from continued use of existing access tracks and exploratory drilling). These impacts will generally be limited to the site types (eg. rock shelters, grinding grooves and scarred trees) that are susceptible to impacts from subsidence (refer to Figure 2.1).
Within each survey area in the surface impact area:
Inspection was made widely for the obtrusive site types, such as rock shelters with deposit and/or art, grinding grooves and scarred trees; and
Inspection was also made widely for stone artefacts, focusing on areas with ground surface visibility.
Within each survey area in the underground impact area:
Inspection was made widely for the obtrusive site types, particularly those that are susceptible to subsidence impacts, such as rock shelters with deposit and/or art, grinding grooves and scarred trees; and
Although not the focus of the inspection, as impacts from subsidence will be limited, inspection was made for stone artefacts along the areas sampled and where identified during the course of this inspection such evidence was also recorded, along with sufficient details of survey coverage.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 95 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Detailed recording was made of the environmental conditions of every survey area inspected (eg. landform unit, slope, surface visibility, detection limiting factors, levels of ground disturbance, etc.) and any heritage evidence identified. Separate recording forms were utilised for each type of heritage evidence (eg. grinding grooves, stone artefact sites, rock shelters, etc.).
The results of the investigation are reported in Section 7 and Volume B of this report. Volume B contains the survey coverage, heritage site and lithic item databases, detailed site location maps and detailed descriptions of every heritage site located during the course of the present survey, along with details of those previously recorded sites that may be subject to impacts from the project and/or warrant consideration as to their future management. It is noted that a number of the Aboriginal sites recorded during the present survey are now located outside of the current study area and will not be subject to potential impacts, due to revisions to the study area boundaries based on refined mine planning. Descriptions of these sites have been included in Volume B, although further discussion of their significance and management herein is limited.
During the course of the survey Aboriginal stakeholders were also asked of their knowledge of any areas of cultural significance within the study area, such as:
Sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs and traditional knowledge, which date from the pre-contact period and have persisted until the present time;
Sites or places associated with historical associations, which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today (for example, plant and animal resource use areas and known camp sites); and
Sites or places of contemporary significance (apart from those areas for which Aboriginal objects remain, which are discussed above), for which the significance has been acquired in recent times.
The survey was conducted over a period of 104 days between February and November 2008 by archaeologists from South East Archaeology (principally Peter Kuskie, Chris Carter, Caroline Ingram, Michael Marsh and Helen Selimiotis) assisted on every day by representatives of the Aboriginal stakeholders. Generally, two representatives of each stakeholder organisation (total of eight community representatives) assisted on each day of the survey. Comprehensive details of the survey participants are presented in the Aboriginal consultation database in Appendix 6. Assistance was also provided by staff of UCML throughout the course of the survey, particularly Jamie Lees, Cheryl Holden and Phil English.
The general survey procedure involved separation of the crew into three teams, each comprising an archaeologist and several Aboriginal community representatives. The team members worked together surveying each survey area. Several days were utilised at the onset of the survey for Occupational Health and Safety procedures and training/familiarisation and several days were lost due to inclement weather.
The survey teams were equipped with high resolution 1:3,000 scale mapping of the study area, with detailed one metre contours, a 100 metre MGA grid and an aerial photograph underlay. Along with the use of hand-held GPS units (generally accurate to within ten metres), these features assisted with defining survey areas and accurately establishing the location of Aboriginal sites. GPS units were checked daily using the UCML GPS check procedures against known survey points. Each survey area was assigned a unique reference number (1 through to 1888) after completion of the survey, to replace original field codes based on the surveyors initials and sequential numbers.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 96 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Each new Aboriginal site identified was given a unique reference number following the nomenclature of Haglund (1999a) and a unique Ulan ID Number. Haglund (1999a) began naming sites within the broader ML1468 area after the "landform patterns" in which they were located. In this report, all Aboriginal sites are referred to by the Ulan ID Number (ID#) where one exists, or alternatively by the DECC AHIMS number where a Ulan ID# does not exist (eg. those sites outside of the project area).
Site records for all Aboriginal sites identified during the investigation, along with updated information for previously recorded sites and new records for previously recorded sites within the study area that could not be relocated, are being completed for submission to DECC. This overcomes the issues identified in Section 3.1, wherein only two of the 110 Aboriginal sites recorded by Haglund (1999a, 1999b) during the ML1468 assessment had been entered onto the DECC AHIMS register.
Prior to the conduct of the survey and after completion of the survey, additional research and heritage register searches have been performed. Details of the heritage register searches are outlined in Section 3.1. Research was conducted into the environmental, historical, cultural and archaeological background of the study area, including at the head office of DECC and various Public Libraries and other institutions, such as the Mudgee Historical Society and Colonial Inn Museum, National Library of Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, and Australian National University.
Consultation and involvement of the Aboriginal community was undertaken as per the requirements of the DECC policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (refer to Section 8). Following completion of the survey and draft report, meetings were held with the Aboriginal stakeholders on 30 June 2009 and 30 and 31 July 2009. The second meeting included an inspection over two days of the study area, conservation areas and key heritage sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 97 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 7.1: Aboriginal heritage study area and archaeological survey areas.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 98 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 7.2: Comparison of current Aboriginal heritage study area boundaries with the boundaries during the early stage of the survey.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 99 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 7.3: Areas not subject to survey, typically due to property access restrictions at the time of the investigation or late revisions to the study area boundaries.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 100 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Survey Coverage
Comprehensive survey coverage was obtained across the geographic extent of the present study area (potential impact area), predominantly during the course of the current heritage survey, but also including some coverage from other recent surveys at UCML that were undertaken using the same methodology (refer to Sections 3.2.1 and 6). Minor areas of the current study area could not be sampled due to property access constraints at the time of the survey and/or late revisions to the study area.
The archaeological survey coverage is summarised in Table 7.1 and discussed below. Detailed plans of each survey area, along with the heritage site locations, are presented in Appendix B11. A graphical overview of the survey coverage is presented in Figure 7.1 and areas in which coverage has not been achieved are highlighted in Figure 7.3. Comprehensive details of every survey area are presented in databases in Appendix B1, including the previous coverage of the open cut extension (Kuskie 2004, Kuskie and Clarke in.prep.), longwall panels W2-W3 (Kuskie and Clarke 2007) and panels 23-26 and W1 (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b).
The current survey (conducted across the study area in 2008) achieved direct survey coverage of a total area of approximately 6,089,739 m2 (609 hectares). This total refers to the ground surface physically inspected in such a manner as to reliably enable the detection of heritage evidence (particularly stone artefacts). As this coverage only refers to an area of several metres width directly inspected by the survey team members (calculated as per DECC 1997 guidelines), the actual survey coverage for obtrusive site types, such as rock shelters, grinding grooves and scarred trees, was significantly greater than this.
The survey coverage was achieved by subdivision of virtually the entire study area into different survey areas, each representing specific environmental contexts, and inspection of a sample of each separate survey area (refer to Section 6). Coverage was obtained and recorded within 1,888 separate survey areas, that sampled a total area of about 4,785 hectares (including some areas now outside of the current study area).
The current survey achieved a total effective survey coverage of approximately 366,665 m2. This total refers to the visible ground surface physically inspected with potential to host heritage evidence (particularly stone artefacts). These levels of archaeological visibility varied widely across the study area but were typically low. In fact, the mean archaeological visibility across the entire survey sample was 6%. Visibility (particularly for stone artefact evidence) was typically constrained by vegetation, leaf litter and colluvial sediment deposition.
In addition to the current survey, approximately 8.6% of the present study area has been recently surveyed by South East Archaeology using the same methodology, consistent with current DECC standards and requirements (refer to Sections 3.2.1 and 6). As accepted by the Aboriginal stakeholders, this previous survey coverage has been incorporated into the present assessment (refer to Table 7.1).
Surveys of the open cut extension (Kuskie 2004, Kuskie and Clarke in.prep.) achieved direct coverage of a total area of approximately 424,598 m2 (42.4 hectares) out of a study area of 302 hectares, with effective survey coverage of approximately 30,571 m2 (refer to Figures 3.6 and 7.1, Table 7.1 and Appendix B11). Approximately 67% of this open cut extension study area lies within the present study area. Hence, about 202 hectares or 3.7% of the overall present study area consists of areas in which sampling coverage was obtained via the previous open cut extension project.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 101 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 7.1: Summary of archaeological survey coverage for Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project.
Current W2-W3 23-26 + W1 Open Cut Total10 Survey6 Survey7 Survey8 Extension Survey9
Total number of survey areas 1,888 42 51 104 2085
Total area surveyed1 6,089,739 m2 751,768 m2 857,736 m2 424,598 m2 8,123,841 m2
Total effective survey coverage 366,665 m2 28,920 m2 73,767 m2 30,571 m2 499,923 m2
Mean archaeological visibility2 6.0% 3.8% 8.6% 7.2% 6.2%
Number of artefacts (open sites) 3 8,323 40 339 128 8,830
Mean artefact density (number of artefacts per square metre of 0.0227/m2 0.0014/m2 0.0046/m2 0.0042/m2 0.0177/m2 effective survey coverage)4
Total area of survey areas5 4,785.4 ha 350.2 ha 863.9 ha 302.6 ha 6,302.1 ha
Total area of survey areas within 4,300.5 ha 130.3 ha 136.5 ha 202.4 ha 4,769.7 ha current study/impact area
Total area of survey areas now 485.0 ha 219.9 ha 725.6 ha 98.2 ha 1,528.7 ha outside of current study/impact area
1: Total area of ground surface physically inspected in such a manner as to reliably enable the detection of heritage evidence. This coverage only refers to an area of several metres width directly inspected by survey team members (calculated as per DECC 1997 guidelines). The actual coverage for obtrusive site types such as rock shelters was significantly greater than this. There are minor differences with Table 7.2 due to the minor overlap (ie. duplicated coverage) of small areas in this combined table. 2: Effective survey coverage as % of total sample area. 3: Artefact numbers in open sites as recorded during each survey (excludes earlier recordings of items that were not relocated and re-recorded and excludes artefacts in rock shelters). 4: Mean artefact density based on these figures as recorded during each survey, for open sites only (ie. excludes rock shelters). 5: Total geographic extent of area sampled as per survey methodology. Overall total includes minor areas of overlap (duplicated coverage). 6: Current survey includes coverages of some areas now outside of the study area due to late revisions to study area boundaries, and excludes areas within the study area that were surveyed for other recent projects or could not be surveyed due to property access constraints. 7: Kuskie and Clarke (2007). 8: Kuskie and Clarke (2005b). 9: Kuskie and Clarke (in prep.), Kuskie (2004). 10: Total area of survey areas (including within and outside of impact area) includes minor areas of overlap between previous surveys and the present (c.28 hectares).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 102 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A survey of longwall panels W2-W3 (Kuskie and Clarke 2007) achieved direct coverage of a total area of approximately 751,768 m2 (75.2 hectares) out of a study area of 350 hectares, with effective survey coverage of approximately 28,920 m2 (refer to Figures 3.6 and 7.1, Table 7.1 and Appendix B11). Approximately 37% of this W2-W3 study area lies within the present study area. Hence, about 130 hectares or 2.4% of the overall present study area consists of areas in which sampling coverage was obtained via the previous W2-W3 project.
A survey of longwall panels 23-26 and W1 (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b) achieved direct coverage of a total area of approximately 857,736 m2 (85.8 hectares) out of a study area of 864 hectares, with effective survey coverage of approximately 73,767 m2 (refer to Figures 3.6 and 7.1, Table 7.1 and Appendix B11). Approximately 16% of this 23-26 and W1 study area lies within the present study area. Hence, about 136 hectares or 2.5% of the overall present study area consists of areas in which sampling coverage was obtained via the previous 23-26 and W1 project.
Overall, the study area (potential impact area) measures approximately 5,431 hectares. This comprises approximately 5,075 hectares of potential subsidence impacts and 419 hectares of potential surface impacts7 (about 63 hectares of potential surface impacts overlap with the subsidence impact area and are excluded from the combined total).
The current and recent surveys have sampled a total of about 4,770 hectares or 88% of the overall study area (excluding minor areas of duplication). Due to property access constraints at the time of the survey or revisions to the study area boundaries subsequent to the completion of the survey, approximately 661 hectares or 12% of the overall study area has not been subject to archaeological survey (refer to Figure 7.3 and Appendix B11). This comprises about 604 hectares of the potential subsidence impact area and 57 hectares of the potential surface impact area (all outside of the subsidence impact area). In addition, within the survey areas actually sampled, operational roads (particularly unformed or lightly formed vehicle tracks with heritage potential) were generally not surveyed. Measures are proposed in Section 13 to address these issues.
As is evident in Table 7.1, due to the various revisions to the study area boundaries, the current survey encompassed areas totalling about 485 hectares that are now excluded from the present study area (potential impact area). The other recent surveys also included areas (totalling about 1,044 hectares) that are outside of the present study area (potential impact area). Due to the difficulties associated with separating out this data, and the analytical benefits from including the additional coverage, much of the analysis in Section 7 is based on the total area sampled during the current survey (4,785 hectares) plus the earlier open cut extension (302 hectares) and panel 23-26, W1 (864 hectares) and W2-W3 (350 hectares) surveys. This area of about 6,302 hectares is herein referred to as the analysis area. Approximately 76% of the analysis area corresponds to the current study area (potential impact area).
The levels of survey coverage and artefact densities in relation to the different environmental contexts, classes of slope and landform elements within the analysis area are presented in Table 7.2. All environmental contexts, classes of slope and landform elements were sampled.
7 102 hectares of the surface impact area is contained within the existing open cut. This area is totally modified and of negligible heritage potential, so is excluded from all calculations herein.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 103 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The levels and nature of effective survey coverage are considered satisfactory enough to present an effective assessment of the Aboriginal heritage resources identified and potentially present within the study area. The coverage was comprehensive for obtrusive site types (eg. rock shelters, grinding grooves and scarred trees) but limited to some extent for the less obtrusive stone artefacts by surface visibility constraints. Nevertheless, in view of the predictive modelling, the results obtained from a relatively large sample of effective coverage (c. 366,665 m2 in the current survey alone) and measures proposed to address limitations in surface survey coverage (refer to Sections 12 and 13), it is concluded that the survey provides a valid basis for determining the probable impacts of the project and formulating recommendations for the management of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources.
Table 7.2: Environmental contexts, class of slope and landform elements - summary of survey coverage and artefact density for total analysis area.
Environmental Context Total Area % Context Total % Effective % Effective Total # Artefact Density of Context Comprises Area Surveyed Survey Survey Artefacts (# artefacts per (hectares) of Analysis Surveyed of Coverage Coverage (open m2 effective Area (hectares) Context Total of Context sites) survey coverage) (hectares) level-very gentle drainage depression 198.4 3.15% 30.4 15.34% 3.52 1.77% 194 0.0055 gentle drainage depression 888.1 14.09% 128.8 14.51% 7.07 0.80% 1023 0.0145 moderate drainage depression 128.5 2.04% 23.7 18.46% 1.29 1.01% 114 0.0088 steep drainage depression 5.0 0.08% 2.7 53.74% 0.22 4.41% 21 0.0096 level-very gentle flat 15.3 0.24% 1.4 9.05% 0.08 0.49% 5 0.0066 level-very gentle hillock 63.0 1.00% 10.5 16.74% 0.59 0.94% 25 0.0042 gentle hillock 5.6 0.09% 0.8 13.54% 0.06 1.14% 0 - moderate hillock 0.4 0.01% 0.3 60.11% 0.00 0.30% 0 - level-very gentle ridge crest 212.7 3.37% 22.2 10.46% 1.62 0.76% 76 0.0047 gentle ridge crest 109.4 1.74% 16.7 15.29% 0.85 0.78% 18 0.0021 moderate ridge crest 0.7 0.01% 0.1 14.51% 0.01 0.73% 0 - moderate scarp 18.6 0.30% 3.0 16.25% 0.18 0.95% 11 0.0062 steep scarp 59.6 0.95% 20.9 35.11% 0.49 0.82% 2 0.0004 level-very gentle simple slope 505.9 8.03% 53.2 10.52% 4.36 0.86% 238 0.0055 gentle simple slope 1864.1 29.58% 235.0 12.61% 13.73 0.74% 3046 0.0222 moderate simple slope 1085.8 17.23% 127.2 11.72% 6.56 0.60% 1953 0.0298 steep simple slope 160.9 2.55% 13.3 8.28% 0.60 0.37% 43 0.0072 level-very gentle spur crest 206.5 3.28% 25.8 12.49% 2.27 1.10% 760 0.0335 gentle spur crest 652.5 10.35% 79.0 12.11% 4.93 0.76% 999 0.0203 moderate spur crest 88.0 1.40% 14.6 16.62% 0.88 1.00% 137 0.0155 level-very gentle terrace 0.9 0.01% 0.5 51.29% 0.02 2.56% 42 0.1750 level-very gentle valley flat 31.9 0.51% 3.6 11.35% 0.83 2.60% 123 0.0148 Totals/Means 6301.7 100.00% 813.9 12.92% 50.16 0.80% 8830 0.0176 Class of Slope level-very gentle 1234.6 19.59% 147.7 11.96% 13.29 1.08% 1463 0.0110 gentle 3519.6 55.85% 460.4 13.08% 26.65 0.76% 5086 0.0191 moderate 1322.0 20.98% 168.9 12.78% 8.92 0.67% 2215 0.0248 steep 225.5 3.58% 36.9 16.37% 1.31 0.58% 66 0.0050 Totals/Means 6301.7 100.00% 813.9 12.92% 50.16 0.80% 8830 0.0176 Landform Element drainage depression 1220.0 19.36% 185.6 15.22% 12.11 0.99% 1352 0.0112 flat 15.3 0.24% 1.4 9.05% 0.08 0.49% 5 0.0066 hillock 69.0 1.09% 11.6 16.74% 0.65 0.95% 25 0.0038 ridge crest 322.8 5.12% 39.1 12.10% 2.47 0.77% 94 0.0038 scarp 78.2 1.24% 23.9 30.61% 0.67 0.85% 13 0.0019 simple slope 3616.6 57.39% 428.8 11.86% 25.26 0.70% 5280 0.0209 spur crest 947.0 15.03% 119.4 12.61% 8.08 0.85% 1896 0.0235 terrace 0.9 0.01% 0.5 51.29% 0.02 2.56% 42 0.1750 valley flat 31.9 0.51% 3.6 11.35% 0.83 2.60% 123 0.0148 Totals/Means 6301.7 100.00% 813.9 12.92% 50.16 0.80% 8830 0.0176
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 104 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 7.4: Aboriginal site locations within the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 105 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.2 Aboriginal Heritage Evidence
7.2.0 Overview
The conduct of the present survey has resulted in a substantial increase in the known heritage resource at UCML and within the Ulan locality. Prior to this comprehensive survey, approximately 444 Aboriginal sites were listed on the UCML Aboriginal Site Database (Revision 7), along with an additional 23 rock shelters with PADs8 (refer to Section 3.1 and Figure 3.1). Almost all of these sites had been recorded during investigations undertaken on behalf of UCML.
The present survey has resulted in the identification of another 616 Aboriginal heritage sites, listed below, along with an additional 300 rock shelters with PADs:
299 artefact scatters;
9 208 isolated finds ;
Seven grinding grooves (open sites);
One ochre quarry;
Three scarred trees;
Five stone arrangements;
One waterhole/well;
87 rock shelters with artefacts;
One rock shelter with grinding grooves;
Three rock shelters with art; and
One rock shelter with art and artefacts.
Due to the variations in the study area (potential impact area) boundaries during the course of the investigation, not all of these sites are situated within the present study area. The total also does not include previously recorded sites within the study area, many of which were relocated and re-recorded during the course of the present survey.
8 Rock shelters with PADs are not technically "Aboriginal objects" as defined under the NPW Act; 9 A number of "isolated finds" have been recorded in previous studies at UCML as "artefact scatters" in recognition that the occurrence of a single item typically represents the only visible part of a larger artefact resource within a broader site/survey area. Hence, for the purposes of this assessment, "artefact scatters" and "isolated finds" are typically assessed together.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 106 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In total, 709 Aboriginal heritage sites, listed below, are known to occur in or within about 50 metres of the present study area (potential impact area), along with 296 rock shelters with PADs:
352 artefact scatters;
206 isolated finds;
Nine grinding grooves (open sites);
10 One grinding groove (open site) and artefact scatter ;
Two ochre quarries;
Five scarred trees;
Five stone arrangements;
One waterhole/well;
112 rock shelters with artefacts;
Three rock shelters with grinding grooves;
Five rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts;
Four rock shelters with art;
Three rock shelters with art and artefacts; and
One rock shelter with art and grinding grooves and artefacts.
The locations of these heritage sites are marked on Figure 7.4 (along with other sites within the overall project area) and in detailed plans in Appendix B11. Each site is listed in Appendix 4.
Table 7.3 compares the number of sites within the study area and those recorded during the present survey with the totals in the overall project area. A total of 1,037 Aboriginal sites have been recorded within the overall project area, along with 323 rock shelters with PADs, but many of these sites occur outside of the current study area. A number of these sites have subsequently been impacted by mining operations, particularly associated with the existing open cut.
Comprehensive details are presented in Volume B (Appendices B2-B10 and B12-B18) of all Aboriginal sites recorded during the present survey (including sites that are now outside of the present study area/impact area), along with those previously recorded Aboriginal sites that are situated within the present study area. All lithic items recorded during the present study and relevant previous studies are listed in Appendix B3. Site locations are marked on 1:10,000 scale mapping in Appendix B11.
For the current project, all Aboriginal sites are referred to by the Ulan ID Number (ID#) where one exists, or alternatively by the DECC AHIMS number where a Ulan ID# does not exist (eg. those sites outside of the project area). The Ulan ID Numbers (particularly below 225) are not necessarily continuous, due to the deletion of several earlier duplicate entries or evidence later clarified by Haglund as not being of Aboriginal origin.
10 The grinding groove component of this site has also been recorded separately (as have parts of the artefact distribution). Therefore only nine open grinding groove sites are known within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 107 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Several instances of duplication remain in the site databases and totals, particularly with respect to the earlier recordings of artefact occurrences by Haglund (1980a, 1981a, 1981b), wherein it is uncertain if a more recent recording has been undertaken of the same evidence, or of previously unrecorded evidence. In these instances (typically in the open cut extension and Old Ulan village areas) both recordings are presented and assessed. Variations in surface visibility conditions over time, methodology between different surveys, and the overlap of areas surveyed at different times, have contributed to these issues.
The ensuing analysis and discussion focuses on those Aboriginal sites within the present study area (potential impact area) unless otherwise stated. Similarly, the assessment of significance (Section 9), assessment of potential impacts (Section 11) and consideration of management strategies (Sections 12 and 13) focuses on those sites within the study area, not those sites within the remainder of the project area or UCML lease area.
Table 7.3: Counts of Aboriginal sites and rock shelters with PADs recorded within the overall project area and present study area, along with numbers recorded during the present survey.
Number of Sites Number of Sites in Number of Sites Aboriginal Site Type Recorded During Present Study Area in UCML Present Survey (Potential Impact Area) Project Area Artefact Scatter 299 352 502 Grinding Grooves 7 9 13 Grinding Grooves and Artefact Scatter 0 1 4 Isolated Find 208 206 291 Ochre Quarry 1 2 3 Open Site 0 0 19 Rockshelter with Art 3 4 8 Rockshelter with Art and Artefacts 1 3 4 Rockshelter with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 0 1 1 Rockshelter with Artefacts 87 112 165 Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves 1 3 3 Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 0 5 8 Rockshelter with PAD 300 296 322 Scarred Tree 3 5 8 Scarred Tree and Artefact Scatter 0 0 2 Stone Arrangement 5 5 6 Waterhole/Well 1 1 1 Total 916 1005 1360
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 108 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.2.1 Artefact Scatters and Isolated Artefacts
A total of 558 open artefact sites have been recorded within the study area, nominally comprising 352 "artefact scatters" and 206 "isolated finds" (refer to Appendices B2, B3 and B12). Several of these sites represent duplicate recordings of evidence in the same location.
Over 100 stone artefacts have been recorded at 16 of the sites identified within the study area, with the highest total being 990 in ID# 512, followed by 586 at ID# 79 and 499 at ID# 1098. Between 50 and 100 artefacts per site have been recorded at 15 of the sites within the study area, and between 10 and 49 artefacts per site at 76 of the sites within the study area. The remaining 425 sites within the study area for which artefact counts are available (and totals were not reported by Haglund for a number of the earlier site recordings) contain less than ten artefacts, with 224 of these being loci with single artefacts.
Typically "isolated finds" or "isolated artefacts" represent the only visible evidence of larger artefact scatters, in which low conditions of visibility have prevented the detection of further items. The terms "isolated artefact" and "artefact scatter" have been used interchangeably in previous studies, with occasionally "artefact scatter" used when only a single item has been recorded. The term "open artefact site" encompasses those spatially discrete locations of visible artefact evidence in open contexts, that have been or can be referred to as "isolated artefacts" or "artefact scatters".
The identified artefacts probably only represent a small fraction of the entire artefact resource that is present within the study area, because the vast majority of evidence is likely to be currently obscured by vegetation and soil. Substantial portions of the study area were not directly sampled for artefacts, and where the sample was obtained, conditions of surface visibility were typically low (mean archaeological visibility across the entire survey sample was 6%). The extensive survey sample has, however, served to refine the predictive model with respect to artefact distribution (refer to Sections 7.4 and 7.8).
The sites recorded within the study area range in terms of visible site area from one to 165,000 m2 (ID# 940). ID# 512 and 791 also occupy areas of more than 100,000 m2. A total of 99 sites recorded during the present survey (and situated within the current study area) occupy areas of 1,000 or more square metres. However, of the 509 open artefact sites recorded during the current survey (including some now outside of the study area, and not including a number of previously recorded sites within the study area for which comparable data is absent), 314 occupy an area of 50 m2 or less, and 238 of those occupy a visible area of one square metre.
In total, the open artefact sites recorded during the present survey and situated within the current study area occupy a surface area of about 135 hectares. Once archaeological visibility is taken into account, the total effective site area (visible site areas multiplied by the percentages of the loci physically inspected and the mean archaeological visibility) is about one-eighth of this.
Due to the overlap of site recordings at different times and the absence of data for a number of earlier recordings (eg. Haglund 1980a, 1981a, 1981b), the total number of artefacts recorded within the open artefact sites in the study area cannot be established with complete accuracy. At least 8,219 stone artefacts have been recorded in the open artefact sites within the study area, both during the current and previous surveys. These items (where details are available), plus all artefacts recorded during the present survey (including within sites that are now outside of the present study area/impact area) are presented in Appendix B3.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 109 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 During the present survey, a total of 8,774 stone artefacts were recorded in detail (including those within rock shelter sites) (refer to Appendix B3). In several artefact scatter sites, particularly large sites or sites marginally outside of the then study area, counts of artefacts were noted but items were not recorded in detail. This particularly applies to several large site complexes recorded during the course of seeking to establish satisfactory areas for exploratory drill holes and access tracks. Hence, the artefact totals for the rock shelter sites (1,573) and open sites (8,324) equate to more than the total number of items recorded in detail in Appendix B3. As noted above, these totals include some items now outside of the present study area and exclude some previously recorded evidence.
In relation to the overall analysis area, comprising the total area sampled during the current survey plus the earlier open cut extension and panel 23-26, W1 and W2-W3 surveys, a total of approximately 9,373 artefacts have been recorded (refer to Tables 7.4-7.6). These items are discussed further in Section 7.3.
7.2.2 Grinding Grooves (Open Sites)
Nine grinding groove sites in open contexts occur within the study area (refer to Appendices B6 and B14). One grinding groove (open site) and artefact scatter (ID# 65) has previously been recorded, but the grinding groove component is incorporated in another of the nine recordings (ID# 416). Grinding grooves also occur in nine rock shelter sites but these are reported separately (Sections 7.2.8, 7.2.9 and 7.2.12).
One grinding groove site (ID# 416) is located in the open cut extension area, two are located in the Ulan West underground area (ID# 1161 and 1210), four are within or in close proximity to surface impact areas outside of the underground areas (ID# 519, 1074, 1075 and 1076) and two (ID# 363 and 526) are in the No. 3 underground area.
A total of 91 grooves were recorded at these nine open groove sites, with four of the sites only containing one or two identified grooves, and the remainder multiple grooves (up to 37 at ID# 1076). The grooves are typically narrow and elongated, the result of shaping and sharpening of ground-edge axes. Several grooves (eg. in ID# 526) comprise broader, shallow bowls that may have been used for seed-grinding or other purposes. Eight of the sites occur in drainage depressions and one on a moderate simple slope (ID# 519).
7.2.3 Ochre Quarries
Two ochre quarries occur within the study area, ID# 158 and 807 (refer to Appendices B10 and B18).
ID# 158 was recorded by Haglund (1999a), but few details are presented. It is located 50 metres south of a small electrical substation and immediately south of a vehicle track that leads to Old Ulan Village from near Bobadeen. This road may be upgraded and was not surveyed during the present study (measures are proposed to address this in Section 13).
ID #807 is a possible white ochre quarry, located on a 10 metre high discrete sandstone scarp on a moderate slope unit. The site includes a seam of white siltstone/claystone with two hollows dug out on the northern side of the scarp face.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 110 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.2.4 Scarred Trees
Five scarred trees occur within the study area, ID# 366, 488, 820, 1082 and 1305 (refer to Appendices B9 and B17).
ID# 820 and 1305 contain metal axe marks. These sites, along with ID# 1082, all recorded during the present survey, are noted as being of possible Aboriginal origin. Although the scars appear to have been created by human actions, the possibility that they are of non-indigenous origin cannot be excluded. Few details are available for the previously recorded ID# 488, while ID# 366 has also been assessed as only being possibly of Aboriginal origin. ID# 820, 1082 and 1305 occur on living trees, while ID# 366 is on a dead, felled tree.
Given the long history of non-indigenous rural land use and exploitation of timber in this locality (refer to Section 4), the long period of time that has elapsed since this practice was prevalent, and the lack of unequivocal attributes characteristic of Aboriginal scars, the origin of each of these scars remains uncertain and may not be from Aboriginal use.
7.2.5 Stone Arrangements
Five stone arrangement sites occur within the study area, ID# 589, 603, 697, 700 and 1286 (refer to Appendices B7 and B15). These are an uncommon site type in the region.
ID# 589, 603, 697 and 700 are located within a 950 x 500 metre area above the proposed No.3 Underground Mine, in cleared rural land near the Bobadeen irrigation pivots (Figure 7.5). These four sites form a rectlinear pattern, with the sites on the shorter sides about 300-350 metres distant from each other, and the sites on the longer sides about 700-750 metres distant from each other. The sites are situated on crests or just below crests on the Great Divide, each being prominent vantage points (although past forest vegetation may have limited views).
The arrangements typically comprise single or multiple lines of sandstone cobbles. All rocks within the arrangements are small enough to have been moved by human hand and appear to have been deliberately placed in their positions (notwithstanding that some have become marginally dislocated due to post-depositional processes). The creation of the alignments through the use of machinery or via natural forces can safely be discounted. Notwithstanding the occasional use of stones in the Ulan locality in historical times to weigh down the bottom portion of wire fences (of which an example remains in the northwest of the study area; cf. Gresser 1961), the pattern, size, location and extent of these stone alignments is strongly indicative of their creation by Aboriginal people, not by non-indigenous settlers. Their nature and location is consistent with that of Aboriginal stone arrangements as documented by Stead (1987), including within her Central NSW study region. Gresser (1961, 1965) has also documented a number of stone arrangements within the region.
Detailed recording of these alignments, further research and assessment is required for this potentially regionally significant site complex (refer to Section 13).
ID# 1286 is located in the southwestern portion of the Ulan West underground mine, and is a small linear stone alignment potentially associated with nearby rock shelters.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 111 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Area of cultural significance to Native Title Claimants
Stone Arrangement
Stone Arrangement
Stone Arrangement
Stone Arrangement
0 1000m
Figure 7.5: Stone arrangement site locations above the proposed No.3 Underground Mine and area of cultural significance to the Native Title claimants (UCML aerial underlay - top; Narragamba 8833-4-S 1:25,000 AMG topographic map - below).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 112 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 David Maynard advised of a stone line and circle within UCML at Spring Gully, that points to the Hands on Rock shelter/art complex (pers. comm., 22/2/08). This stone arrangement is outside of the present study area, and is not recorded on the UCML database or DECC AHIMS register.
Otherwise, ID# 177 is the only other reported stone arrangment within UCML. It is located in forested terrain 1.4 kilometres north of the ID# 589, 603, 697 and 700 complex and marginally north of the present study area. Although noted as a "stone arrangement" it is described by Haglund (1999a) as comprising various passages between rocks, with an artificial pile of rocks in one passage. Haglund (1999a) had recorded the site in 1992 with property owner Edgar Loughrie, who along with the Aboriginal representatives considered it a "special place".
During the present survey, a number of low stone walls were identified in rock shelters, sometimes in association with wire mesh and wooden posts. Shelters ID# 642 and 1021 are examples. These appear to relate to the keeping of stock or other use as animal enclosures during the historical period.
7.2.6 Waterhole/Wells
One waterhole/well site occurs within the study area, ID# 1391, within the open cut extension area (refer to Appendices B8 and B16). The possible well is located in a freestanding boulder of pebbly sandstone. The well/depression is of natural origin, but could have been used for various purposes by Aboriginal people.
7.2.7 Rock Shelters with Artefacts
A total of 112 rock shelters with artefacts occur within the study area (refer to Appendices B3, B4 and B13). Rock shelters with artefacts and other forms of evidence (eg. grinding grooves and/or art) are excluded from this total and are reported separately below (refer to Sections 7.2.8-7.2.12).
The research potential of all of the rock shelters can be assessed in relation to various criteria (refer to Section 9.2).
In terms of the contents of the rock shelters with artefacts, 83 contained less than ten artefacts, 21 contained between 10 and 49 artefacts, and three contained 50 or more artefacts. Five had unspecified artefact numbers from earlier recordings. The site with the highest artefact count was ID# 196 in the Brokenback area with 631 artefacts, followed by ID# 751 with 66 and ID# 1165 with 56.
Several of the shelters with artefacts had very small floor areas (eg. nine had five square metres or less of shelter floor area). This calculation does not even take into account the height of the shelter roof, as typically areas less than one metre high can be considered of generally low potential for habitation. Such areas (roof less than one metre high above the floor) are excluded from calculations in Appendix B13 of habitable floor areas. ID# 196, with the highest artefact count, also had the largest shelter floor area (c. 675 m2). However, seven other shelters with floor areas over 150 m2 had very low numbers of artefacts (1-18), including ID# 908 with 510 m2 but only one artefact.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 113 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Only 12 shelters had a depth of deposit of 0.1 metres or less (very shallow), whereas 43 had a deposit estimated (by probing with a stake flag) to be between 0.1 and 0.3 metres, and 54 were estimated to be over 0.3 metres deep (and up to 0.7 metres or deeper). Deeper deposits significantly enhance the potential for stratigraphy and identifying chronological changes in occupational evidence.
7.2.8 Rock Shelters with Grinding Grooves
Three rock shelters with grinding grooves (and no associated art or artefact evidence) occur within the study area, ID# 462, 470 and 917 (refer to Appendices B4, B6 and B13).
ID# 462 and 470 are small shelters recorded by Kuskie and Clarke (2007) in the W2-W3 SMP area, each with two grinding grooves identified on freestanding/floating sandstone slabs. ID# 917 was recorded during the current survey in the Brokenback area and is a small shelter with nine grooves observed on several boulders. A number of these grooves may have been modified by local non-indigenous children in the 20th century.
7.2.9 Rock Shelters with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts
Five rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts occur within the study area, ID# 163, 164, 171, 188 and 198 (refer to Appendices B3, B4, B6 and B13).
ID# 163 and 164 are the Mona Creek 1 and 2 rock shelters, previously recorded by Haglund in 1995 (Haglund 1999a) and re-recorded by Kuskie and Clarke (2007) in the W2-W3 SMP area. ID# 163 is a relatively large shelter with 24 artefacts and three grinding grooves located on a freestanding sandstone slab. ID# 164 is a moderate sized shelter with at least three artefacts (as recorded by Haglund 1999a) and three grinding grooves located on a freestanding sandstone slab. Haglund (1999b), noted the discovery of a rare wooden implement, a boomerang, within this shelter. The item could not be relocated by Kuskie and Clarke (2007) and its current provenance is uncertain.
ID# 171 (Mona Creek 9) was recorded by Edgar in 1995 (Haglund 1999a) in the vicinity of panel W9. It is a small to moderate sized shelter, with low clearance at the dripline but higher internally, with three grinding grooves on a loose sandstone slab. There is soot staining to the ceiling at the back of the shelter. Edgar noted two artefacts, but these were not relocated during the current survey.
ID# 188 (Mona Creek 31) was recorded by Haglund's team in 1995 (Haglund 1999a) in the northern portion of the proposed Ulan West mine and was not re-recorded during the present survey due to property access constraints. It appears to be a small to moderate sized but low shelter. Haglund (1999a) recorded several artefacts and a slab with two grooves.
ID# 198 is located in the Brokenback area. It was previously recorded by Haglund in 1995 as Brokenback 11 (Haglund 1999a) and is a large shelter with grooves on a rock shelf, with 75 artefacts recorded during the present survey.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 114 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.2.10 Rock Shelters with Art
Four rock shelters with art (but no associated artefact evidence) occur within the study area, ID# 194, 708, 937 and 1149 (refer to Appendices B4, B5 and B13).
ID# 194 is located in the Brokenback area. It was previously recorded by Haglund in 1995 as Brokenback 7 (Haglund 1999a) and is a moderate to large sized shelter with three faded red hand stencils.
ID# 708 is located near the Mona Creek area and is a small shelter with a faded portion of a red hand stencil.
ID# 937 is a moderate to large shelter located in the Brokenback area, with red oxidation stains and a geometric circle pattern of possible Aboriginal origin, but uncertainty exists due to the extent of weathering.
ID# 1149 is a large shelter along the valley margins of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek, with faded red hand prints and stencils that are mostly exfoliated and difficult to discern. Historical graffiti is also present.
7.2.11 Rock Shelters with Art and Artefacts
Three rock shelters with art and artefacts occur within the study area, ID# 189, 197 and 1054 (refer to Appendices B3, B4, B5 and B13).
ID# 189 is located in the Brokenback area. It was previously recorded by Haglund in 1995 as Brokenback 2 (Haglund 1999a) and is a relatively small shelter with at least three artefacts and two very faint red hand stencils.
ID# 197 is located in the Brokenback area and was previously recorded by Haglund in 1995 as Brokenback 10 (Haglund 1999a). The shelter is relatively large and 113 artefacts were recorded during the present survey. Eight very faded red stencils (mostly hands) are located in the shelter.
ID# 1054 is a relatively large shelter along the northern side of the valley of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek. Five artefacts were recorded and five sets of painted orange-red motifs (cross, lines, circles, dots) are visible.
7.2.12 Rock Shelters with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts
One rock shelter with art and grinding grooves and artefacts occurs within the study area, ID# 190 (refer to Appendices B3, B4, B5, B6 and B13).
ID# 190 is located in the Brokenback area. It was previously recorded by Haglund in 1995 as Brokenback 3 (Haglund 1999a) and is a moderate sized shelter with 41 artefacts recorded during the present survey. Four grinding grooves occur on a sandstone ledge extending from the rear wall directly below a panel with at least 17 red hand stencils.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 115 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.2.13 Rock Shelters with Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs)
A total of 296 rock shelters with PADs occur within the study area (refer to Appendices B4 and B13). These are not technically "Aboriginal objects" as defined under the NPW Act, however excavation of any of these shelters may reveal stone artefacts and other cultural deposits (eg. charcoal from camp fires).
As for the rock shelters with artefacts and other evidence, the research potential of these deposits can be assessed in relation to various criteria (refer to Section 9.2).
Some of the PADs recorded are very small, but the general threshold for inclusion was that there had to be sufficient room and shelter for at least one adult to sit and some deposit (ie. shelters with only bare rock floors and no deposit were not recorded, although it is highly probable such shelters would have been utilised by Aboriginal people on occasions). Notably, some very small shelters recorded during the survey had evidence of occupation in the form of artefacts, grinding grooves and/or art.
The reasons for the absence of visible evidence in these shelters probably varies, but in many cases may relate to limited archaeological visibility. Numerous shelters had a covering on the surface of recent sediment deposition, or for other reasons such as leaf litter, visibility was low. However, a genuine absence of occupation (specifically, the resulting evidence thereof) may also be the situation for a number of shelters.
In terms of the shelter floor area, one PAD (ID# 907) was very large (approximately 1,000 m2). Only one other PAD had a floor area in excess of 150 m2 (ID# 914), although another 20 had areas between 50 and 150 m2. A total of 151 of the PADs had floor areas less than 10 m2 and another 84 had floor areas of between 10 and 20 m2. These calculations refer to the gross floor area, not the habitable floor area where the roof is higher than one metre above the floor.
Only 50 of the PADs had a depth of deposit of 0.1 metres or less (very shallow), whereas 155 had a deposit estimated (by probing with a stake flag) to be between 0.1 and 0.3 metres, and 89 were estimated to be over 0.3 metres deep (and up to 0.7 metres or deeper). Deeper deposits significantly enhance the potential for stratigraphy and identifying chronological changes in occupational evidence.
7.2.14 Cultural Values
The Aboriginal representatives did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs or traditional knowledge, which date from the pre-contact period and have persisted until the present time, within the study area. The representatives also did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with historical associations, which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today (for example, plant and animal resource use areas and known camp sites), within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 116 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The possibility cannot be excluded however, that traditional or historical Aboriginal values or associations may exist that were not divulged to South East Archaeology by the persons consulted. It was not feasible to contact every single knowledge holder in the north-eastern Wiradjuri community. Nevertheless, Haglund's (1997) conclusion that "for various reasons, mainly relating to actions by authorities and settlers, cultural knowledge relating to features of the landscape (eg. mythological aspects) appears to have been totally lost, at least for the Ulan area", is noted.
The representatives did however disclose a number of associations with the study area of contemporary significance, including:
In general terms, the use of subsistence or other resources, with comments made about the presence of various native flora and fauna where observed within the study area. These comments were not of a historical nature (ie. did not relate to plant and animal resource use areas known from the post-contact period) but rather were general observations of the occurrence of particular species and their known traditional uses (eg. for food, medicine, tools, etc.);
In general terms, the traditional use of the area by north-eastern Wiradjuri people, and an ongoing cultural and spiritual connection to the land and resources of the study area by the north-eastern Wiradjuri; and
In relation to survey area #343, Wendy Lewis (Warrabinga) (pers. comm. 23/2/08) expressed the view that this location is of cultural significance and a possible ceremonial area, given the nearby large artefact scatters to the north (eg. ID# 762 and 767) and the stone arrangement sites visible about one kilometre to the south-west (eg. ID# 700) (refer to Figure 7.5).
In addition to these places, other archaeological sites (eg. rock shelters, artefact scatters) identified within the study area are of contemporary significance to the Aboriginal community, as they represent a tangible link with the traditional past and with the lifestyle and values of community ancestors (refer to Section 9).
7.3 Lithic Assemblage
The nature of the stone material and artefact types for every lithic item recorded during the present survey and other recent surveys within the analysis area is documented in Appendix B3. Summaries of stone material and artefact type counts for each site recorded during the present survey are presented in Appendix B12 for open artefact sites and Appendix B13 for rock shelters.
During the present survey, a total of 8,774 stone artefacts were recorded in detail (including those within rock shelter sites). In several artefact scatter sites, particularly large sites or sites marginally outside of the then study area, counts of artefacts were noted but items were not recorded in detail. This particularly applies to several large site complexes recorded during the course of seeking to establish satisfactory areas for exploratory drill holes and access tracks. Hence, the artefact totals for the rock shelter sites (1,573) and open sites (8,324) equate to more than the total number of items recorded in detail in Appendix B3.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 117 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 7.4: Artefact and stone material counts for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 118 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In relation to the overall analysis area, comprising the total area sampled during the current survey plus the earlier open cut extension and panel 23-26, W1 and W2-W3 surveys, a total of approximately 9,373 artefacts have been recorded. A comparison of stone material types by lithic item types for the combined lithic assemblage for the overall analysis area is presented in Table 7.4. Counts and frequencies of stone materials and artefact types are summarised in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 for the analysis area.
Within the analysis area, artefacts occur on a total of 17 different identifiable stone materials, along with four glass and single bone and shell items. However, quartz is the overwhelmingly most common material used, representing 72.8% of the combined assemblage (including the sub-category of crystal quartz which represents 8.2% of the total assemblage).
Tuff is the next most common material (11.9%) of the combined analysis area assemblage, followed by a low frequency of chert (5.6%) and very low frequencies (less than 3%) of the other materials (in order of highest to lowest frequency: acidic volcanics, quartzite, volcanics, silcrete, petrified wood, chalcedony, rhyolite, basalt, sandstone, ironstone, breccia, siltstone and granite).
Table 7.5: Stone material counts and frequencies for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites).
Stone Material Count Frequency (%) acidic volcanic 276 2.94 basalt 18 0.19 bone 1 0.01 breccia 2 0.02 chalcedony 38 0.41 chert 529 5.64 crystal quartz 770 8.22 glass 4 0.04 granite 1 0.01 ironstone 9 0.10 lithic sandstone 1 0.01 petrified wood 50 0.53 quartz 6059 64.64 quartzite 267 2.85 rhyolite 35 0.37 sandstone 11 0.12 shell 1 0.01 silcrete 55 0.59 siltstone 2 0.02 tuff 1119 11.94 unidentified 10 0.11 volcanic 115 1.23 Total 9373 100%
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 119 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 7.6: Artefact counts and frequencies for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites).
Lithic Item Type Count Frequency (%) axe 4 0.04 axe - flaked 1 0.01 axe - ground edge 9 0.10 axe - ground edge - fragment 1 0.01 axe - portion 2 0.02 axe - preform 2 0.02 backed artefact 17 0.18 backed artefact - portion 10 0.11 bondi point 6 0.06 bondi point - portion 5 0.05 bondi point - preform 1 0.01 bondi point - tip 1 0.01 bone point 1 0.01 core 974 10.39 core - anvil 1 0.01 core - bipolar 29 0.31 core - utilised 14 0.15 core fragment 272 2.90 flake 3779 40.32 flake - bipolar 40 0.43 flake - distal 615 6.56 flake - distal - utilised 13 0.14 flake - longitudinal 237 2.53 flake - longitudinal - utilised 3 0.03 flake - medial 437 4.66 flake - medial - utilised 1 0.01 flake - proximal 503 5.37 flake - proximal - utilised 13 0.14 flake - utilised 41 0.44 geometric microlith 13 0.14 geometric microlith - utilised 2 0.02 geometric microlith portion 2 0.02 grindstone 2 0.02 hammerstone 24 0.26 hammerstone - anvil 3 0.03 hammerstone - core 1 0.01 lithic fragment 1813 19.34 manuport 13 0.14 microblade 7 0.07 microblade - portion 2 0.02 microblade - utilised 2 0.02 microblade core 15 0.16 microblade core fragment 1 0.01 muller 1 0.01 nondescript core 55 0.59 nondescript core fragment 11 0.12 pebble core 2 0.02 retouched flake 243 2.59 retouched flake - portion 37 0.39 retouched flake - utilised 14 0.15 retouched piece 36 0.38 retouched piece - utilised 24 0.26 shell fragment 1 0.01 thumbnail scraper 2 0.02 utilised piece 15 0.16 Total 9373 100%
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 120 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The combined analysis area assemblage is dominated by quartz (64.6%) and crystal quartz (8.2%). There are three main forms of massive quartz: veins, geodes and macro-crystals. For the purposes of flaking, these varieties are essentially similar, although vein or reef quartz is more likely to contain major pre-existing flaws. Quartz is composed of extremely small hexagonal crystals of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which give it a glossy texture. When pure it is translucent, but minute traces of minerals may add colours such as smoky grey, pink or yellow. Most quartz has microscopic gas or liquid filled vacuoles that give it a milky appearance. While this does not affect the rock's strength, clay minerals in ground water, particularly iron compounds, may seep into the minute flaws and weaken the stone, leading to natural fracturing. It can also break with a conchoidal fracture.
Because quartz exhibits a small degree of cleavage and tends to have internal flaws, it ranges in flaking quality from very poor to acceptable. Internal cracking of quartz often occurs during flaking and its fracture path is usually much less predictable than stone which breaks with a strong conchoidal fracture. For these reasons quartz is generally a low-quality flaking material. However, because of its abundance and availability, in some areas such as the Ulan locality it is the main stone type used for flaking. Its other advantage is that it provides small flakes with very sharp edges, which are suitable for light-duty work such as skinning, light butchering and cutting plant matter.
About 7.8% of the quartz artefacts display waterworn cortex, possibly indicating local alluvial or colluvial gravel sources. Quartz pebbles were noted in numerous locations across the study area and are derived from decomposed conglomerate rock. The pebbles occur in various sizes and quality, but often sufficient for knapping. Hence, local colluvial (and to a lesser extent alluvial, where the pebbles have become worked into drainage depressions) sources for the quartz used by Aboriginal people are inferred.
Direct evidence of the procurement and reduction of stone from such colluvial gravel sources was identified in at least two sites, ID# 580 and 804. ID# 580 comprises a ten metre wide band of cobbles of quartz and chert at an elevation of around 530 metres AHD on the upper portion of a slope, in the northeast of the study area. In addition to the stone source, of which portable cores could have easily been procured and transported off-site with minimal initial reduction, numerous stones suitable for use a hammerstones were also present. ID# 804 comprises a broad scatter of colluvial waterworn pebbles of quartz, quartzite, acidic volcanics and chert, on a ridge crest at an elevation of around 470 metres AHD in the northwest of the study area. These and similar sources, particularly the widespread distribution of quartz, quartzite and other pebbles from the decomposed conglomerate, would have enabled casual, opportunistic procurement of much of the stone material utilised at Ulan, without the need for special-purpose trips or particular effort.
Tuff is the next most common material, comprising 11.9% of the combined analysis area assemblage. Tuff is a fine grained, isotropic stone formed after a cloud of ash was ejected in an explosive volcanic eruption. The ash settled to the ground or through ponded water. After burial, some tuff beds became indurated, through a low-grade metamorphic process (probably involving pressure) in which the stone recrystallised to a more stable structure. Tuff seams are commonly associated with Permian era Coal Measures. Tuff samples examined from the nearby Hunter Valley are rhyolitic in chemical composition (quartz and potassium-feldspar, occasionally with layer silicate or goethite) (Kuskie and Kamminga 2000).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 121 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Tuff is typically grey in colour in the lower Hunter Valley (a function of grain size, not a reference to individual grains, which can be of a variety of colours). However, tuff is porous enough for the diffusion of iron bearing solution, with iron precipitating out to give a yellow, brown, red or orange colour. Variations to the surface colouration can also result from weathering processes. In the Ulan locality, the tuff is predominantly yellow or brown in colour, indicating the presence of the mineral goethite.
As with quartz, tuff was probably procured from local sources at Ulan. Tuff occurs widely at UCML, as seams exposed in the scarps and slopes of the dissected sandstone terrain (including occasional manifestation within rock shelters) and as tabular colluvial gravels on the slopes and also in the drainage depressions where it has migrated further downwards. Significant outcrops of tuff occur in the southern portion of the open cut extension area (eg. survey areas 1843, 1847, 1848, 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1856, 1858, 1859, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1882, 1883 and 1884), including seams several metres thick on the steep slopes and upper drainages around the 490 metre contour, and as a widespread distribution of tabular pieces on the surrounding slopes. These sources contain both high quality tuff and lower quality, coarser tuff and tuffaceous material. Outcrops were also noted in the Ulan West area, particularly around the elevated margins of the Valley Way tributary of Ulan Creek.
Two sites in the open cut extension, ID# 400 and 412, have been noted as possible tuff lithic quarries/procurement areas. About 28% of the tuff items display tabular cortex (80% of tuff artefacts with cortex), strongly indicating procurement of this material from relatively local colluvial gravels and outcrops.
Chert comprises 5.6% of the combined analysis area assemblage. Cherts are highly siliceous sedimentary rocks, with a chemical composition of silicon dioxide and major constituent minerals of chalcedony, quartz and opal. Chert is formed in marine sediments and occurs as nodules in limestone. The various accumulations of other substances, for example iron oxides, during the process of formation often colours the parent matrix of chert, leaving the final material often quite visually arresting colours or patterns of colours, particularly banded layers. Chert was a favoured material for manufacturing artefacts, as it breaks by the process of conchoidal fracture and provides flakes that have sharp, durable edges.
Chert is present in the local Illawarra Coal Measures and occurs in a relatively low frequency as pebbles in the conglomeritic derived gravels. Chert pebbles were noted in the two lithic procurement sites reported above, ID# 580 and 804, and these and other colluvial gravels probably represented relatively local sources for this stone.
Petrified wood is another form of chert, and comprises 50 items (0.53% of the analysis area assemblage). Fossilised (petrified) wood is a banded brown and grey rock, originating from the replacement of the original wood by silica. After dead wood is buried by sediment, often containing volcanic ash, water infiltrates it leading to the replacement of the wood by silica. When petrified wood is struck along what was the original grain, an irregular fracture results. Its ultimate source is the Permian Coal Measures. One potential colluvial source was observed in the northern portion of the No.3 Underground study area (survey area 295) and other similar sources may exist in the locality, where the underlying Coal Measures have become exposed and weathered.
Chalcedony comprises 38 items (0.41% of the analysis area assemblage). Chalcedony is a compact variety of silica, formed of quartz crystallites, often fibrous in form and with sub- microscopic pores that contain water (about 1% of weight). Chalcedony can form veins or it can occur as pseudomorphs, resulting from solution infiltrating voids or cavities in rock, sometimes by gradually replacing decaying organic matter. Varieties include agate and jasper. Chalcedony, like fine quality chert, was a valued stone tool material.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 122 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Chalcedony sources were not observed during the survey, and considering the low incidence of cortex (13% of items), this material may have been procured from sources outside of the immediate study area.
Rhyolite comprises 35 items (0.37% of the analysis area assemblage). Rhyolite is an extrusive, fine-grained igneous rock with the same general composition as granite (rich in quartz and alkali-feldspars). However, unlike granite, glass is often a major component of rhyolite and biotite mica is present. The rapid cooling of lava forms banded rhyolite. Flow banding is common in this form of rhyolite, involving swirling layers of different colour and texture. Another form of rhyolite, porphyritic rhyolite, contains small widely spaced crystal inclusions. Rhyolite is an acidic volcanic material, for which the latter description was used for items that could not be more specifically identified. About 23% of the rhyolite artefacts exhibit cortex (mix of waterworn, tabular and terrestrial). The sources of this material are uncertain but may include exposed and weathered Coal Measures within the locality.
Quartzite comprises 267 items (2.85% of the analysis area assemblage). Quartzite is a hard, silica rich metamorphic stone formed from sandstone (often quartz arenite - sandstone composed almost entirely of quartz grains) that has been recrystallised by heat (metaquartzite) or strengthened by slow infilling of silica in the voids between sand grains (orthoquartzite). The essential difference between sandstone and quartzite is that a major fracture will propagate around the larger grains in sandstone and through the grains in quartzite. The critical factor for both overall strength and resistance to abrasive wear is the bond strength between the crystals or grains that constitute the stone matrix. Mechanical variation of quartzite is considerable, but specimens of the two varieties may appear similar.
Quartzite pebbles are often a component of the quartz pebble occurrences noted in numerous locations across the study area that are derived from decomposed conglomerate rock. The pebbles occur in various sizes and quality, but often sufficient for knapping. Hence, local colluvial sources for the quartzite used by Aboriginal people are inferred. Quartzite pebbles and cobbles were noted in the two lithic procurement sites reported above, ID# 580 and 804, and in several other sites (ID# 548, 572 and 762) and other survey areas (eg. 30, 238, 239, 260, 273, 295, 347, 512, 514, 516, 1148, 1186, 1197, 1198, 1275, 1301, 1365, 1709, 1739 and 1822). About 40% of the quartzite artefacts exhibit cortex, predominantly waterworn (92%), also indicating relatively local colluvial gravel sources. Several larger cobbles of this material have also been observed in the study area and these may represent Permian era glacial erratics.
Silcrete comprises 55 items (0.59% of the analysis area assemblage). Silcrete is a brittle, intensely indurate rock composed mainly of quartz clasts cemented by a matrix which may be well-crystallised quartz, cryptocrystalline quartz or amorphous (opaline) silica (Langford-Smith 1978:3). The texture of silcrete reflects that of the host rock (eg. sandstone) and clasts may range in size from very fine grains to boulders. Silcrete is produced by an absolute accumulation of silica, which can be precipitated from solution by evaporation, cooling, the neutralisation of strongly alkaline solutions, reaction with cations, adsorption by solids and the life-processes of organisms (Summerfield 1983:76). In weathered profiles, downward percolation of silica released through bedrock weathering and clay mineral authigenesis, together with water-table fluctuations, are suitable conditions for formation (Summerfield 1983:80). Mineral composition of silcrete is highly variable and silcrete cannot be precisely characterised by its bulk chemical composition, other than a minimum silica content of 85% weight as an arbitrary lower limit. In addition to silicon, minor traces of aluminium, iron or titanium may be present. Iron occurs both within the matrix and as a late-stage precipitate on weathering surfaces and in voids. Trace element abundance tends to be related to the composition of the host material.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 123 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Silcrete is normally grey in colour, but can be whitish/cream, red, brown or yellow. It shatters readily into sharp, angular pieces with a conchoidal fracture and newly broken rocks have a semi-vitreous sheen (Langford-Smith 1978:4). Flakes have reasonably sharp, durable edges, and therefore the stone was used for a variety of tasks, including heavy-duty woodworking and for small spear barbs. While silcrete is relatively common in the Hunter Valley, it is less commonly noted in assemblages in the Ulan area. The source of this material is uncertain. A relatively high frequency exhibited cortex (29%), with waterworn, terrestrial and tabular cortex all noted. As for many of the other stone materials, substantially more research and analysis could be undertaken to better understand the distribution and Aboriginal procurement and use of stone within the region.
Basalt comprises 18 items (0.19% of the analysis area assemblage). Basalt is a common volcanic rock formed from lava flow. It is typically dark, heavy and fine-textured and consists essentially of plagioclase and pyroxene. Basalt is present in a number of locations within the study area and a local source is possible. The potential presence of basalt sources for axe manufacture in the Ulan locality is of regional research interest. Should an Aboriginal basalt quarry be identified, it would be possible to identify the petrological composition of the stone at the source and compare it with hatchet samples from across the region to identify patterns of human movement and/or trade. Nevertheless, no evidence of basalt procurement or quarrying from the Ulan study area was observed and much of the basalt appears to be of insufficient quality and/or type compared with those from which axes were manufactured.
Four probable artefacts manufactured on bottle glass were identified. If these items have been fashioned/used by Aboriginal people, they are significant in that they indicate continued use of the Ulan study area after non-indigenous settlement. Continued use of the study area early in the historical period is not unexpected, given the history of the locality (refer to Sections 3.4 and 4) and probable use by the early settlers of Aboriginal pathways/travel routes (eg. through the Old Ulan Village locality), possibly even accompanied/guided by Aboriginal people. The glass artefacts occur in sites ID# 606, 622 and 1101. However, it is noted that unintentional impacts to broken bottle glass (eg. through vehicles or human/stock treadage) can create fracturing and wear comparable to that resulting from intentional knapping/use, and therefore some uncertainty will remain about the classification of these items.
The counts and frequencies of artefact types within the analysis area are outlined in Table 7.6. Flakes are the most commonly occurring lithic type in the combined analysis area artefact assemblage (40.3%, not including items in other categories such as flakes with use-wear or residue). Flake portions (distal, medial, proximal and longitudinal) account for 19.1% of the combined assemblage and lithic fragments, synonymous with "flaked pieces", 19.3%.
Many of the categories in the assemblage, specifically the higher frequency ones such as flakes and flake portions and lithic fragments, represent debris from stone knapping. The knapping events can be non-specific or in some cases demonstrably relate to the production of microliths. Formal tool types are evidenced within several of the artefact categories (eg. axe, bondi point, geometric microlith, grindstone, hammerstone, muller and thumbnail scraper). These can provide relatively more information for interpretation, as they allow for greater assessment of on-site activities and traditional Aboriginal culture. The occurrence of the key lithic item types are discussed below.
A total of 1,813 lithic fragments have been recorded, representing 19.3% of the combined analysis area assemblage. These are flaked pieces of stone which lack sufficient morphological attributes to identify them as a flake (a positive scar) or a core (only negative flake scars), but which are inferred to derive from knapping. The interpretive value of lithic fragments is primarily confined to the circumstantial evidence they provide regarding intensity of site use.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 124 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 7.7: Counts of artefacts per size class for each stone material for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites).
Size Class Stone Material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 21 23 25 32 Total acidic volcanic 7 58 80 60 29 17 9 7 2 1 3 2 275 basalt 1 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 18 bone 1 1 breccia 2 2 chalcedony 2 17 13 5 1 38 chert 23 155 196 100 33 6 5 2 4 1 1 1 527 crystal quartz 95 344 269 45 9 2 2 766 glass 1 1 1 1 4 granite 1 1 ironstone 1 1 2 1 3 1 9 lithic sandstone 1 1 petrified wood 1 15 15 8 7 1 1 1 49 quartz 574 2380 2260 612 138 37 16 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 6032 quartzite 5 36 60 52 34 18 11 18 10 8 5 5 4 1 267 rhyolite 1 2 9 10 5 2 2 3 34 sandstone 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 11 shell 1 1 silcrete 1 7 12 10 15 4 3 1 1 1 55 siltstone 1 1 2 tuff 39 244 385 235 118 44 22 8 8 4 1 1 1 1 2 1113 unidentified 2 2 3 1 1 9 volcanic 4 17 35 28 9 7 5 1 1 3 1 2 1 114 Total 753 3281 3343 1177 403 144 81 50 30 19 13 12 9 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 9329
A total of 3,779 complete flakes have been recorded (excluding other typological categories such as utilised flakes), representing 40.3% of the combined analysis area assemblage. Flakes are defined here as complete flakes which have technologically diagnostic features and a ventral (sometimes termed positive) surface, usually with evidence of hard indenter initiation, or occasionally bending initiation, as well as a termination. This class of artefacts may represent:
The fragmented debris of on-site knapping of primary flakes and microblades;
Possibly backing retouch of implements; and
A small proportion of sundry, other on-site fracture of siliceous stone, such as accidental breakage of implements.
As per the overall assemblage, flakes occur in almost every stone material but predominantly quartz (68.5%), and to a lesser extent tuff (11.1%), crystal quartz (8.3%) and chert (4%). Flakes range in size from class 1 to 20 (ie. up to 200 mm in maximum dimension) (refer to Tables 7.7 and 7.8). About 84% of flakes are less than 30 mm in maximum dimension, consistent with the overall small size of items in the artefact assemblage.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 125 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 7.8: Counts of artefacts per size class for combined assemblage in total analysis area (including open artefact sites and rock shelter sites).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 126 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A total of 1,792 flake portions (distal, medial, proximal and longitudinal) have been recorded (excluding other typological categories such as utilised flake portions), representing 19.1% of the combined analysis area assemblage. Flake portions include:
Distal - the end of a flake (the opposite to that of the point of fracture origin on the ventral, or inside, surface);
Longitudinal - a flake longitudinally fractured from its proximal to its distal end. The breakage may be slightly tangential but are mostly axial in orientation. Such breakages tend to occur during knapping (such as longitudinal cone splits) rather than through post- depositional processes;
Medial - a mid portion of a flake, exhibiting more than one breakage and no platform or termination; and
Proximal - the portion of a flake comprising the point of fracture origin on the ventral surface.
As for flakes, these artefacts predominantly represent the fragmented debris of on-site knapping of primary flakes and microblades (debitage), although portions with use-wear clearly relate to the use of tools (refer below). As per flakes, flake portions predominantly occur in quartz (63.8%), and to a lesser extent tuff (12%), crystal quartz (9.5%) and chert (6.4%). As to be expected, a high proportion (90%) of flake portions are less than 30 mm in maximum dimension, consistent also with the overall small size of items in the artefact assemblage.
A total of 1,031 cores have been recorded (including pebble cores and nondescript cores, but excluding other categories such as bipolar cores and utilised cores), representing 11% of the combined analysis area assemblage. These artefacts represent on-site knapping to produce flakes, possibly including to an extent ones useful for making into microliths. A small number of distinct microblade cores (15) have also been separately recorded. The cores range in size to a maximum of 230 mm, but most are between 11 and 60 mm in maximum dimension (Table 7.8). Most cores (64%) are made of quartz, followed by tuff (12.4%), crystal quartz (6.7%) and chert (5.4%). There were also a modest (albeit low) number of quartzite, acidic volcanic, other volcanic and silcrete cores. In addition to these items, core fragments comprise 2.9% of the overall analysis area assemblage.
A total of 243 retouched flakes (2.6 % of the combined analysis area assemblage), 37 retouched flake portions (0.4%), 14 (0.2%) retouched and utilised flakes, 36 (0.4%) retouched pieces and 24 (0.3%) retouched and utilised pieces have been recorded (excluding other more specific types such as backed artefacts). Retouched flakes and pieces are artefacts that have minimal analytical value, because the purpose of the retouch they exhibit is not known. Some may be associated with backed artefact production. Of these items with retouch, 44% are made of quartz, 18.4% of tuff, 13.8% of chert, 6.2% of acidic volcanics and 4.8% of crystal quartz, indicating a possible preference for the use of siliceous stone (eg. tuff, chert and acidic volcanics) over quartz.
A total of 41 whole flakes with use-wear have been recorded in the combined analysis area assemblage, in addition to the other whole flakes described above. Use-wear was also identified on an additional 30 portions of flakes (distal, proximal, medial and longitudinal), items that may have broken during use. An additional 15 items were classified as utilised pieces, as although they exhibited use-wear, they lacked the diagnostic characteristics of other items such as flakes or cores.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 127 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The utilised flakes and flake portions and pieces comprise 0.9% of the combined assemblage. Of these items, 12.8% are made of quartz, 39.5% of tuff, 5.8% of chert, 8.1% of acidic volcanics and 7% of crystal quartz, indicating a preference for the use of siliceous stone (eg. tuff) over quartz. This preference is stronger than that identified for the retouched artefacts discussed above. The cause of the use-wear is not known but may relate to light-duty cutting or scraping of wood or animal tissue or other plant material. Use-wear and residue analysis may provide further resolution of this issue.
Backed artefacts, including bondi points, bondi point preforms, geometric microliths, utilised geometric microliths and portions of these types comprise 57 items or 0.6% of the combined analysis area assemblage. The presence of these items, along with a small number of microblades and microblade cores, indicates that both the manufacture of backed artefacts occurred at Ulan, along with their use and discard. Of these items, 61.4% are made of quartz, 12.3% of crystal quartz, 12.3% of tuff and 8.8% of chert, which is not consistent with the trend identified for other retouched items for a possible preferential use of siliceous stone (eg. tuff) over quartz.
Bondi points are a form of microlith often found in artefact scatter sites dating to the mid-late Holocene. While the function of these finely fashioned implements is not known with certainty, most archaeologists consider that they were used in armatures of hunting and fighting spears (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999:235-36). Microliths may have served as barbs, or else as lacerators intended to disable an enemy or prey by causing haemorrhage. It is possible that different microlith types were designed to serve these different functions. Alternative uses have been proposed for bondi points, including their use as cutting implements (cf. Sokoloff 1977). Most recently, Fullagar (et al 1994) has inferred from residues on a small sample of bondi points from the Hunter Valley that they served as multi-functional tools. Therin (2000) inferred that some backed artefacts from the ID# 132 salvage assemblage were used as knives rather than spear barbs. However, the evidence for use in spear armatures is persuasive and it could easily account for the range of residues observed.
Summarising the evidence for spear armatures (Kuskie and Kamminga 2000):
The microliths are very small and often have very delicate shapes that are unsuitable for most tool-use activities;
A use-wear study (Kamminga 1980) has suggested that most specimens in museum collections have not been used, but were lost during and after manufacture of batches of them, and that the occasional use-wear observed was at least consistent with spear armature use and inconsistent with a number of other possible activities;
Traces of resin have been detected on excavated bondi points from the New England and Pilbara regions and the Hunter Valley (cf. Fullagar in Koettig 1994:48, McBryde 1985, Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999:236), suggesting that normally they were cemented onto a wooden shaft or handle;
Specimens and associated manufacturing debris are commonly found in large quantities at archaeological sites (and in landscape units) across southern Australia, indicating that large numbers were required, more so than any other formally shaped implement type, which is consistent with an interpretation of spear armatures;
Australian microliths are potentially comparable to microliths fixed onto spears and arrows preserved in Stone Age and Metal Age sites in Europe and Africa; and
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 128 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The closest ethnographic analogue postulated for microliths is the barbing of the ‘death spear’ or 'dread spear', which was commonly used along the southern coasts of Australia for hunting and/or fighting (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999:292-93). Small jagged fragments of stone (usually quartz) were embedded in series into a layer of resin (sometimes referred to as gum) smeared on the head of a single piece wooden shaft. In some cases, grooves were carved into the wooden shaft to accommodate the stone barbs, but this was not a universal practice. It is not known if the sharp flakes cemented onto these spears were ‘backed’ by careful knapping, but such a practice would have allowed them to be fixed in a groove incised into the spear shaft, or maximised adhesion of the resinous cement. The barbed point of death spears was about 15 to 30 centimetres long, with up to about 7 to 14 sharp stone flakes or fragments for single-sided armature and about 14 to 28 fragments for double-sided armature. For a spear armed with bondi points, the ranges may have varied from these figures.
Only two thumbnail scrapers have been recorded. Thumbnail scrapers are tiny retouched tools, made from flakes struck from microblade cores. Generally, thumbnail scrapers are uncommon implements in any assemblage. It is unlikely they were commonly used to scrape wood or other resistant materials, since they seldom exhibit abrasive smoothing and use-rounding wear on their retouched edges, and few are repeatedly resharpened to an exhausted 'slug' form, which is common for flake scrapers and adzes (Kuskie and Kamminga 2000). Mulvaney and Kamminga (1999:236-37) suggest that a proportion of those identified in microlithic assemblages may have been components of a spear armature ensemble.
Bipolar technology has been identified on a low frequency of items (0.4% of the combined analysis area assemblage are bipolar flakes and 0.3% bipolar cores), with 90% occurring on quartz. Bipolar technology is a strategy which may be employed for two main reasons:
The core body size becomes too small to be hand held and thus needs to be rested on an anvil for further reduction; and/or
The platform angle becomes too high (moving away from acute and obtuse angled platforms towards oblique) to allow easy flake propagation.
Bipolar flaking may also occur in an attempt to remove aberrant terminations on a core body or when commencing the reduction of a rounded river pebble/cobble. For whichever reason bipolar flaking is used, it can be regarded as a strategy to potentially extend the life or begin the use of a core, whereas it otherwise might have been discarded, rejected or regarded as exhausted or unusable in normal flaking practices.
A total of 24 hammerstones have been recorded in the combined analysis area assemblage, along with three hammerstone - anvils and one hammerstone - core. Almost all of the hammerstones are made of quartzite or volcanics, and typically these items are large (all but one are between 41 and 130 mm in maximum dimension) and possess a high proportion of waterworn cortex. The incidence and extent of cortex reflects the nature of these items (elongated pebbles), which were selected because of the suitability of the stone material and morphology for the intended task. The hammerstones exhibit pitting at one or both ends, evidence of their use as percussive instruments to flake pieces of stone ('cores').
Hammerstones were also used to apply controlled pressure to retouch a tool's edge. The small hammerstones in site ID# 741 and 977 appear to have been used for the latter purpose, in blunting the backs of microblades to form bondi points (ie. used as 'chimblers').
The use of at least three hammerstones as anvils and one core as a hammerstone reflect the multi-purpose nature of some items. Similarly, several cores (15) have edge-damage or use- wear consistent with their utilisation as tools and one core has also been used as an anvil.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 129 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Other key implements recorded in the assemblage include axes, grindstones and a muller. A total of 14 axes (flaked and/or ground-edge) have been recorded in the combined analysis area assemblage, along with several portions and preforms. Stone hatchets were an essential part of a male's tool-kit. They were used to cut saplings for building gunyahs, for stripping bark from trees, cutting notches in trees for climbing, and cutting toe-holds in trees to procure animals or honey from bee nests (Mathews 1894). These items were all made of tough volcanic stone. Grinding grooves occur within the study area, in which these or other ground-edge hatchets were shaped and sharpened.
Two sandstone grindstones have been identified in the analysis area, in sites ID# 752 and 1148. A number of varieties of Aboriginal grindstones occur in arid Australia, some of which were specialised to varying degrees for processing particular plant foods. The grindstones at Ulan were probably used for a similar purpose. A single muller or pestle has been recorded (at ID# 904). Pestles are typically narrow or ovoid shaped pebbles used for pounding and grinding food on a mortar.
The lithic items within the analysis area can be assigned to basic categories of activity, groupings which categorise the type of behaviour that may have produced the discarded artefact. However, it is essential to note that each activity can result in the discard of relatively different quantities of evidence. For example, microblade production could result in tens or hundreds of artefacts from a single knapping event, while discard of a microlithic tool could represent a single event. Therefore, while it is not possible to identify specific activity areas during a surface investigation such as this, the general activities resulting in individual discard events can be identified and summarised.
The categories of activity identified in the analysis area comprise:
Non-specific stone flaking: general or non-specific knapping activity (artefacts do not identify a more specific activity; includes debitage from primary knapping events and from flake manufacture);
Bipolar flaking: a method of core reduction or flake retouch by resting a piece of stone on a hard (usually stone) surface and striking it from above with a hammerstone, so that the force applied is essentially compressive;
Microblade production: a method of making small microlithic implements (eg. for backed artefacts) from regular elongated parallel sided flakes struck from a small core;
Microlith production: backing retouch of microliths;
Loss or intentional discard of microliths (complete and broken): the discard of backed artefacts either during manufacture, after use or unintentionally; and
Loss or intentional discard of non-microlith tools (including portions of tools): intentional discard after use or caching for future use of implements other than microliths.
Items representing non-specific stone flaking overwhelmingly dominate the combined analysis area assemblage, comprising 9,028 items or 96.3% of the assemblage. Microblade production is represented by just 26 items (0.3% of the combined assemblage). Bipolar flaking accounts for 0.7% of the assemblage (69 items), which could reflect low levels of identification in the field or genuinely low usage of this method of stone knapping. The loss or intentional discard of microliths is represented by 58 items (0.6% of the combined assemblage) and the loss or intentional discard of non-microlith tools is represented by 192 items (2% of the combined assemblage).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 130 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.4 Spatial Distribution
The identified open artefact evidence probably only represents a small fraction of the entire artefact resource that is present within the study area, because the vast majority of evidence is likely to be currently obscured by vegetation and soil.
Comprehensive studies in other locations (eg. Kuskie 2000b at Mount Arthur North in the Hunter Valley) demonstrate that artefacts occur in a widespread distribution across the landscape, with higher artefact densities, representing a greater focus of Aboriginal activity, tending to occur along higher order drainage depressions and to a lesser extent lower order drainage depressions, than in other landform units. Many surveys in eastern Australia have identified a virtually continual distribution of artefacts across the landscape, but at varying densities (cf. Hall 1991, 1992, Hall and Lomax 1993, Kuskie 2000b, Packard 1991, 1992). The results of large area surveys and major excavation projects (cf. Kuskie and Kamminga 2000, Kuskie and Clarke 2004, Kuskie 2005) lend support to arguments that the landscape should be viewed as an archaeological continuum, in which 'sites' represent points where higher frequencies of activities have occurred (cf. Foley 1981).
However, defining a 'site' is problematical, due to the manner in which the evidence is exposed and the nature of the underlying human behaviour that has created the evidence. Most evidence is exposed within areas of erosion or ground disturbance. Therefore, delineating the extent of an open artefact site is not realistically possible without extensive sub-surface testing. The recorded evidence has typically been affected by post-depositional processes to such an extent that definition of a cultural site may not be possible (a discrete, culturally defined unit beyond which cultural material is absent). At such locations where artefacts have been identified, unless the items can be demonstrated to be culturally and temporally associated, the evidence cannot be said to represent a cultural site. Instead, the evidence may reflect a number of different occupational events that are spatially superimposed or mixed by post-depositional processes, but are not temporally or culturally related. In addition, the 'site' locations and boundaries would simply reflect the distribution and size of surface exposures. The definition of a 'site' is therefore an arbitrary one, which offers benefits in terms of planning and management, but does not necessarily reflect the underlying human behaviour that created the evidence (cf. Dunnell and Dancey 1983).
Many survey assessments have used arbitrary site definitions such as 'two or more artefacts within 100 metres of each other' or 'concentrations of artefacts at a higher density than background scatter'. Neither concept is appropriate in a 'cultural landscape' approach. In recognition of the problems of 'site' definition as discussed above, the definition of an open artefact site 'as the presence of one or more stone artefacts within a survey area' is more appropriate (cf. Kuskie 2000b). The survey area will always equate to a discrete environmental context (eg. a particular combination of landform element and class of slope), bounded by different environmental contexts. While the visible site loci boundaries may be defined by the extent of visible evidence (consistent with the definition of an Aboriginal object under the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974), across the entire survey area in which a site is identified there exists a potential resource of comparable evidence. This 'broad-area' definition of a 'site' as encompassing the overall 'survey area' overcomes the problem of the nature of exposure of evidence (ie. 'sites' equate to 'surface exposures').
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 131 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The 'broad-area' approach is based on the assumption that different environmental contexts provided different sets of constraints to Aboriginal occupation, which resulted in different patterns of land use. Following from this is the expectation that land use patterns may differ between environmental contexts and that this may result in the physical manifestation of different spatial distributions and forms of archaeological evidence. It is assumed that if the specific environmental context is repeated elsewhere within the study area, that similar evidence would exist in both locations, reflecting the similar underlying behaviour.
Following from these issues, it is apparent that concentrations of artefacts may represent many different and unrelated episodes of occupation. Therefore, by focusing the analysis on individual artefacts, issues of 'intra-site' spatial context become less critical. It is possible to compare the frequency of individual artefact and stone material types (measured against a constant unit of area, such as a square metre of effective survey coverage or a cubic metre of excavated soil sieved) with environmental variables, in order to test and refine the predictive model.
The analysis area can be subdivided into a total of approximately 22 environmental contexts (Table 7.2). These are discrete, recurring areas of land for which it is assumed that the Aboriginal land use and resultant heritage evidence in one location may be extrapolated to other similar locations. Environmental contexts can be defined on the basis of two environmental variables:
Firstly, landform element (following the definitions of McDonald et al 1984) (eg. ridge crest, spur crest, simple slope, drainage depression, etc.); and
Secondly, class of slope (following McDonald et al 1984) (eg. level to very gently inclined slopes of less than 1q45´; gently inclined slopes greater than 1q45´ and less than 5q45´, etc.).
Environmental contexts consist of all of the survey areas with a particular combination of landform element and slope (eg. 297 separate survey areas may be combined to form a 'gentle simple slope' context). As each survey area is by definition part of a single environmental context (although a number of similar 'survey areas' can make up the total), it is possible to compare and analyse other environmental variables on a fine-scale between each survey area and on a broader-scale between each context.
However, evidence within a single environmental context can also vary in relation to different usage of the area by Aboriginal people. This classificatory system tends to emphasise similarity and mask differences. The use by Aboriginal people of each survey area that makes up an environmental context may differ, for cultural, environmental or other reasons. For example, a particular spur crest may lead from a ridgeline used for transitory movement to a camp site bordering a food resource, whereas another spur crest may lead away from the camp site bordering a food resource to an ephemeral drainage depression only used for occasional hunting/gathering. Individual survey areas on these spur crests, albeit in the same environmental context, may host different types and proportions of evidence reflecting different ways in which these landforms were utilised. Hence, a series of "cultural" sub-contexts (ie. environmental/cultural contexts) could also be identified in an attempt to encompass the potential range of variation in heritage evidence within each environmental context (Kuskie 2000b). Further investigation of this issue in relation to the present study area may be warranted.
A comparison of the density of artefacts in open artefact sites (as the number of artefacts per square metre of effective survey coverage) is presented in Table 7.2 in relation to the variables of slope, landform element and environmental context.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 132 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Contrary to results generally obtained from other areas in southeastern Australia, in which there is a strong correlation between higher artefact density and lower gradient, the Ulan analysis area exhibits a trend for increased artefact density with increased gradient. The highest mean density of 0.0248 artefacts/m2 of effective survey coverage is on moderate gradients, whereas the density is lower on gentle gradients (0.0191/m2) and even lower on level-very gentle ground (0.0110/m2). There are several feasible explanations:
Extensive colluvial deposition on lower gradients has obscured (buried) artefact evidence, but has not been adequately accounted for in estimations of 'archaeological visibility' and therefore calculations of effective survey coverage; and/or
Artefact evidence on moderate slopes has been associated with the occupation of adjacent rock shelters (which tended to be occur in areas of moderate or steep gradient); and/or
Notwithstanding the occurrence of areas of lower gradient, the presence of higher order watercourses within the study area and associated level ground is very limited. Level-very gentle drainage depressions comprise only 3.15% of the analysis area, and few of these drainages are higher order streams with semi-permanent or frequently occurring potable water. Occupation has been strongly demonstrated in other areas to be associated with the presence of water, particularly higher-order watercourses.
In relation to landform element, the Ulan analysis area exhibits a trend for higher artefact density on terraces (0.1750/m2), although this unit only comprises 0.01% of the entire analysis area and therefore the result may be affected by the small sample size. Of the remaining units, higher densities occur on spur crests (0.0235/m2), than simple slopes (0.0209/m2), valley flats (0.0148/m2) and drainage depressions (0.0112/m2). Notably, scarps, hillocks and ridge crests (typically more elevated terrain) have markedly lower artefact densities (refer to Table 7.2).
A comparison of artefact density between each environmental context (refer to Table 7.2) reveals the level-very gentle terrace (0.1750/m2) as the context with the highest density, but as noted above this may be affected by the small sample size. Of the remaining units, higher densities occur on level-very gentle spur crests (0.0335/m2), than moderate simple slopes (0.0298/m2), gentle simple slopes (0.0222/m2), gentle spur crests (0.0203/m2), moderate spur crests (0.0155/m2), level-very gentle valley flats (0.0148/m2) and gentle drainage depressions (0.0145/m2). Despite having areas of level-very gentle gradient, hillocks, ridge crests, drainage depressions, simple slopes and flats of this gradient were among the contexts with the lowest densities.
Overall, artefacts occur at a very low mean density of 0.0176 per square metre of effective survey coverage within the analysis area. The overall spatial distribution and nature of evidence may largely be consistent with background discard, manuport and artefactual material which is insufficient either in number or in association with other material to suggest focused activity in a particular location (cf. Rich 1993, Kuskie and Kamminga 2000), interspersed by occasional focalised areas of higher artefact density where activities or repeated activities have occurred.
In general terms, the artefact densities identified within these environmental units and the overall analysis area are low by southeastern Australian standards and indicate a generally low- intensity utilisation of the locality. While it is clear that there is spatial patterning of evidence within the analysis area in terms of various environmental factors, further analysis and research would be required to establish the reasons for these variations, as the results are significantly different to those from other major studies in nearby regions.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 133 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A primary explanation may be the limited presence of higher order watercourses within the analysis area (being largely situated on and around the crest of the Great Divide). Effectively, the analysis area may represent a substantially different general environment to those of the other study areas in the Hunter Valley and coastal regions. The effects of colluvial sediment deposition also warrant further investigation in a research context, and in the project area may have acted to obscure (bury) evidence to a greater extent than in other regions. Sub-surface test excavations within a range of environmental contexts could assist in addressing this issue, although is not of strong relevance to the present project due to the nature of the impacts being primarily subsidence related.
The distribution of the other site types can be examined (refer also to Figures 7.6 and 7.7).
Five scarred trees occur in the study area, three in association with remnant native forest vegetation, but two on trees where scattered trees bordering cleared pastoral areas. Four of the scarred trees are located in the Ulan West area and one above the No.3 Mine.
The single waterhole/well site (separate from any grinding grooves) occurs in the open cut extension area.
Eight of the nine open grinding groove sites occur in drainage depressions and one on a moderate simple slope (ID# 519). Two sites occur on second order drainages, two on third order drainages and four on fourth or higher order streams. One site (ID# 416) is located in the open cut extension area, two are located in the Ulan West underground area (ID# 1161 and 1210), four are within or in close proximity to surface impact areas outside of the underground areas (ID# 519, 1074, 1075 and 1076) and two (ID# 363 and 526) are in the No. 3 underground area.
Two ochre quarry sites are present, both in association with sources of ochre in sandstone rock formations. ID# 158 is located 50 metres south of a small electrical substation and immediately south of a vehicle track that leads to Old Ulan Village from near Bobadeen, on a gentle simple slope. ID #807 is located on a 10 metre high discrete sandstone scarp on a moderate slope unit at the northern margin of the Ulan West area.
Four of the stone arrangement sites are located within a 950 x 500 metre area above the proposed No.3 Underground Mine (Figure 7.5). The sites are situated on crests or just below crests on the Great Divide, each being prominent vantage points (although past forest vegetation may have limited views). ID# 1286 is located in the southwestern portion of the Ulan West underground mine, and is potentially associated with nearby rock shelters.
Three rock shelters with grinding grooves (and no associated art or artefact evidence) occur within the study area. ID# 462 and 470 are in the W2-W3 SMP area and ID# 917 is in the Brokenback area. Two occur in drainage depressions and one on a scarp, all in sandstone rock formations. All are located within 50 metres of a drainage, one a first order, one a second order and one a fourth order.
Five rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts occur, two close to each other in the headwaters of Mona Creek, another two in separate locations on headwaters of Mona Creek, and one in the Brokenback Creek area. Three of the sites occur in the No.3 Underground area and two in the Ulan West area. Three sites occur on drainage depressions and two on scarps, all in sandstone rock formations. Four are located within 50 metres of a drainage (first and second orders), one further than 50 metres (from a fourth order).
One rock shelter with art and grinding grooves and artefacts occurs, ID# 190 in the Brokenback area. It is located on a sandstone rock formation on a simple slope, within 50 metres of a first order watercourse.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 134 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Three rock shelters with art and artefacts occur, two in the Brokenback area and one along the northern side of the valley of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek. Two are situated on scarps and one on a simple slope, all in sandstone rock formations. Two are further than 50 metres from a watercourse (third and fourth orders) and one within 50 metres (first order).
Four rock shelters with art (but no associated artefact evidence) occur within the study area, two in the Brokenback area, one in the Mona Creek area and one along the valley margins of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek. Three are situated on scarps and one on a simple slope, all in sandstone rock formations. Two are further than 50 metres from a watercourse (fourth order) and two within 50 metres (first order).
A total of 112 rock shelters with artefacts occur within the study area. Of these, 58 occur on scarps, 46 on simple slopes, seven on spur crests and one in a drainage depression, all on sandstone rock formations. A total of 52 are within 50 metres of a watercourse (26 from a first order, 16 from a second order, seven from a third order, and one from a fourth order) and 60 further than 50 metres (22 from a first order, ten from a second order, 15 from a third order, and 12 from a fourth order).
A total of 296 rock shelters with PADs occur within the study area. Of these, 176 occur on simple slopes, 94 on scarps, 13 on spur crests and 13 on drainage depressions, almost all on sandstone rock formations apart from several in conglomerate. A total of 134 are within 50 metres of a watercourse (96 from a first order, 28 from a second order, three from a third order, and seven from a fourth order) and 154 further than 50 metres (70 from a first order, 38 from a second order, 25 from a third order, and 21 from a fourth order).
Table 7.9: Relationship of rock shelter sites with artefacts and proximity to water and order of watercourse.
<50 metres to Water >50 metres from Water Order of # of shelters # of artefacts average # of # of shelters # of artefacts average # of Watercourse artefacts per artefacts per shelter shelter 1st order 26 243 9.4 22 728 33.1 2nd order 16 88 5.5 10 45 4.5 3rd order 7 91 13.0 15 100 6.7 4th order 1 3 3.0 12 29 2.4 Total/Mean 50 425 8.5 59 902 15.3
The rock shelters with artefacts are compared in Table 7.9, with respect to distance to watercourse, order of watercourse and counts and mean numbers of artefacts. The results are significantly different than anticipated, based on other trends identified for open artefact sites throughout southeastern Australia. The numbers of artefacts, and more importantly, the mean number of artefacts per shelter, are almost double in sites further than 50 metres from a watercourse, than in sites closer than 50 metres from a watercourse. Equally notable, in the shelters further than 50 metres from a watercourse, significantly higher mean numbers occur in sites closer to a first order watercourse, than higher order watercourses. The pattern is more variable for sites within 50 metres of a watercourse, with higher mean numbers closer to third order watercourses, followed by first order watercourses.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 135 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 7.6: Distribution of open grinding groove, ochre quarry, scarred tree, stone arrangement and waterhole/well sites within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 136 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 7.7: Distribution of rock shelter sites within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 137 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 These results are problematic to explain, as proximity to water is considered to be an important factor with respect to site location, particularly for occupation sites. In terms of the study area:
One explanation may be that contrary to data for open sites in nearby regions, the division of 50 metres is not suitable for the study area for rock shelter sites, because of the nature of the topography (rock shelters being located only in certain places with respect to watercourses, potentially some distance from most higher order streams in the study area);
A second explanation may be related to the nature of occupation of rock shelters within the study area. For example, rather than encampments, either overnight or of longer stays, or by small hunting/gathering parties or by nuclear/extended family groups, the shelters were only occupied for very brief periods (eg. less than a day) to seek respite from adverse weather. As such, proximity to water was not a factor in site location during those episodes of occupation; or
A third explanation may relate to the nature of the sample (derived from surface inspection only, whereas most evidence is probably obscured by leaf litter and soil). Test excavation of a sample of rock shelters in different contexts would provide a more reliable and suitable sample for inter-site comparison, than can be provided by surface inspection alone. The sample may also be an issue with respect to the size of the habitable floor area of shelters, with further analysis required to determine if the sample within particular distances of certain order watercourses is comprised of similar sized shelters. For example, if all of the shelters within 50 metres of a fourth order watercourse in the study area had very small habitable floor areas, it would not be surprising for the mean number of artefacts to be low.
Very few shelters are located in the eastern half of the No.3 Underground area. Shelters are clustered in the western half of the No.3 Underground area in the forested terrain west of the irrigation pivots, in the headwaters of the Mona Creek catchment. Numerous shelters are located in the Ulan West area, notably around the headwaters of Mona Creek and Brokenback Creek, around the steep margins of the Brokenback valley, around the steep margins of the "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek, and around the "Ulan Village" tributary of Ulan Creek. Very few shelter sites are located in the open cut extension area (a valley drained by a tributary of Ulan Creek).
7.5 Integrity of Evidence
Assessing the effects of post-depositional impacts on spatial context and site contents is important in determining the types of scientific information that may be suitably examined and identifying issues relevant to the interpretation of the evidence.
The integrity of the evidence can be examined by various means, including:
Land-use history and natural processes;
Horizontal and vertical distributions of stone artefacts; and
Conjoins and inferred associations between individual stone artefacts.
Various forms of human activity and natural processes can disturb archaeological evidence after it is deposited. As Gollan (1992:44) observed, the archaeological resource is ‘constantly in a state of flux, being made (exposed and discovered) and unmade (by impacts, random and non- random, cultural and natural), but generally trending towards loss of systematic informational content’.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 138 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 It is important to identify the range of processes that may have affected a site, in order to account for possible effects to the horizontal and vertical spatial distribution of evidence. These include:
Occupational disturbance (mixing about of a deposit at a site by the inhabitants during the course of their daily activities, for example trampling, scuffing and treadage, camp fires and re-use of artefacts: affects the spatial structure of sites);
Bioturbation (disturbance to the soil profile by the growth and activities of plants and animals, for example animal burrows, ant and termite mounds, tree fall causing pits and mounds, plant growth and the promotion of sheet-wash erosion in combination with rain- wash processes: affects the spatial structure of sites particularly the vertical relationship of artefacts);
Erosion (physical movement of soil down-slope, for example sheet-wash facilitated by rain- splash that enables the detachment of soil particles, which can then be entrained and fine material is transported in suspension: affects the spatial structure of sites, disperses artefacts and features and alters density per unit of volume);
Vegetation removal (can promote erosion and affect spatial structure, and destroy scarred tree and carved tree sites);
Pastoral activities (grazing, fencing, general rural land use: trampling of artefacts by stock causes breakage or damage, stock can compact the soil and promote erosion, stock can impact on rock art in shelters or damage grinding grooves, and farm machinery and vehicles can damage grinding grooves and other site types);
Agriculture (cultivation of crops or orchards, for example the crops grown under the Bobadeen irrigation scheme: can break artefacts, affect spatial structure, promote erosion and damage other site types such as grinding grooves);
Focalised impacts (such as mining, infrastructure, exploratory drilling, essential services, roads and other vehicle tracks: can equate to partial or total destruction of heritage evidence).
The integrity of the identified sites and the remainder of the study area can primarily be assessed for surface evidence only through examination of land use impacts. Controlled excavation would enable integrity to be assessed through the horizontal and vertical distribution of artefacts and by conjoining items.
Levels of ground disturbance were recorded within three categories during the survey, following the classifications of McDonald et al (1984:69) (refer to Appendix B1). In the total analysis area, the levels of ground disturbance have been characterised as
High in 44 survey areas (2.1% of total);
Moderate to high in 69 survey areas (3.3% of total);
Moderate in 352 survey areas (16.9% of total);
Low to moderate in 396 survey areas (19% of total);
Low to high in 11 survey areas (0.5% of total); and
Low in 1213 survey areas (58.2% of total).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 139 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Hence, the vast majority of the analysis area comprises land in which levels of ground disturbance are relatively low. The salient conclusions of Kuskie and Ingram (2008) are also noted, that based on various test excavation results, even where levels of ground disturbance initially appear moderate to high, as defined using the McDonald et al (1984:69) classification system, sub-surface deposits that are relatively in situ and potentially of research value may still exist.
Nevertheless, while many artefact deposits within the study area may exhibit reasonable integrity, vegetation removal and rural land use across the cleared areas visible on Figure 7.4 may have had adverse effects on particular obtrusive site types such as scarred trees or carved trees. Elsewhere in the project area, the existing open cut mining operations have resulted in total impacts to a number of heritage sites (predominantly artefact scatters, but also several potential scarred trees) and the existing underground mining operations have resulted in subsidence impacts to a number of rock shelter sites (refer to Figure 7.4).
Levels of ground disturbance were also recorded for the individual identified sites within the analysis area (refer to Appendices B2 and B4-B10). At the open artefact sites, disturbance levels were assessed as low at 195 sites, low-moderate at 102 sites, low-high at five sites, moderate at 147 sites, moderate-high at 59 sites and high at 19 sites. The results are consistent with the identification of many visible artefacts in areas of ground disturbance. In many open artefact sites and elsewhere across the study area there remains potential however for deposits to occur that are relatively in situ and/or of research potential (Appendix B1). In certain circumstances the impacts of post-depositional processes can also be identified and controlled for (cf. Koettig 1989, Kuskie and Kamminga 2000). Sub-surface deposits were assessed as being possible at 46% of open artefact sites, probable at 23% and unlikely at 31%.
At the rock shelter locations recorded during the present survey (including both PADs and sites), disturbance levels (primarily to the potential deposit) were assessed as low at 193 locations, low-moderate at 74 locations, moderate at 136 locations, moderate-high at 12 locations and high at eight locations. However, without excavation, it is often problematic to resolve the level of post-depositional impacts to any evidence. There remains a potential within many rock shelters, particularly the approximately 85% of shelters with soil deposits greater than 0.1 metres depth, for deposits that may be in situ and/or of research potential. In certain circumstances the impacts of post-depositional processes can also be identified and controlled for (cf. Haglund 2001a).
The condition of the rock art in the shelter sites was generally low, due to natural weathering (eg. exfoliation or exposure to direct sunlight or rain), although direct impacts from other factors (graffiti) was confined to one shelter with art.
Disturbance levels to the single waterhole/well site and ochre quarry (recorded during the present survey) were assessed as low. One scarred tree occurs on a dead, felled tree, while the condition of the scars on living trees varies from good to several impacted by termites or fire. Most of the open grinding groove sites exhibit low levels of disturbance, with ID# 1076 recorded as having moderate levels due to erosion, weathering and vegetation and ID# 519 as having moderate-high levels due to cattle and tractor tyres. The four stone arrangements in the No.3 Underground area exhibit moderate levels of ground disturbance from vegetation removal, pastoral use and damage from farm machinery and stock.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 140 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.6 Chronology
There is no reliable means of dating the surface evidence that has been identified within the study area. Cultural evidence can be directly dated by radiometric or other means (eg. radiocarbon, thermoluminescence and optically stimulated thermo-luminescence dating), when samples of datable cultural material (eg. charcoal) are retrieved from deposits through controlled excavation. This is not possible within the context of a surface survey.
However, potential exists within numerous rock shelters for deposits that may contain charcoal from campfires in a suitable context for radiocarbon dating. The SG5 (ID# 132) rock shelter excavated by Haglund (2001a) has been radiocarbon dated to 4840 - 4446 calBP (2891 - 2497 BC) (NZA 10766) and a shelter nearby at Bobadeen even earlier (6,000 years BP; Moore 1970). Furthermore, a number of contexts have been identified within the Ulan locality that could host even older evidence of Aboriginal occupation, extending back into the Pleistocene period (ie. >10,000 years of age), including creek terrace deposits covered by colluvial slopewash and rock shelter sites.
Typological evidence can be used to date artefacts in open artefact sites (or rock shelters). Artefacts characteristic of the "Australian Small Tool and Scraper Tradition" occur within the study area. Items such as backed artefacts (eg. bondi points) have been reliably dated in rock shelter sites to around 5,000 years of age (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999). As listed in Table 7.6, a number of these items occur within the analysis area, and therefore at least these items, if not also the associated deposits, are inferred to date to within the last 5,000 years or so.
Four probable artefacts manufactured on bottle glass were identified. If these items have been fashioned/used by Aboriginal people, they are significant in that they indicate continued use of the Ulan study area after non-indigenous settlement. Continued use of the study area early in the historical period is not unexpected, given the history of the locality (refer to Sections 3.4 and 4) and probable use by the early settlers of Aboriginal pathways/travel routes (eg. through the Old Ulan Village locality), possibly even accompanied/guided by Aboriginal people. However, it is noted that unintentional impacts to broken bottle glass (eg. through vehicles or human/stock treadage) can create fracturing and wear comparable to that resulting from intentional knapping/use, and therefore some uncertainty will remain about the classification of these items.
Attempts to date open sites through description of technological attributes of artefact assemblages have also been undertaken (eg. Hiscock 1984, 1985, 1986). Hiscock (1985) identified three temporally distinct technological phases, based on analysis of attributes. However, the methods used by Hiscock have not been successfully replicated to date in open sites and are subject to significant constraints.
From the existing circumstantial evidence it could be inferred that some, if not most or even all of the cultural evidence within the study area relates to the past 5,000 years of human occupation. Direct dating of samples obtained from controlled excavation of deposits would be the method most likely to establish the antiquity of occupation within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 141 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 7.7 Site Interpretation and Reassessment of Occupation Model
In general terms, the nature of occupation within the study area could represent a variety of circumstances as outlined in detail in Section 5.1:
Transitory movement;
Ceremonial activity;
Hunting and/or gathering (without camping);
Camping by small hunting and/or gathering parties;
Nuclear/extended family base camp;
Community base camp; or
Larger congregation of groups.
The evidence at particular locations could represent single or multiple episodes of one or more of the above types of occupations. The episodes of occupations could have occurred at different times over the entire time-span of occupation in the region. Each episode of occupation could also have been for a different duration of time. Descriptions of the nature of each type of occupation and the material circumstances or evidence that may relate to such occupation types within the study area are outlined in Section 5.1. It is noted however that the hypothesised occupation types and criteria, although derived from numerous studies and empirical evidence, involve many assumptions which may be subject to reassessment in relation to the results of future studies.
It is inferred from the evidence obtained during the surveys of the study area that:
Aboriginal people used and occupied virtually the entire study area, but generally at a very low intensity;
Much of the artefact and rock shelter evidence within the study area is consistent with transitory movement through the landscape and occasional and short-duration visits by small parties of hunters and/or gatherers for food procurement;
These activities appear to have occurred more frequently on areas of moderate and to a lesser extent gentle gradients, than on areas of lower gradient;
More use appears to have been made of rock shelters further than 50 metres from a watercourse, particularly those closer to first order drainages. This may relate to occupation of those shelters for very brief periods, for example to seek temporary respite from adverse weather, wherein proximity to water was not a factor in site location;
Some of the artefact and rock shelter evidence within the study area is consistent with more focused occupation, such as camping by small parties of hunters and/or gatherers or nuclear/extended families;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 142 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Notwithstanding the points above, the generally very low density of artefacts within the study area, the distribution of these artefacts and the topography of the study area (minimal presence of higher order watercourses and absence of swamps/wetlands or other similar subsistence resource zones) indicates that in the broader locality focused occupation was more likely to have occurred outside of the direct study area in association with those such contexts (eg. along the Goulburn River and Talbragar River, and to a lesser extent along the higher order portions of Ulan Creek, Bobadeen Creek, Cockabutta Creek, Spring Gully, Wilpinjong Creek, Moolarben Creek, Narragamba Swamp, etc) where more preferential circumstances existed for water and subsistence resources;
Exposed sandstone bedrock in the study area, typically in drainage depressions but also less commonly on open slopes, was used for the shaping and maintenance of ground-edge axes. Small, sandstone slabs in rock shelters were also used for these purposes. These activities may have been occasional and incidental to transitory movement or short-term occupation within the study area during the course of the normal daily hunting/gathering round, rather than as a result of special purpose visits;
Bark was removed from trees within the project area for use in making wooden implements and/or shelter;
Ochre was procured from sources within the project area and used for rock art and body paint, evidence of non-secular activities;
Arrangements of stone were created, typically in elevated places away from watercourses, but their purpose is unknown. They evidence the use of the locality for non-secular purposes;
Various plant and animal foods were available from within the study area and probably utilised for food and medicine;
The stone material quartz was predominantly used for stone-working activities, largely because of its local availability, and it was probably procured from local colluvial gravels. These gravel sources, including pebbles derived from decomposed conglomerate, would have enabled casual, opportunistic procurement of much of the stone material utilised at Ulan, without the need for special-purpose trips or particular effort;
Other stone materials were used including tuff, chert and in very low frequencies acidic volcanics, quartzite, volcanics, silcrete, petrified wood, chalcedony, rhyolite, basalt, sandstone, ironstone, breccia, siltstone and granite. Tuff was probably obtained from local colluvial gravels and outcrops. Within the study area it is exposed as seams in the scarps and slopes of the dissected sandstone terrain (including occasionally within rock shelters) and as tabular colluvial gravels on the slopes and also in the drainage depressions where it has migrated further downwards;
Aboriginal occupation of the area may have been concurrent with the initial non-indigenous settlement, with the presence of several probable artefacts manufactured from bottle glass. At least some, if not most or even all of the evidence within the study area relates to occupation during the past 5,000 years;
Core reduction strategies are inferred to have been largely expedient, to produce flakes for immediate use (ie. largely casual and opportunistic, meeting requirements on an 'as needed' basis). However, backed artefact production, an activity often involving the production of items in quantity and from the same material in discrete activity areas, also occurred; and
Bipolar knapping occurred infrequently and represents opportunistic, casual knapping of predominantly quartz (probably as a strategy to commence the use-life of the stone material).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 143 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In view of the survey results, the general model of occupation for the Ulan locality (after Kuskie and Kamminga 2000, Kuskie 2005, Kuskie and Clarke 2005, 2007) outlined in Section 5.1 can be reassessed. It is noted however, that the environment of the study area is confined to a specific range of contexts (predominantly within elevated hills and plateaux straddling the Great Divide, which are more dissected and moderately inclined around the headwaters of the catchments) and largely excludes major watercourses or valleys. Hence, the study results can only be examined with respect to certain elements of the model and the data obtained during the surveys may not be representative of the true range of evidence and occupation types.
The key elements in which evidence was available to support the proposed model include:
Occupation primarily occurred within the past 5,000 years (circumstantial evidence from specific artefact types support this hypothesis);
Occupation outside of the primary resource zones and secondary resource zones tended to involve hunting and gathering activities by small parties of men and/or women and children, along with transitory movement between locations and procurement of stone materials;
Occupation outside of the primary and secondary resource zones also involved special purpose journeys (eg. to procure stone or ochre from a known source or to access an area for ceremonial/spiritual purposes) and non-secular activities (eg. ceremonial activities);
Activities such as food procurement, food processing, food consumption, maintenance of wooden and stone tools, production of stone tools (including systematic production of types such as backed artefacts, as well as hafting of implements and casual, opportunistic production of other items on an as needed basis), production of wooden tools and other implements, procurement of stone, ceremonial activity and spiritual activity were among the types of pursuits engaged in by the local Aboriginal people across the tribal territory;
Activities varied in frequency and occurrence within the landscape (and between the different occupation site types), probably in relation to numerous variables such as topography, distance to resource zones, distance to water, aspect, slope and cultural choice. However, few activities will be evident within the archaeological record other than those involving the use of stone, or where preservation conditions permit, other materials such as bone, shell and wood. The majority of evidence within an archaeological context will relate to the reduction of stone, but some evidence will exist of hearths, food processing, food procurement and ceremonial and other activities;
Stone was typically procured during the course of normal daily and seasonal movements, without the need for special purpose trips;
Casual and opportunistic reduction of stone or selection of flakes to meet requirements on an 'as needed' basis was a widespread occurrence. A high proportion of flaked products were simply discarded at the site of their manufacture, without use;
A low frequency of items was knapped using bipolar technology. This technology is largely, although not entirely, restricted to the reduction of quartz. It is likely that this technology was mainly employed to reduce small pebbles rather than as strategy to prolong the use-life of existing cores; and
Exposed sandstone bedrock was used for the shaping and/or maintenance of ground-edge hatchets. This activity may have been occasional and incidental to transitory movement or short-term occupation during the course of the normal daily hunting/gathering round, rather than a result of special purpose visits.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 144 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The key element in which evidence was available to suggest a modification to the model would be appropriate relates to the hypothesis that the "stone materials tuff and quartz were favoured for stone working activities . . . ". On the basis of the extensive artefact sample from the analysis area, this element of the model can be revised as such:
The stone material quartz was favoured for stone working activities, largely because of its local availability. Tuff was also used, along with chert in lower frequencies, with the relatively intensity of use of each material dependent upon the proximity of local colluvial and alluvial and terrestrial outcrop sources.
The remaining elements either could not be tested or were not disputed by the results.
7.8 Regional Context
The nature of the evidence from the analysis area can be compared with other studies and sites in the region (refer to Section 3.2). The primary purpose is to identify similarities and differences with other reported evidence, in order to provide a framework for interpreting representativeness.
There are however, numerous problems and constraints in comparing evidence and conclusions from the present study with those of other studies, including different:
Standards and quality of reporting;
Unspecified or different methods of calculation (eg. artefact counts, density);
Sampling strategies;
Identification of stone materials;
Identification of artefact types and classes (eg. nomenclature, criteria and consistency in artefact classification);
Identification of backing retouch; and
Identification of use-wear and residue.
Despite these constraints, comparison is made below to the extent possible of the evidence with that from other studies in the locality for which sufficient details are available. Comments are also made where possible in relation to other studies in the locality and comparison is also made with major survey results from the Hunter Valley region.
A significant difference with the Moolarben studies adjacent to Ulan (Hamm 2006a, 2006b, 2008b) relates to the extent of the survey sample. The present study sampled virtually the geographic extent of the study area, consistent with the DECC (2005) Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation. The Moolarben studies (Hamm 2006a, 2006b, 2008b) only sampled portions (about one-fifth) of the Moolarben project areas, compared to a sample of almost 90% of the present project area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 145 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Despite their close geographical proximity, the location of the Ulan study area around the Great Divide and consequent minimal presence of higher order watercourses and valley flat contexts differentiates it somewhat from the Moolarben study areas, which are off the Great Divide and contain major watercourses and valleys. The differences in the proportions of heritage site types within the Ulan and Moolarben areas may partly relate to the differences in environmental contexts, but also probably relate to the much more limited sampling of the overall project areas that occurred at Moolarben. There is a much higher frequency of rock shelter sites or PADs (42%) in the Ulan study area than in the Moolarben study areas (10% in Stage 1 and 13% in Stage 2).
In terms of the recorded artefact evidence, substantially more artefacts have been recorded within the Ulan analysis area, but to eliminate differences in sample sizes and other factors, it is the density of artefacts per effective survey coverage that should be compared (particularly with respect to different environmental variables). Insufficient information is available within the Moolarben reports (Hamm 2006a, 2008b) to allow such a comparison.
In terms of stone materials, quartz dominates both the Ulan analysis area assemblage (72.8%) and the Moolarben Stage 1 (81.6%) and Stage 2 (76%) assemblages. Tuff is the second most commonly utilised material, representing 11.9% of the Ulan analysis area assemblage and 10.6% of Moolarben Stage 1 and 19% of Moolarben Stage 2. Artefacts related to non-specific stone flaking, such as flakes, flake portions and lithic fragments/flaked pieces, dominate the three assemblages (although frequencies are generally not specified for the Moolarben assemblages rendering direct comparison problematic). Backed artefacts, hammerstones and axes occur at both Ulan and Moolarben.
A comparison of the Ulan study area with the Wilpinjong project further to the southeast reveals comparable similarities and differences as outlined above for Moolarben. The Wilpinjong study area also comprised somewhat different environmental contexts to the Ulan study area, and consequently has a lower frequency of rock shelter sites or PADs (10%) compared with Ulan.
The Kerrabee Dam study area of Haglund (1980b, 1981c) is located further from Ulan and also differs somewhat in environmental context, with major valleys/higher order watercourses, and a higher proportion of dissected sandstone terrain (being away from the gently undulating crest of the Great Divide). Similar heritage site types occur at Kerrabee as at Ulan, with potentially a broader range of rock shelter types at Kerrabee. Detailed comparison is problematic due to the different nature of the sampling strategies and information recorded in the earlier studies.
The numerous problems and constraints in comparing evidence from the present study with that from the other studies in the Ulan locality discussed above are not an issue with projects in the Hunter Valley undertaken by South East Archaeology using similar methods. The Mount Arthur North coal lease (Kuskie 2000b) is an example of a major survey using similar methods, but within a different environmental context to the Ulan study area. The Mount Arthur North study area is located in the Hunter Valley, and largely comprised the catchment of a higher order watercourse (Whites Creek). Nevertheless, the focus of both projects on the individual artefact as the basic unit of analysis, and sampling strategies stratified on the basis of environmental variables and encompassing the total project areas, enables comparison of the results of these two studies in different environmental contexts.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 146 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Contrary to results obtained from Mount Arthur North (and other areas in southeastern Australia), in which there is a strong correlation between higher artefact density and lower gradient, the Ulan analysis area exhibits a trend for increased artefact density with increased gradient. The highest mean density of 0.0248 artefacts/m2 of effective survey coverage is on moderate gradients, whereas the density is lower on gentle gradients (0.0191/m2) and even lower on level-very gentle ground (0.0110/m2) at Ulan. In contrast at Mount Arthur North for example, a 35 km2 project area with 17,342 surface artefacts, there is a distinct trend for higher artefact densities to occur on lower gradient slopes, with the highest mean density of 0.271 artefacts/m2 of effective survey coverage on level/very gentle slopes, followed by 0.044/m2 on gentle slopes and 0.022/m2 on moderate/steep slopes (Kuskie 2000b).
In relation to landform element, the Ulan analysis area exhibits a trend for higher artefact density on terraces (0.1750/m2), although this unit only comprises 0.01% of the entire analysis area and therefore the result may be affected by the small sample size. Of the remaining units, higher densities occur on spur crests (0.0235/m2), than on simple slopes (0.0209/m2), valley flats (0.0148/m2) and drainage depressions (0.0112/m2). Notably, scarps, hillocks and ridge crests (typically more elevated terrain) have markedly lower artefact densities (refer to Table 7.2). In contrast, at Mount Arthur North for example, there is a distinct trend for higher artefact densities to occur on valley flats (0.566/m2) than on simple slopes (0.042/m2), drainage depressions (0.037/m2) or spur crests (0.034/m2).
Overall, artefacts occur at a very low mean density of 0.0176/m2 of effective survey coverage within the Ulan analysis area, compared with 0.069/m2 at Mount Arthur North (four times higher). The artefact densities at Ulan appear low by southeastern Australian standards. As discussed in Section 7.4, a primary explanation may be the limited presence of higher order watercourses within the Ulan analysis area (being largely situated on and around the crest of the Great Divide). Effectively, the analysis area may represent a substantially different general environment to those of these other study areas in the Hunter Valley and coastal regions, and even the adjacent Moolarben and nearby Wilpinjong project areas in the Ulan locality.
The effects of colluvial sediment deposition also warrant further investigation in a research context, and in the project area may have acted to obscure (bury) evidence to a greater extent than in other regions. Sub-surface test excavations within a range of environmental contexts could assist in addressing this issue, although is not of strong relevance to the present project due to the nature of the impacts being primarily subsidence related.
The evidence at Ulan for rock shelters with artefacts in relation to distance from and order of watercourse also contrasts with expectations based on studies such as Mount Arthur North (albeit relating to open artefact sites). As discussed in Section 7.4 for Ulan, the mean number of artefacts per shelter is almost double in sites further than 50 metres from a watercourse, than in sites within 50 metres of a watercourse. Also, in the shelters further than 50 metres from a watercourse, significantly higher mean numbers of artefacts occur in sites closer to a first order watercourse, than higher order watercourses. At Mount Arthur North (and many other project areas), strong trends have been identified in open artefact sites for higher artefact density closer to watercourses, particularly higher order watercourses (Kuskie 2000b). As above, the explanations for these anomalous trends within the Ulan study area may relate to its specific environmental context (and consequent Aboriginal occupation largely being of a low intensity), or sampling issues. Test excavation of a sample of rock shelters in different contexts would provide a more reliable and suitable sample for inter-site comparison, than can be provided by surface inspection alone.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 147 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Few of the heritage items or evidence located within the study area appear to be very rare or unique within a regional context, other than the boomerang in ID# 164 (reported by Haglund 1999b). Artefact scatters, rock shelters and to a lesser extent grinding grooves, are common site types in the region. Nevertheless, several of the site types within the impact area are certainly less common or even rare within the region, such as the ochre quarries, stone arrangements and waterhole/well. Also, certain types of the artefact evidence are less common, such as the axes, grindstones, muller and possible bone point. The evidence for lithic procurement from the colluvial gravel sources at ID# 580 and 804, and possible tuff procurement at ID# 400 and 412 and elsewhere where outcrops of tuff occur in the southern portion of the open cut extension area, is also less common or rarely reported within the region (although many similar such areas may exist).
7.9 Reassessment of Predictive Model
In view of the survey results, the predictive model of site location (refer to Section 5.2) can be reassessed in relation to the present study area. Although about 88% of the study area has been sampled during this study, the model can be reassessed in relation to the 12% that has not been sampled yet, along with areas within the sampled zone that were not directly inspected.
Artefact Scatters:
558 open artefact sites have been identified within the study area, confirming initial predictions of a very high potential for this type of evidence. In the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled, there remains a very high potential for additional open artefact sites to occur. The potential for additional open artefact sites to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled also remains very high.
Across the study area (including sampled and unsampled areas) a widespread distribution of artefacts in variable density is expected across virtually all landform units, apart from in areas which have been substantially impacted by recent land-use (ie. areas in which the A unit or upper soil horizon has been totally removed). In general, the stone artefact evidence may be of a low to very low density consistent with background discard, interspersed by a number of activity areas (with consequent higher artefact density). The artefact evidence may involve a broad range of artefact and stone types, but will predominantly comprise evidence associated with non-specific stone flaking of quartz. However, a higher artefact density and potentially deposits of research significance may occur where more focused occupation and/or repeated Aboriginal occupation has occurred.
At a number of the recorded sites (refer to Appendices B2 and B12) there remains potential for deposits of sufficient integrity to be of research value. This potential is enhanced by the presence of a relatively deeper A unit soil (eg. along drainage depressions, basal slopes and flats). In certain circumstances, the impacts of post-depositional processes can also be identified and controlled for (cf. Koettig 1989, Kuskie and Kamminga 2000). However, elsewhere (eg. upper slopes) the potential for sub-surface deposits that are in situ or of possible research value appears to be low, considering the levels of ground disturbance, shallow upper soil unit and occupation model.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 148 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Bora/Ceremonial Sites:
The potential for bora/ceremonial sites to occur within the study area was initially assessed as low, but could not be discounted. This assessment remains valid for the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled. However, the potential for additional bora/ceremonial sites to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as very low or negligible, given the comprehensive nature of the survey and the obtrusive nature of this type of evidence.
Burials:
The potential for burial sites to occur within the study area was initially assessed as low, but could not be discounted in either sandy soils or rock shelters. This assessment remains valid for the entire study area, given the limited potential of identifying this form of evidence through surface survey techniques alone.
Carved Trees:
The potential for carved trees to occur within the study area was initially assessed as very low, but could not be discounted. This assessment remains valid for the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled. However, the potential for carved trees sites to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled is very low or negligible, given the comprehensive nature of the survey and the obtrusive nature of this type of evidence.
Cultural Significant Sites or Areas:
The Aboriginal representatives did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs or traditional knowledge, which date from the pre-contact period and have persisted until the present time, within the study area. The representatives also did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with historical associations, which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today (for example, plant and animal resource use areas and known camp sites), within the study area.
The possibility cannot be excluded however, that traditional or historical Aboriginal values or associations may exist that were not divulged to South East Archaeology by the persons consulted. It was not feasible to contact every single knowledge holder in the north-eastern Wiradjuri community. Nevertheless, Haglund's (1997) conclusion that "for various reasons, mainly relating to actions by authorities and settlers, cultural knowledge relating to features of the landscape (eg. mythological aspects) appears to have been totally lost, at least for the Ulan area", is noted.
The stakeholders did however disclose a number of associations with the study area of contemporary significance. The potential for further associations of contemporary significance within the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled cannot be discounted. However, sites of traditional or historical significance are not anticipated to occur.
Physical evidence of historical contact can occur in the form of artefacts manufactured from introduced materials (eg. porcelain or glass). Four probable artefacts manufactured on bottle glass have been identified within the analysis area, and further items may occur.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 149 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Grinding Grooves:
The initial assessment of a high potential for additional grinding groove sites to occur within the study area, both in association with rock shelters and in open contexts, was confirmed by the survey. Additional grinding groove sites have a high potential to occur in the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled, in either rock shelters or open contexts where suitable rock formations are present. The potential for additional grinding groove sites to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as low, given the comprehensive nature of the survey and the relatively obtrusive nature of this site type. However, sites may still occur in areas that were not directly sampled or are currently obscured by sediment or vegetation/leaf litter. Similarly, additional grooves may be present at the recorded sites, which are currently obscured by sediment or vegetation/leaf litter.
Quarry Sites:
Two ochre quarries have been identified within the study area, confirming initial predictions of a moderate potential for this site type. Additional ochre quarries may occur in the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled, where suitable sources exist. The potential for additional ochre quarries to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as low, given the comprehensive nature of the survey and the relatively obtrusive nature of this site type.
Direct evidence of the procurement and reduction of stone from colluvial gravel sources (lithic quarries) was identified in at least two open artefact sites, ID# 580 (with quartz and chert) and 804 (with quartz, quartzite, acidic volcanics and chert). These and similar sources, particularly the widespread distribution of quartz, quartzite and other pebbles from the decomposed conglomerate within the study area, would have enabled casual, opportunistic procurement of much of the stone material utilised at Ulan, without the need for special-purpose trips or particular effort. Hence, initial predictions of a moderate to high potential for this site type, where suitable stone sources are present, have been confirmed. Additional lithic quarries may occur in the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled, where suitable sources exist. The potential for additional lithic quarry evidence (in the broad sense of 'procurement from a stone source') to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as high, both within identified open artefact sites where stone sources occur, and in other locations where stone sources occur. For example, quartzite pebbles and cobbles were reported in sites ID# 548, 572, 580, 762 and 804 and in many survey areas (eg. 30, 238, 239, 260, 273, 295, 347, 512, 514, 516, 1148, 1186, 1197, 1198, 1275, 1301, 1365, 1709, 1739 and 1822). Quartz pebbles were noted in even more numerous locations across the study area.
Two sites in the open cut extension, ID# 400 and 412, have been noted as possible tuff lithic quarries/procurement areas. Tuff occurs widely at Ulan, as seams exposed in the scarps and slopes of the dissected sandstone terrain (including occasional manifestation within rock shelters) and as tabular colluvial gravels on the slopes and also in the drainage depressions where it has migrated further downwards. Significant outcrops of tuff occur in the southern portion of the open cut extension area (eg. survey areas 1843, 1847, 1848, 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1856, 1858, 1859, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1882, 1883 and 1884), including seams several metres thick on the steep slopes and upper drainages around the 490 metre contour, and as a widespread distribution of tabular pieces on the surrounding slopes. These sources contain both high quality tuff and lower quality, coarser tuff and tuffaceous material. Outcrops were also noted in the Ulan West area, particularly around the elevated margins of the Valley Way tributary of Ulan Creek. Hence, the potential for additional lithic quarry evidence relating to tuff to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled is very high.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 150 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Rock Engravings:
The potential for rock engravings to occur within the study area was initially assessed as very low, but could not be discounted. This assessment remains valid for the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled. However, the potential for rock engravings to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled is very low or negligible, given the comprehensive nature of the survey.
Rock Shelters With Art, Deposits and/or Grinding Grooves:
Four rock shelters with art, three with art and artefacts, one with art, grinding grooves and artefacts, 112 with artefacts only, three with grinding grooves only, and five with grinding grooves and artefacts have been identified within the study area, along with 296 rock shelters with PADs, confirming initial predictions of a high potential for these site types. In the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled, there remains a high potential for additional rock shelter sites to occur where suitable rock formations exist. The potential for additional rock shelter sites to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as very low to negligible, given the comprehensive nature of the survey and the obtrusive nature of this site type. However, excavation of any of the identified PADs may reveal artefact deposits, which are presently obscured by sediment and/or leaf litter.
Scarred Trees:
Five scarred trees have been identified within the study area, confirming initial predictions of a low to moderate potential where mature native vegetation remains. Additional scarred trees may occur in the 12% of the study area that has not been sampled, where mature native vegetation exists. The potential for additional scarred trees to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as low to very low, given the comprehensive nature of the survey and the obtrusive nature of this site type.
Stone Arrangements:
Five stone arrangements were identified within the study area. Although initial predictions were for a low to very low potential within the cleared areas, four of the arrangements occur in cleared areas. As such, the potential for further stone arrangements to occur within the remainder of the study area (predominantly cleared land) can be revised upward to 'low to moderate'. The potential for additional stone arrangement sites to occur within the 88% of the study area that has been sampled can be reassessed as low to very low. Consistent with the predictive model, most of the stone arrangements comprised lines of stone, were located on hill tops and ridge crests, and were a considerable distance from higher order watercourses.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 151 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 8. ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
8.1 History of Consultation
UCML has regularly consulted with a number of Aboriginal stakeholders during the course of its ongoing operations, particularly in recent years the Warrabinga Native Title Claimants Aboriginal Corporation ("Warrabinga"), Murong Gialinga Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation ("MGATSIC"), Wiradjuri Council of Elders, North East Wiradjuri ("NEW") and Mudgee Local Aboriginal Land Council ("Mudgee LALC"). A Native Title Agreement has been implemented with Warrabinga, and existing DA Conditions for ML1468 involve consultation with Warrabinga, MGATSIC, Wiradjuri Council of Elders and Mudgee LALC.
The key Aboriginal community involvement in the previous heritage assessments that have encompassed portions of the present study area are summarised below (refer to individual reports and Section 3.2 for further details):
Haglund's (1980, 1981a, 1981b) initial studies: - Haglund’s initial studies extended into the open cut and southeastern corner of the Ulan West underground portions of the current study area. At this time, there appeared to be no Aboriginal organisations in existence that represented the community in relation to heritage issues in this locality and the surveys appear to have proceeded without the direct involvement of Aboriginal representatives;
Haglund's (1992) study for the northward extension of the No.3 Underground Mine and other infrastructure: - Haglund's (1992) investigation included portions of the current study area west of the open cut. A survey was conducted in April 1992 with Sonny Bell of the Orange LALC and Roly Williams of the Wiradjuri Regional Aboriginal Land Council ("WRALC"). At this time, the Mudgee LALC or other current organisations were not in existence;
Haglund's (1999a, 1999b) MLA80 (ML1468) EIS: - Surveys were undertaken by Haglund from November 1995 to December 1997 as part of the preparation of an EIS for a second longwall mine and additional lease area. These surveys encompassed MLA80 (now ML1468) and adjacent land to the east, north and west, and included a substantial part of the current study area. Haglund (1999a) noted that by 1996, MGATSIC had formed and along with the Central Regional Aboriginal Land Council ("CRALC"), were informally recognised as the appropriate organisations to consult with in relation to heritage issues in the Ulan locality. The Warrabinga Native Title Claimants Aboriginal Corporation formed in 1997 to represent clans of the north-eastern Wiradjuri, including descendants of Aboriginal families that traditionally lived in the Ulan and Mudgee areas. The Mudgee LALC was still not in existance at this time. Haglund (1999a) conducted the MLA80 surveys with representatives of CRALC (C. See), MGATSIC (David Maynard, Robert Maynard and Cheryl Oakenfull) and Warrabinga (Margaret Perry and Lee Jackson);
Haglund's (1999c, 1999d) surveys of the open cut extension and other infrastructure: - Haglund's (1999c, 1999d) investigations included portions of the current study area west of the open cut. A survey was conducted in February 1998 with representatives of MGATSIC, and in consultation with Warrabinga and the Wiradjuri Council of Elders (Haglund 1999d);
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 152 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 South East Archaeology's investigations of the Open Cut Extension (Kuskie 2004, Kuskie and Clarke 2005a, in prep.): - Investigations of the area west of the open cut, primarily within the present open cut study area, were conducted by South East Archaeology (Kuskie 2004, Kuskie and Clarke 2005a, in prep.). Initially surveys were undertaken in August 2002 and November 2003 by South East Archaeology, accompanied by Wendy Lewis (Warrabinga) and David Maynard and Eli Kennedy (MGATSIC and also representing the Wiradjuri Council of Elders). Additional field inspection was undertaken in March 2005 with Wendy Lewis, Lyn Syme and Emma Syme (Warrabinga) and Thelma Pye (MGATSIC and also representing the Wiradjuri Council of Elders). Further surveys were undertaken in August and September 2006 with Wendy Lewis, Toni Whillock and Kelli Whillock (Warrabinga), Lyn Syme, Gail Robertson and Martin deLauney (NEW), Christine Maynard and Kevin Williams (MGATSIC) and David Maynard, Todd Verrills and Rosie Pye (Mudgee LALC). The latter involved implementation of the DECC (2004) Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants policy. Warrabinga, MGATSIC and Mudgee LALC formally registered interests, and UCML also consulted with NEW;
South East Archaeology's survey of longwall panels 23-26 and W1 (Kuskie and Clarke 2005b): - This assessment formed the first stage of the ongoing assessment of panels W1- W8 and 23-30, with implementation of the DECC (2004) Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants policy. Warrabinga and MGATSIC formally registered interests, and UCML also consulted with the Wiradjuri Council of Elders and Mudgee LALC. Panels 23-26 and W1 overlap to some extent with the present study area, around the southern portion of the No.3 Underground Mine and the eastern portion of part of the Ulan West Underground Mine, as shown on Figure 3.6. The 840 hectare area of panels 23- 26 and W1 was surveyed in April and May 2005 with the assistance of Wendy Lewis and Emma Syme (Warrabinga) and David Maynard and Rosie Pye (MGATSIC and also representing the Wiradjuri Council of Elders);
South East Archaeology's survey of longwall panels W2 and W3 (Kuskie and Clarke 2007): - This assessment formed the second stage of the ongoing assessment of panels W1-W8 and 23-30, with implementation of the DECC (2004) Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants policy. Warrabinga and MGATSIC formally registered interests, and UCML also consulted with the Wiradjuri Council of Elders, NEW and Mudgee LALC. Panels W2-W3 overlap to some extent with the present study area, around the southern portion of the No.3 Underground Mine and the eastern portion of part of the Ulan West Underground Mine, as shown on Figure 3.6. The 351 hectares of the SMP Area (W2-W3) that had not been previously investigated for W1 was surveyed in January 2007 with the assistance of Wendy Lewis and Toni Whillock (Warrabinga), Thelma (Rosie) Pye, Kevin Williams and Richard Williams (MGATSIC), and Lyn Syme, John Barton and Lola McConnell (NEW).
Extensive consultation has also occurred with the Aboriginal community over other projects within the Ulan lease areas, but outside of the current study area (refer to Section 3.2 for project details and individual reports for details of the community consultation).
Further consultation (documented in Appendix 6) has also occurred with the stakeholders registered for the current project over exploratory drilling programs within the project area and a Section 90 Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP #1093252) obtained by UCML to permit drilling and vehicle access in two areas, Old Ulan Village and the Echidna Sill, which extend to within the present study area. The registered stakeholders supported this s90 AHIP application and have been involved in the archaeological collections, salvage excavations and monitoring of drilling operations (Appendix 6). The salvage was conducted over 11 days in November and December 2008 by archaeologists from South East Archaeology, assisted on every day by between three and seven representatives of the four registered stakeholder organisations (refer to Appendix 6 and Section 8.2).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 153 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 As is evident from the summary above of key consultation undertaken in relation to UCML projects within the present study area, the dynamics of the Aboriginal organisations have changed over time, both in terms of the existence and membership of groups and their interest in or relevance to the Ulan locality.
During the initial surveys by Haglund in the early 1980s there appeared to be no Aboriginal organisations in existence that represented the community in relation to heritage issues in this locality. In the early 1990s, a Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) was still not operational at Mudgee, and advice from the then NPWS and NSW Aboriginal Land Council to Haglund (1992) was to consult with the Orange LALC (even though the Ulan area is not within their boundaries). Haglund (1992) also involved the Wiradjuri Regional Aboriginal Land Council.
By the mid 1990s, two organisations had formed, MGATSIC, to primarily represent the interests of local Aboriginal people living in the Mudgee region (as a LALC still did not exist at that time) and Warrabinga, to represent the interest of native title claimants and descendents of the north-eastern Wiradjuri people (traditional owners). Both organisations continue to play a role in heritage management at UCML.
Haglund (1999a) noted that in 1996 the Central Regional Aboriginal Land Council was also informally recognised as an organisation to consult with in relation to heritage issues in the Ulan locality. The subsequent establishment of the Mudgee LALC (fully operational from the late 2000s) to represent local Aboriginal people (including those without traditional affiliations with the area) has negated the role of the CRALC, Orange LALC and WRALC.
Local Aboriginal Land Council's have a statutory responsibility under the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 to:
"to improve, protect and foster the best interests of all Aboriginal persons within the Council’s area and other persons who are members of the Council" (s51); and
"to take action to protect the culture and heritage of Aboriginal persons in the Council’s area, subject to any other law, and to promote awareness in the community of the culture and heritage of Aboriginal persons in the Council’s area" (s52.4).
Warrabinga forwarded correspondence to UCML in May 1997 providing formal notification of the establishment of their organisation with over 70 adult members, to represent the original inhabitants of the Mudgee, Rylestone, Lithgow, Gulgong, Coxes River, Goulburn River and Cudgegong River areas, and descendents of Diana Mudgee, Jimmy Lambert and Peggy Lambert. Haglund (1997:8) noted that "there are persons (notably within the Warrabinga organisation) who can trace descent from Aboriginal persons who lived in the area last century". A Native Title Agreement was reached between UCML, the State of NSW and the registered claimants of native title determination application NC97/32 (Wendy Lewis, Bill Riley and Gloria Rogers) on 24 August 1998, to allow the granting of a mining tenement (ML1468) for extensions to the Ulan underground mine.
More recently, another organisation (North East Wiradjuri - "NEW") has formed to represent the north-eastern Wiradjuri people of the Bathurst/Lithgow/Mudgee area, being descendants of Thomas Governor, Windradyne, Peggy Lambert, Thullagumaulli, Aaron, Dianna Mudgee, Jimmy Lambert, Penagraa (also known as Penaguin), Phillips Rayner, Sophia Allsopp and John Bloodsworth. NEW retains many common members with Warrabinga and key member applicants such as Lynette Syme have passed the Native Title Tribunal registration test on various occasions in the Ulan locality (eg. File No. NC07/3 - Moolarben mine leases, and NC08/1 - Moolarben exploration leases).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 154 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The Wiradjuri Council of Elders is another organisation representing traditional owners within the broader Wiradjuri country. The Council of Elders have been consulted by UCML since the mid-late 1990s and have been consulted in relation to the present Continued Operations project (refer to Appendix 6). However, the Council of Elders did not elect to register an interest or participate further in the current project, consistent with their interest in the Ulan locality over the past five or so years.
As noted above, MGATSIC was formed to primarily represent the interests of local Aboriginal people living in the Mudgee region (effectively as a de facto Land Council). "Murong gialinga" derives from a Wiradjuri phrase meaning "to live again and revive" (Fox 1996a). A key member of this organisation, David Maynard, has been involved in heritage management at UCML since the mid-1990s, along with various other members. Although not of Wiradjuri descent (Fox 1996a, 1996b), David Maynard has been instrumental in the identification, management and protection of heritage sites within the region over recent decades.
A number of submissions and comments have already been made by the Aboriginal community in relation to portions of the current study area, during the MLA80 EIS and other heritage investigations, and during the course of regular Aboriginal Heritage Review Meetings with UCML. These include comments on the cultural values of the area, specific values of individual sites, how individual sites and broader heritage values in relation to mining impacts should be managed, and traditional and historical associations with the area. As the current comprehensive survey assessment and consultation process for the Continued Operations project allows the registered stakeholders an opportunity to present their views on the cultural values of the area and significance and management of the heritage evidence, within the framework of current DECC policy requirements and the potential impacts of the current project, it is considered that this process should take precedence over historical statements (refer to Section 8.2).
8.2 Consultation as per DECC Policy for Continued Operations Project
The Aboriginal heritage impact assessment has involved a comprehensive program of Aboriginal consultation that complies with the policy requirements of DECC that were introduced on 1 January 2005. These requirements are specified in the policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (DECC 2004) and involve the following procedures:
1) Providing written notification of the project to the Local Aboriginal Land Council, DECC, Registrar of Aboriginal Owners (Department of Aboriginal Affairs), NSW Native Title Services and relevant Local Councils, requesting that if they are aware of any Aboriginal persons/organisations who may wish to be consulted about the project to provide such advice in writing, with a minimum 10 day response period; 2) Providing written notification of the project directly to those Aboriginal persons/organisations that were identified in Step 1 above, requesting those who may be interested in participating in the project to register their interest in writing, with a minimum 10 day response period; 3) Placing a media advertisement to the same effect in the local press requesting any Aboriginal persons/organisations who may be interested in participating in the project to register their interest in writing, with a minimum 10 day response period;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 155 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 4) Providing detailed information about the heritage impact assessment, including the proposed methodology, to the Aboriginal persons/organisations who registered their interest in writing in Steps 1-3 above, with a minimum 21 day response period for comments; 5) Comments received from registered Aboriginal persons/organisations in Step 4, including information on areas of cultural significance, potential culturally acceptable mitigation measures, the nature of the assessment methodology and any other relevant traditional knowledge or issues, must be considered in order to finalise the assessment methodology; 6) Field inspection in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders; 7) Notifying the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and the Local Aboriginal Land Council (even if not registered) of the availability of the draft Aboriginal heritage impact assessment report and their comments invited; and 8) Preparation of a final Aboriginal heritage impact assessment report that addresses and incorporates the input of the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.
Procedures #1-8 outlined above have been implemented, as documented in the consultation database in Appendix 6 and below.
Compliance with Procedures #1 and #2 was achieved through correspondence forwarded to the relevant organisations on 28 November 2007. In addition, correspondence was also forwarded to the known Aboriginal groups with whom UCML regularly liaised with, the Wiradjuri Council of Elders, MGATSIC, NEW and Warrabinga. The Mudgee LALC received correspondence as part of the mandatory DECC process.
The Registrar of Aboriginal Owners responded on 12 December 2007 advising that no Registered Aboriginal Owners pursuant to Division 3 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 are known in relation to this area (refer to Appendix 6). DECC responded on 19 December 2007 advising that no additional Aboriginal groups were known, other than the five listed above that had already been contacted (Appendix 6). No additional responses were received advising of the need to contact any other Aboriginal organisations.
Mudgee LALC and Warrabinga registered interests in the project on 13 December 2007 and MGATSIC and NEW registered interests on 17 December 2007 (Appendix 6).
Compliance with Procedure #3 was achieved by placing advertisements in the Public Notices section of the Mudgee Guardian on 3 December 2007 and the Public Notices section of The Weekly (Mudgee) on 5 December 2007, requesting any Aboriginal persons/organisations who may be interested in participating in the project to register their interest in writing.
One response was received to the advertisements. Warranha Ngumbaay (formerly known as Cheryl Oakenfull and daughter of David Maynard; Fox 1996a) registered an interest in the project on 14 December 2007 on behalf of herself and her daughters Aleshia Lonsdale and Jasmine Oakenfull (Appendix 6). Warranha advised that her principal interest is in the spiritual aspects of the area and would in certain circumstances seek to inspect particular sites at Ulan and conduct ceremonies where necessary, but did not wish to be considered for paid involvement in the detailed archaeological survey. Warranha is not of Wiradjuri descent but identifies as a Wiradjuri person by virtue of having been born in Wiradjuri country (Fox 1996a, 1996b).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 156 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Therefore after the procedures for registration of interest had been completed, four organisations and one individual had registered an interest to participate in the project:
Warrabinga Native Title Claimants Aboriginal Corporation ("Warrabinga");
Murong Gialinga Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation ("MGATSIC");
North East Wiradjuri ("NEW");
Mudgee Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC); and
Warranha Ngumbaay.
Compliance with Procedures #4 and 5 was achieved by writing to the five registered stakeholders on 16 January 2008, providing them with the proposed methodology for the assessment and requesting their comment, along with inviting them to attend a meeting to discuss the methodology. Wiradjuri Council of Elders were also invited to the meeting via correspondence from UCML on 9 January 2008, and although unable to attend, were satisified with UCML's approach (refer to Appendix 6).
The meeting with the four registered stakeholder organisations was held on 22 January 2008. Warranha Ngumbaay or a representative did not attend. Extensive discussions were held about the proposed methodology and survey logistics, timing and group participation were devised in consultation with the stakeholders. All registered groups agreed with the methodology and logistical arrangements (refer to Appendix 6).
Compliance with Procedure #6 was achieved by undertaking the field survey in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. The survey was conducted over a period of 104 days between February and November 2008 by archaeologists from South East Archaeology assisted on every day by representatives of the Aboriginal stakeholders. Generally, two representatives of each stakeholder organisation (total of eight community representatives) assisted on each day of the survey. Comprehensive details of the survey participants are presented in the Aboriginal consultation database in Appendix 6. The participants in the field survey from Warrabinga, NEW, MGATSIC and Mudgee LALC included: Dennis Barber, Rod Barber, Corey Birch, Brion Booth, Chantelle Davey, Martin de Launey, Lavinia Flick, Nathan Flick, Debbie Foley, Kathleen Franklin, Wayne Howden, Ben Howell, Tony Kennedy, Glen Lane, John Lewis, Wendy Lewis, Christine Maynard, David Maynard, Lola McConnell, Shane Menzies, Geoff Murray, Heather Porter, Jan Stewart, Emma Syme, Lyn Syme, Todd Verrills, Kelli Whillock, Kevin Williams and Patrick Williams-Davis11.
The representatives expressed satisfaction with the level of survey coverage and the consultation process, as well as a strong interest in the findings.
The representatives did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs or traditional knowledge, which date from the pre- contact period and have persisted until the present time, within the study area. The representatives also did not disclose any specific knowledge of sites or places associated with historical associations, which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today (for example, plant and animal resource use areas and known camp sites), within the study area.
11 Aboriginal persons listed here may have represented and/or be members of one or more of the registered stakeholder organisations during the Continued Operations project.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 157 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The possibility cannot be excluded however, that traditional or historical Aboriginal values or associations may exist that were not divulged to South East Archaeology by the persons consulted. It was not feasible to contact every single knowledge holder in the north-eastern Wiradjuri community. Nevertheless, Haglund's (1997) conclusion that "for various reasons, mainly relating to actions by authorities and settlers, cultural knowledge relating to features of the landscape (eg. mythological aspects) appears to have been totally lost, at least for the Ulan area", is noted.
The representatives did however disclose a number of associations with the study area of contemporary significance, including:
In general terms, the use of subsistence or other resources, with comments made about the presence of various native flora and fauna where observed within the study area. These comments were not of a historical nature (ie. did not relate to plant and animal resource use areas known from the post-contact period) but rather were general observations of the occurrence of particular species and their known traditional uses (eg. for food, medicine, tools, etc.);
In general terms, the traditional use of the area by north-eastern Wiradjuri people, and an ongoing cultural and spiritual connection to the land and resources of the study area by the north-eastern Wiradjuri; and
In relation to survey area #343, Wendy Lewis (Warrabinga) (pers. comm. 23/2/08) expressed the view that this location is of cultural significance and a possible ceremonial area, given the nearby large artefact scatters to the north (eg. ID# 762 and 767) and the stone arrangement sites visible about one kilometre to the south-west (eg. ID# 700).
In addition to these places, other archaeological sites (eg. rock shelters, artefact scatters) identified within the study area are of contemporary significance to the Aboriginal community, as they represent a tangible link with the traditional past and with the lifestyle and values of community ancestors (refer to Section 9).
In general terms, the attachment of the north-eastern Wiradjuri people to the landscape and continuing strong cultural connections with the locality of the study area was evident. As noted by Goulding (2002:63) land is a fundamental part of Aboriginal culture, and such cultural connections are integral to the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal people, although can be complex and are not always obvious to others. Representatives not of Wiradjuri descent also expressed or have expressed a strong spiritual and cultural connection with the locality.
The representatives also disclosed knowledge of other places or values in the region, for example:
David Maynard advised of a stone line and circle within UCML at Spring Gully, that points to the Hands on Rock shelter/art complex (pers. comm., 22/2/08);
Robyn Williams (pers. comm., 2008) advised of a bora (ceremonial) ground east of Cassilis Road on a ridge, near Bora Creek; and
Wendy Lewis (pers. comm., 2008) advised of potential axe material sources near Nullo Mountain, a site of spiritual importance to the north-eastern Wiradjuri, and expressed a desire for petrological analysis of this source to be undertaken for comparison with axes found within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 158 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Compliance with Procedure #7 was achieved by providing copies of the draft heritage assessment report to the five registered Aboriginal stakeholders, with a request for their comment. Volume B was presented to the stakeholders during a meeting at Mudgee on 30 June 2009, in which South East Archaeology also presented the findings of the report and sought input from the stakeholders. Volume A was presented to the stakeholders on 1 and 2 July 2009.
A further meeting was held with the stakeholders on 30 and 31 July 2009, during which another presentation was made by South East Archaeology and an inspection was made of the study area, conservation areas and key heritage sites. Input from the stakeholders was again sought.
Compliance with Procedure #8 has been achieved through preparation of a final Aboriginal heritage impact assessment report that has addressed and incorporated input received from the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. Comments received from the stakeholders are attached in Appendix 6 and discussed below in Table 8.1.
In general terms the Aboriginal stakeholders have largely endorsed the report and its findings and recommendations. Numbers have been added to the stakeholder responses in Appendix 6 (in red text) to each point raised where a response has been required within this report. These comments and responses are listed below in Table 8.1 and where appropriate have been addressed through modifications elsewhere within this report.
Copies of this final report will be forwarded to the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. The ongoing involvement of the Aboriginal stakeholders in the management and investigation of Aboriginal heritage at UCML will continue, with consultation over the development of an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan an initial priority.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 159 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1: Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Mudgee LALC 1 Artefact scatters – where impacts to artefact Surface collections will occur for all scatters cannot be avoided a surface collection artefact scatters of low-moderate or should occur. The artefacts collected from the higher significance where impacts cannot open cut impact area should be kept in a be avoided, as specified in Appendix 4. keeping place at Ulan Coal Mines. The As detailed in Appendix 4, collections artefacts collected from the Underground will only occur for several sites of low impact area should be relocated to places as significance. near as possible to their original position where The curation of salvaged artefacts will be they will not be impacted upon further. If this determined in consultation with the cannot happen then they should be stored at a stakeholders and DECC during keeping place at Ulan Coal until such time as formulation of the AHMP (refer to they can be returned to the area. Section 12.2.8 for discussion of the various options and Section 13). Mudgee LALC 2 Rock Shelters with Art – the Mudgee LALC All rock shelters within the project area would like to see the rock art sites fully have been fully recorded (refer to recorded. We do not agree that they should be Volume B). salvaged or excavated but we think that they Monitoring will occur (refer to Sections should be monitored for subsidence. If salvage 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). or excavations occur cultural protocols need to A program of mitigation for the rock be followed and any materials need to be shelter sites is strongly warranted in relocated in the vicinity of the site. consideration of the proposed impacts of the project (particularly from subsidence on rock shelter sites) and the significance of these sites. Mitigation is necessary to reduce the residual impacts of the project from high to moderate within a local context (refer to Sections 11.2, 12.2.5, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). The curation of salvaged artefacts will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). Mudgee LALC 3 Rock Shelters with Artefacts and PADs – the A program of mitigation for the rock Mudgee LALC feels that excavation of these shelter sites is strongly warranted in sites is not necessary. If salvage or test consideration of the proposed impacts of excavation of these sites does occur any the project (particularly from subsidence materials collected should be relocated as near on rock shelter sites) and the significance as possible to the site. If this is not possible of these sites. Mitigation is necessary to they should be kept in a keeping Place at Ulan reduce the residual impacts of the project Coal Mines. from high to moderate within a local context (refer to Sections 11.2, 12.2.5, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). The curation of salvaged artefacts will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). Mudgee LALC 4 The Mudgee LALC would like to see Monitoring will occur (refer to Sections monitoring of selected rock shelters to assess 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). increase our knowledge of the impacts of subsidence.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 160 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Mudgee LALC 5 Stone arrangements – these sites need to be Detailed recorded will occur and fully recorded and measures put into place to management measures will be ensure that they are not impacted upon by implemented to ensure impacts are vehicles, farming practices or other mining avoided (refer to Sections 12.2.7 and 13 related activities. and Appendix 4). Mudgee LALC 6 Grinding grooves – the overwhelming response Mitigation for the grinding groove site to the management of the grinding groove sites within the open cut is warranted in at the proposed open cut expansion was that the consideration of the proposed impacts of grinding grooves should not be cut from the the project (total destruction if left in rock and placed in the Ulan offices for situ), the significance of this site and the education. This is not culturally appropriate. views of other Aboriginal stakeholders. If this site is salvaged and grinding grooves Mitigation is necessary to reduce the removed they must kept in a keeping place at residual impacts of the project (refer to Ulan Coal Mines. We do not wish to Sections 11.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.8 and 13). participate in the actual removal of these The curation of salvaged evidence will objects if that is the measure chosen. Prior to be determined in consultation with the the removal of any materials the correct stakeholders and DECC during cultural protocols need to be followed. This formulation of the AHMP (refer to needs to be done by people with the appropriate Sections 12.2.8 and 13). The primary knowledge. purpose of removal of the grooves is to mitigate impacts, not for educational benefits. However, the curation of the grooves in a manner that gives rise to educational outcomes is consistent with other views expressed by this stakeholder (refer to point 12). Any 'protocols' associated with removal of the grooves and establishment of the 'people with the appropriate knowledge' will occur in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 161 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Mudgee LALC 7 Waterhole/well – as with the grinding grooves Mitigation for the waterhole/well site to be impacted by the open cut we do not within the open cut is warranted in support the removal of the boulder for consideration of the proposed impacts of educational purposes. If removal occurs we do the project, the significance of this site not wish to participate in the removal. Again and the views of other Aboriginal cultural protocols need to be followed if stakeholders. Mitigation is necessary to removal is to occur. reduce the residual impacts of the project (refer to Sections 11.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.8 and 13). The curation of salvaged evidence will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). The primary purpose of removal of the waterhole/well is to mitigate impacts, not for educational benefits. However, the curation of the waterhole/well in a manner that gives rise to educational outcomes is consistent with other views expressed by this stakeholder (refer to point 12). Any 'protocols' associated with removal of the waterhole/well will occur in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP. Mudgee LALC 8 Ochre quarry – this site needs to be recorded Detailed recorded will occur of the ochre and protected from potential impacts. quarry (ID# 158) and management measures will be implemented to ensure impacts are avoided (refer to Sections 12.2.2 and 13 and Appendix 4). Mudgee LALC 9 Unsurveyed areas – Mudgee LALC would like The ongoing involvement of the to participate in surveying any areas not Aboriginal stakeholders in the heritage covered by the previous survey, recording of mitigation and management measures is known and new sites and monitoring. outlined in Sections 12 and 13. Mudgee LALC 10 We also agree that there needs to be a clear Provisions to guide the management of process put in place for any Aboriginal sites any previously unrecorded Aboriginal which are identified during development. heritage sites within the project area that may be identified during construction will be included in the AHMP that is formulated in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC (refer to Section 13). Mudgee LALC 11 Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan – the The AHMP will be formulated in Mudgee LALC would like to participate in the consultation with the registered development of the Aboriginal Heritage Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC Management Plan. (refer to Section 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 162 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Mudgee LALC 12 Cultural Awareness Training - The Mudgee All relevant contractors and staff LALC agrees with Cultural Awareness engaged on the project who are Training by appropriate people for employees undertaking tasks on site that may give and contractors to educate them about rise to any interactions with Aboriginal Aboriginal Culture and Heritage. heritage will receive heritage awareness training prior to commencing work on- site (refer to Section 13). To address this issue, the draft recommendation has been modified to incorporate heritage awareness training for all UCML staff and contractors, irrespective of their potential interactions with heritage on- site (refer to Section 13). Mudgee LALC 13 Educational video - The Mudgee LALC would To address this issue, the draft like to ensure consultation occurs re the content recommendation has been modified to of the educational video. state that the educational video will be produced in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders (refer to Section 13). Mudgee LALC 14 Conservation Areas - The Mudgee LALC is The establishment of the Brokenback extremely supportive of the Conservation areas and two grinding groove conservation namely the two grinding groove conservation areas, along with the avoidance of areas, Broken back, Mona Creek and impacts to the Mona Creek 23-30 and Cockabutta Creek. Cockabutta Creek 18-20 sites, is outlined We think this is a positive initiative which will in Sections 12.2.5, 12.2.6 and 13. protect our Cultural heritage and have To address the issue of access, a significant educational values. The educational recommendation has been added to value of these places is far more significant ensure that Aboriginal community than what will be gained from salvaged representatives are permitted access to artefacts and objects as they will be retained in the Conservation Areas when requested, their original state. We would like to be able to in consideration of safety and operational access these areas with prior arrangement with requirements at the time (refer to Section Ulan Coal. 13). W. Ngumbaay 1 Section 8.2 Consultation as per DECC Policy In view of the information contained for Continued Operations Project – page 156. within Section 8.2 being both correct and It was particularly concerning to read the relevant to the assessment, and on the paragraph regarding our response to the record, its continued inclusion within this advertisement re registering as stakeholders. section is considered to be warranted. Not only is the personal information from Fox1996a about Warranha incorrect, it is also irrelevant to this process and report. No other individual has been singled out in this manner. We respectfully request that this paragraph be removed from the report. For the purposes of this section of the report we would be satisfied if it was replaced with the following: One response was received to the advertisements. Warranha Ngumbaay from Mudgee registered an interest in the project on 14 December 2007 on behalf of herself and her daughters Aleshia Lonsdale and Jasmine Oakenfull.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 163 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response W. Ngumbaay 2 Vehicle access roads which need to be widened A number of roads have been surveyed or put should be fully surveyed and recorded. as part of the present study. Surface Where disturbance to any artefacts scatters is collections will occur for all artefact unavoidable a surface collection should take scatters of low-moderate or higher place. Wherever possible these artefacts should significance where impacts cannot be be relocated off the access tracks as close to avoided, as specified in Appendix 4. their original place as possible and vehicle Unformed or lightly formed vehicle access restricted. If this is not possible they tracks with heritage potential that could should be kept in a keeping place at Ulan Coal not be sampled during the present study Mines. will be surveyed in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Subsequent to the survey, management strategies will be implemented for any sites identified as outlined in the AHMP, which is to be formulated in consultation with the registered stakeholders (refer to Sections 12.2.3, 12.2.7 and 13). The curation of salvaged artefacts will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Section 12.2.8 for discussion of the various options and Section 13). W. Ngumbaay 3 Monitoring should take place for disturbance to Monitoring of surface disturbance works the sub soils and procedures put in place to deal has limited practical benefit (refer to with any Aboriginal objects, relics or skeletal discussion in Section 12.1.5). Other remains which may be unearthed. more appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed to address the potential impacts of the project on heritage (refer to Sections 12 and 13). W. Ngumbaay 4 Stone arrangements – we recommend that Detailed recorded will occur and impacts to these sites (MC101, MC115, management measures will be MC209, MC212, UC274) be avoided in terms implemented to ensure impacts are of ensuring no access roads, vehicles or other avoided (refer to Sections 12.2.7 and 13 activities directly impact upon the and Appendix 4). arrangements themselves. We would also like to see the arrangements fully recorded and mapped. W. Ngumbaay 5 In terms of the open cut where Aboriginal sites Any 'protocols' associated with the will be destroyed we strongly recommend that salvage of evidence from the open cut before salvage occurs that the correct protocols area will be devised in consultation with and procedures be followed in accordance with the stakeholders and DECC during cultural practices. All Aboriginal artefact and formulation of the AHMP. objects which are collected must be stored in a The curation of salvaged evidence will keeping place at Ulan Coal. They should not be determined in consultation with the be removed from the area. stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 164 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response W. Ngumbaay 6 In terms of the grinding groove sites [site Mitigation for the single grinding groove id#65, 83 and OCE40(A)] which will be site (ID# 65/416) within the open cut is impacted by the open cut we do not agree with warranted in consideration of the the cutting and removal of a slab of the rock proposed impacts of the project (total with grooves. Whilst we can understand the destruction if left in situ), the idea behind placing this at Ulan Coal for significance of this site and the views of educational purposes we consider it to be other Aboriginal stakeholders. culturally inappropriate and that the potential Mitigation is necessary to reduce the impacts upon the wellbeing of the Aboriginal residual impacts of the project (refer to community outweigh the educational values. Sections 11.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.8 and 13). The grinding groove conservation areas have The curation of salvaged evidence will more educational value as cultural landscapes. be determined in consultation with the As with the above whether salvage occurs or stakeholders and DECC during not at these sites we strongly recommend that formulation of the AHMP (refer to that the correct protocols and procedures be Sections 12.2.8 and 13). The primary followed in accordance with cultural practices purpose of removal of the grooves is to and that they be kept in a keeping place at Ulan mitigate impacts, not for educational Coal. benefits. However, the curation of the grooves in a manner that gives rise to educational outcomes is consistent with other views expressed by this stakeholder (refer to points 8 and 14). Any 'protocols and procedures (to) be followed in accordance with cultural practices ' associated with removal of the grooves will occur in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP. W. Ngumbaay 7 Waterhole/well – we do not support the Mitigation for the waterhole/well site removal of the waterhole/well boulder for within the open cut is warranted in educational purposes. Again if removal occurs consideration of the proposed impacts of we recommend that the correct protocols and the project, the significance of this site procedures be followed in accordance with and the views of other Aboriginal cultural practices and that it be kept at Ulan stakeholders. Mitigation is necessary to Coal. reduce the residual impacts of the project (refer to Sections 11.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.8 and 13). The primary purpose of removal of the waterhole/well is to mitigate impacts, not for educational benefits. Any 'protocols' associated with removal of the waterhole/well will occur in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP. The curation of salvaged evidence will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 165 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response W. Ngumbaay 8 We welcome the proposed conservation area at The establishment of the Brokenback Brokenback, the two grinding groove and two grinding groove conservation conservation areas and the conservation areas areas, along with the avoidance of at Cockabutta Creek and Mona Creek. These impacts to the Mona Creek 23-30 and conservation areas should be designated areas Cockabutta Creek 18-20 sites, is outlined which will not be mined to protect the cultural in Sections 12.2.5, 12.2.6 and 13. integrity of these important places. Access To address the issue of access, a should be available to members of the recommendation has been added to Aboriginal community if arranged with Ulan ensure that Aboriginal community Coal Mines. We see these areas as being representatives are permitted access to significant for their cultural and educational the Conservation Areas when requested, values. We also see them as positive examples in consideration of safety and operational for other mining companies to show how it is requirements at the time (refer to Section possible and financially viable to restrict 13). development in certain areas to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. W. Ngumbaay 9 Rock art site with motifs – we agree that this All rock shelters within the project area site (UC76) should be fully recorded. We do have been fully recorded, including ID# not agree with test excavations at this site. We 1054 (refer to Volume B). feel that this will further impact upon the The selection of the representative integrity of this site. sample of shelters for the program of mitigation will occur in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Section 13). W. Ngumbaay 10 Rock shelters with artefact deposits, objects All rock shelters within the project area and rock art – we recommend that these sites be have been fully recorded (refer to fully recorded (if it has not already occurred) Volume B). and monitored at regular intervals to assess the Monitoring will occur (refer to Sections impacts of subsidence upon the rock shelters. 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). This would ensure there was a record of these places if there were to be significant impacts by subsidence and it would also provide data as to the effects of subsidence upon rock shelters themselves.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 166 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response W. Ngumbaay 11 Rock shelters with artefact deposits, objects A program of mitigation for the rock and PADs – whilst we understand the scientific shelter sites is strongly warranted in interest in test excavations at Aboriginal sites consideration of the proposed impacts of we do not agree in principle. These objects the project (particularly from subsidence belong in their places. We feel that this activity on rock shelter sites) and the significance would have negative impacts upon the cultural of these sites. All 77 specified sites are integrity of these places. Whilst some people anticipated to be affected by subsidence. may see value in putting such places under the Mitigation is necessary to reduce the microscope we feel that it would be impact on residual impacts of the project from high our cultural heritage – particularly if a site was to moderate within a local context (refer not affected by subsidence or other mining to Sections 11.2, 12.2.5, 12.2.8 and 13 related activity. The impacts would then be as and Appendix 4). a direct result of the salvage or test excavations The scope of the excavations will be alone. If salvage or excavation does occur in minimal within each shelter and only a any rock shelters or PADs we recommend that sample of shelters will be subject to any the correct protocols and procedures be excavation (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and followed in accordance with cultural practices. 13). Any materials collected should also be Any 'correct protocols and procedures relocated as near to the site as possible. As (to) be followed in accordance with with the above sites should be monitored for cultural practices ' associated with the effects of subsidence and this data should excavation will occur in consultation be compared to the predicted impacts from with the stakeholders and DECC during subsidence to gain a greater understanding. formulation of the AHMP. The curation of salvaged artefacts will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). For the rock shelter excavations, this may include reburial within the shelter after recording and analysis, thereby addressing the issue raised here. The primary purpose of excavation is the retrieval of information to assist the current and future management of heritage in the region and mitigate the impacts of the project, not the 'removal of objects' for their protection. Monitoring will occur (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). W. Ngumbaay 12 Ochre quarry – this site (SG31) should be Detailed recorded will occur of the ochre recorded and all impacts avoided. quarry (ID# 158) and management measures will be implemented to ensure impacts are avoided (refer to Sections 12.2.2 and 13 and Appendix 4).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 167 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response W. Ngumbaay 13 Areas which have not been surveyed during the Survey of areas that may be subject to process so far must be surveyed to identify any impacts and have not yet been surveyed places or objects and management strategies will occur in consultation with the then devised. Any sites which have not been registered Aboriginal stakeholders using fully recorded need to be recorded. the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring (refer to Sections 12.2.7 and 13). Provisions to guide the management of any previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage sites within the project area that may be identified during future surveys will be included in the AHMP that is formulated in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC (refer to Section 13). Any sites identified will be appropriately recorded and site records lodged with DECC (refer to Section 13). W. Ngumbaay 14 We agree that Cultural Awareness Training be All relevant contractors and staff given to employees and contractors at Ulan engaged on the project who are Coal to ensure that they are aware of the undertaking tasks on site that may give Aboriginal Cultural Heritage at Ulan Coal and rise to any interactions with Aboriginal of their responsibilities. We also feel that this heritage will receive heritage awareness will create a greater respect and understanding training prior to commencing work on- of Aboriginal Culture and Aboriginal people in site (refer to Section 13). To address this general. We think it would be valuable for issue, the draft recommendation has been management to attend Cultural Awareness modified to incorporate heritage Training as well. awareness training for all UCML staff and contractors, irrespective of their potential interactions with heritage on- site (refer to Section 13). W. Ngumbaay 15 If an educational video is produced for Ulan To address this issue, the draft Coal we recommend that consultation occurs as recommendation has been modified to to the content. Careful consideration needs to state that the educational video will be be given to what information is included and produced in consultation with the what Aboriginal sites are used as examples in registered Aboriginal stakeholders (refer this video due to the sensitive nature of some of to Section 13). the places at Ulan Coal. W. Ngumbaay 16 We would like to be able to access information Detailed descriptions and data for all if requested from the Ulan Coal Aboriginal Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within Heritage database. the study area have been provided in Volume B of this report. Section 13 has been amended to ensure that UCML will make available printed copies of the Revision 10 UCML Aboriginal Site Database to registered stakeholders where requested. W. Ngumbaay 17 We would like to be directly involved in the The AHMP will be formulated in development of the Aboriginal Heritage consultation with the registered Management Plan for Ulan Coal to ensure that Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC cultural values and practices are taken into (refer to Section 13). consideration in the management of Aboriginal Heritage at Ulan Coal.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 168 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response W. Ngumbaay 18 We would also like to raise concerns over the Contemporary Aboriginal associations impacts of the development on the ground with the study area have been water and associated catchments and the documented in Section 8.2 and issues impacts upon traditional bush foods and such as the potential impacts on medicines. groundwater and vegetation (negligible) have been addressed elsewhere within the EA. W. Ngumbaay 19 We would like to be involved in ongoing The continued involvement of the consultation regarding Aboriginal Cultural registered Aboriginal stakeholders with Heritage at Ulan Coal. the management of Aboriginal heritage at UCML will occur (refer to Section 13). North East 1 How will the AHMP be implemented? The AHMP will be formulated and Wiradjuri and implemented in consultation with the Warrabinga registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC (refer to Section 13). It will specify policies and actions to manage Aboriginal heritage within the project approved area consistent with the conditions of any Part 3A approval (pending). North East 2 It does seem to be that the “Mine Plan” is a To address this issue, a draft Wiradjuri and flexible plan that even at this stage (August recommendation has been added to state Warrabinga 2009) can take into account the results of the that provisions will be included in the Continued Operations Archaeology Survey AHMP, which is to be formulated in (SEA 2008) and previous Archaeological consultation with the registered surveys. An example of this “Mine Plan” Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC, for flexibility was the acceptance by UCML of procedures to address any future mine Brokenback Conservation Area and the plan changes that may arise (refer to acquisition of the Janese property as an offset. Section 13). North East 3 The position that we believe ourselves to be in To address this issue, a draft Wiradjuri and is that once Part 3A is approved we cannot be recommendation has been added to state Warrabinga certain that the “Mine Plan” is a final plan. that provisions will be included in the What recourse do we have if the “Mine Plan” AHMP, which is to be formulated in changes after Part 3A approval? consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC, for procedures to address any future mine plan changes that may arise (refer to Section 13). North East 4 Given that Part 3A approval is granted on the The AHMP will be formulated and Wiradjuri and basis of the formulation of an AHMP, yet some implemented in consultation with the Warrabinga future actions within the AHMP might not be registered Aboriginal stakeholders and formally identified or ratified at time of Part 3A DECC (refer to Section 13). It is approval. Where does that leave members of anticipated that a condition of the Part the Aboriginal community once recourse to 3A approval (pending) would be that s.90 is lost to them? project impacts cannot occur until the AHMP has been approved by DoP. North East 5 Are all sites registered on the UCML database Registration of many sites on the UCML Wiradjuri and noted on the AHIMS database? database with DECC AHIMS is pending Warrabinga and will occur in the near future (refer to Sections 3.1 and 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 169 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response North East 6 As a benchmark of Part 3A approval can the Detailed descriptions and data for all Wiradjuri and UCML database be made available to the Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within Warrabinga Aboriginal community through the the study area have been provided in organisations represented in the survey? Volume B of this report. Section 13 has been amended to ensure that UCML will make available printed copies of the Revision 10 UCML Aboriginal Site Database to registered stakeholders where requested. North East 7 Will there be continuing access to this database Section 13 has been amended to ensure Wiradjuri and by the organisations represented in the survey? that UCML will continue to make Warrabinga available printed copies of the Revision 10 UCML Aboriginal Site Database (or any future updates) to registered stakeholders where requested. North East 8 How will future cultural discoveries by UCML Provisions will be included in the detail Wiradjuri and staff be notified to the organisations? of the AHMP, which is to be formulated Warrabinga in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC, for procedures to ensure appropriate notification to the registered stakeholders of the identification of any previously unrecorded Aboriginal sites (refer to Section 13). North East 9 We agree with how specific sites are to be Site management details are specified in Wiradjuri and managed as laid out in Appendix 4. Appendix 4. Warrabinga North East 10 Brokenback Conservation Area: Has this been The establishment of the Brokenback Wiradjuri and formally lodged as a Conservation Area? Conservation Area is outlined in Warrabinga Sections 12.2.5, 12.2.6 and 13 and it will be designated as a Conservation Area within the Project Approval. North East 11 Grinding Groove Conservation Areas: Has this The establishment of the two Grinding Wiradjuri and been formally lodged as a Conservation Area? Groove Conservation Areas is outlined Warrabinga in Sections 12.2.5, 12.2.6 and 13 and these will be designated as Conservation Areas within the Project Approval. North East 12 Has a Conservation Management Plan for the Provisions will be included in the Wiradjuri and BBCA and the Grinding Groove Conservation AHMP, which is to be formulated in Warrabinga area been prepared? consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC, for the preparation and management of the Conservation Areas in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan, also formulated in consultation with the registered stakeholders (refer to Section 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 170 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response North East 13 With regard to the timetabling of the mitigation The AHMP will be formulated in Wiradjuri and measures following the finalisation of the consultation with the registered Warrabinga “Mine Plan”, we need to have some idea of Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC and what a timely and effective process is with will clarify issues with respect to the those actions. timing of actions required under the AHMP (refer to Section 13). North East 14 We would also look to further discussion on the The AHMP will be formulated in Wiradjuri and order of works and the priorities attached to consultation with the registered Warrabinga those works. Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC and will clarify issues with respect to the timing of actions required under the AHMP (refer to Section 13). North East 15 There is emphasis and distinction in the report The significance assessment is outlined Wiradjuri and between the importance of local and regional in Section 9 and Appendix 4 of this Warrabinga contexts. This has been explained within the report. methodology as a means of rating on a scientific basis the importance of the cultural objects found and their uses. This then leads to assumptions in explaining the occupation and use by Aboriginal peoples of the study area. We agree with the rationale and the mitigation proposals that flow from this based on those local and regional contexts. This has application for our organisation in those sites assessed as being moderate to high significance. North East 16 We would request that further research be done Detailed recorded will occur of the stone Wiradjuri and on the less common or rare site types identified arrangements and further research will Warrabinga within the Study Area and compared to the be conducted into various issues as region. This is particularly so in the case of the identified within this report during the stone arrangements. course of the rock shelter and open site mitigation program (refer to Sections 7, 12.2.7, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). North East 17 Establishment of an Interpretive Centre within The curation of salvaged evidence will Wiradjuri and UCML land accessible to the Aboriginal be determined in consultation with the Warrabinga community. stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). North East 18 Any “...temporary removal of the portable The curation of salvaged evidence will Wiradjuri and rocks hosting grinding grooves in relevant be determined in consultation with the Warrabinga shelters prior to undermining...” along with the stakeholders and DECC during salvage of the water hole/well should be on formulation of the AHMP (refer to display at Ulan Mine in an interpretive centre. Sections 12.2.8 and 13). North East 19 Any other cultural object that could be The curation of salvaged evidence will Wiradjuri and retrieved because of potential impact should be determined in consultation with the Warrabinga also be housed within the same interpretive stakeholders and DECC during centre until relocation post-mining and after the formulation of the AHMP (refer to subsidence impact period has expired. Sections 12.2.8 and 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 171 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response North East 20 Further discussion on research into the less Further research will be conducted into Wiradjuri and common or rare site types within the Study various issues as identified within this Warrabinga Area. report during the course of the rock shelter and open site mitigation program (refer to Sections 7, 12.2.7, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). North East 21 Further discussion on (any) Mine Plan changes To address this issue, a draft Wiradjuri and after Part3A approval and the loss of s.90. recommendation has been added to state Warrabinga that provisions will be included in the AHMP, which is to be formulated in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC, for procedures to address any future mine plan changes that may arise (refer to Section 13). North East 22 Further discussion on the order of works and The AHMP will be formulated in Wiradjuri and the priorities attached to those works. consultation with the registered Warrabinga Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC and will clarify issues with respect to the timing of actions required under the AHMP (refer to Section 13). Murong 1 Open cut artefact scatters – Murong Gialinga Salvage will occur for various open Gialinga ATSIC ATSIC agrees that salvage occur at the artefact artefact sites in the open cut as specified scatters in the open cut area. These objects in Appendix 4. should be placed in a keeping place at Ulan The curation of salvaged artefacts will be Coal Mines. determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Section 12.2.8 for discussion of the various options and Section 13). Murong 2 Grinding Grooves – the grinding grooves to be Mitigation for the grinding groove site Gialinga ATSIC impacted by the open cut should not be cut out within the open cut is warranted in of the rock and taken to the Ulan offices to consideration of the proposed impacts of become educational resources. We feel this is the project (total destruction if left in inappropriate. If they are removed it needs to situ), the significance of this site and the be done appropriately and stored in a keeping views of other Aboriginal stakeholders. place at Ulan Coal. Mitigation is necessary to reduce the residual impacts of the project (refer to Sections 11.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.8 and 13). The curation of salvaged evidence will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). The primary purpose of removal of the grooves is to mitigate impacts, not for educational benefits. However, the curation of the grooves in a manner that gives rise to educational outcomes is consistent with other views expressed by this stakeholder (refer to point 11).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 172 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Murong 3 Waterhole/well – we do not feel it is Mitigation for the waterhole/well site Gialinga ATSIC appropriate to remove the waterhole/well to be within the open cut is warranted in used as an educational resource at Ulan Coal. consideration of the proposed impacts of the project, the significance of this site and the views of other Aboriginal stakeholders. Mitigation is necessary to reduce the residual impacts of the project (refer to Sections 11.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.8 and 13). The curation of salvaged evidence will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). The primary purpose of removal of the waterhole/well is to mitigate impacts, not for educational benefits. However, the curation of the waterhole/well in a manner that gives rise to educational outcomes is consistent with other views expressed by this stakeholder (refer to point 12). Murong 4 Artefact scatters – artefact scatters which have All known artefact scatters within the Gialinga ATSIC been identified should be fully recorded. project area which may be subject to Wherever possible the artefacts should be impacts have been fully recorded (refer relocated as close as possible to where they to Volume B). have been collected. Where this isn’t possible The curation of salvaged artefacts will be they should be kept in a keeping place at Ulan determined in consultation with the Coal. stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Section 12.2.8 for discussion of the various options and Section 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 173 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Murong 5 New and current access roads which need to be A number of roads have been surveyed Gialinga ATSIC put in or widened should have all sites as part of the present study. Surface recorded, artefacts collected and relocated and collections will occur for all artefact monitoring should occur. scatters of low-moderate or higher significance where impacts cannot be avoided, as specified in Appendix 4. Unformed or lightly formed vehicle tracks with heritage potential that could not be sampled during the present study will be surveyed in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Subsequent to the survey, management strategies will be implemented for any sites identified as outlined in the AHMP, which is to be formulated in consultation with the registered stakeholders (refer to Sections 12.2.3, 12.2.7 and 13). The curation of salvaged artefacts will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Section 12.2.8 for discussion of the various options and Section 13). Monitoring of surface disturbance works has limited practical benefit (refer to discussion in Section 12.1.5). Other more appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed to address the potential impacts of the project on heritage (refer to Sections 12 and 13). Murong 6 Rock shelters with art – these places should be All rock shelters within the project area Gialinga ATSIC fully recorded. Murong Gialinga ATSIC does have been fully recorded (refer to not consider salvage or excavation to be Volume B). appropriate to these places. Monitoring for the Monitoring will occur (refer to Sections effects of subsidence should occur at selected 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). sites to gain data. A program of mitigation for the rock shelter sites is strongly warranted in consideration of the proposed impacts of the project (particularly from subsidence on rock shelter sites) and the significance of these sites. Mitigation is necessary to reduce the residual impacts of the project from high to moderate within a local context (refer to Sections 11.2, 12.2.5, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 174 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Murong 7 Rock shelters with artefacts and PADs – we All rock shelters within the project area Gialinga ATSIC agree full recording where appropriate should have been fully recorded (refer to occur and that a selection of sites should be Volume B). monitored for the effects of subsidence. We Monitoring will occur (refer to Sections feel that salvage and excavation is not ideal, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). however if it is decided that this should occur A program of mitigation for the rock cultural protocols should be followed and the shelter sites is strongly warranted in artefacts collected should be relocated as close consideration of the proposed impacts of as possible to the site. If this is not possible the project (particularly from subsidence they should be kept in a keeping place at Ulan on rock shelter sites) and the significance Coal. of these sites. Mitigation is necessary to reduce the residual impacts of the project from high to moderate within a local context (refer to Sections 11.2, 12.2.5, 12.2.8 and 13 and Appendix 4). Any 'cultural protocols' associated with excavation to be followed will occur in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP. The curation of salvaged artefacts will be determined in consultation with the stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the AHMP (refer to Sections 12.2.8 and 13). For the rock shelter excavations, this may include reburial within the shelter after recording and analysis, thereby addressing the issue raised here. Murong 8 Stone arrangements - Murong Gialinga ATSIC Detailed recorded will occur and Gialinga ATSIC would like to see the stone arrangements management measures will be recorded in detail. We would also like to see implemented to ensure impacts are strategies put in place to avoid impacts. avoided (refer to Sections 12.2.7 and 13 and Appendix 4). Murong 9 Conservation areas – Murong Gialinga ATSIC The establishment of the Brokenback Gialinga ATSIC agrees with the conservation areas proposed by and two grinding groove conservation Ulan Coal. We feel it is important to protect areas is outlined in Sections 12.2.5, these areas for their cultural heritage values and 12.2.6 and 13. potential educational values. Measures need to Provisions will be included in the be put into place to ensure that mining or AHMP, which is to be formulated in associated development cannot occur in these consultation with the registered areas. We feel it is important that the local Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC, for community can access these places. the preparation and management of the Conservation Areas in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan (refer to Section 13). To address the issue of access, a recommendation has been added to ensure that Aboriginal community representatives are permitted access to the Conservation Areas when requested, in consideration of safety and operational requirements at the time (refer to Section 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 175 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of Aboriginal stakeholders comments and responses.
Organisation Comment # Stakeholder's Comment UCML/SEA Response Murong 10 Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan – The AHMP will be formulated in Gialinga ATSIC Murong Gialinga ATSIC wish to be involved consultation with the registered in development of the Aboriginal Heritage Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC Management Plan. (refer to Section 13). Murong 11 Cultural Awareness – we consider this measure All relevant contractors and staff Gialinga ATSIC to be important for all employees and engaged on the project who are contractors. undertaking tasks on site that may give rise to any interactions with Aboriginal heritage will receive heritage awareness training prior to commencing work on- site (refer to Section 13). To address this issue, the draft recommendation has been modified to incorporate heritage awareness training for all UCML staff and contractors, irrespective of their potential interactions with heritage on- site (refer to Section 13).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 176 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 9. SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT
9.1 Assessment of Significance of Aboriginal Heritage Evidence
The information contained within this report, along with an assessment of the significance of the Aboriginal heritage evidence, provides the basis for DECC and DoP to make informed decisions regarding the management and degree of protection which should be afforded to specific Aboriginal heritage sites.
The significance of Aboriginal heritage evidence can be assessed along the following criteria which are widely used in Aboriginal heritage management and derived from the relevant aspects of the ICOMOS Burra Charter:
Scientific (Archaeological) value;
Importance to Aboriginal people (Cultural value);
Educational value;
Historic value; and
Aesthetic value.
Greater emphasis is generally placed on scientific and cultural criteria when assessing the significance of Aboriginal heritage evidence in Australia.
Scientific (Archaeological) Value:
Scientific value refers to the potential usefulness of heritage evidence to address further research questions, the representativeness of the evidence, the nature of the evidence and its state of preservation.
Research Potential:
Research potential refers to the potential for information derived from further investigation of the evidence to be used for answering current or future research questions. Research questions may relate to any number of issues concerning past human culture, human behaviour generally or the environment. Numerous locations of heritage evidence have research potential. The critical issue is the threshold level, at which the identification of research potential translates to significance/importance at a local, regional or national level.
Several key questions can be posed for each location of heritage evidence:
Can the evidence contribute knowledge not available from any other resource?
Can the evidence contribute knowledge, which no other such location of evidence can?
Is this knowledge relevant to general questions about human history, past environment or other subjects?
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 177 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Assessing research potential therefore relies on comparison with other evidence in local and regional contexts. The criteria used for assessing research potential include the: a) Potential to address locally specific research questions; b) Potential to address regional research questions; c) Potential to address general methodological or theoretical questions; d) Potential deposits; and e) Potential to address future research questions.
In terms of meeting a threshold level to have significant research potential, the particular questions asked of the evidence should be able to contribute knowledge that is not available from other resources or evidence (either on a local or regional scale) and are relevant to general questions about human history, past environment or other subjects.
Representativeness:
Representativeness is generally assessed at local, regional and national levels. It is an important criterion, because the primary goal of cultural resource management is to afford greatest protection to a representative sample of Aboriginal heritage evidence throughout a region. The more unique or rare evidence is, the greater its value as being representative within a regional context.
Issues involved in assessing the value of representativeness include:
Whether the evidence is a very good example of a type of place or period of history within a region;
The state of preservation and integrity of the evidence;
The educational and demonstrative potential of the evidence; and
The vulnerability of the specific type of evidence.
Nature of Evidence:
The nature of the heritage evidence is related to representativeness and research potential. The less common the type of evidence is, the more likely it will have representative value. The nature of the evidence is directly related to its potential to be used in addressing present or future research questions. Criteria used in assessing the nature of the evidence, particularly stone artefact sites, include the: a) Presence, range and frequency of stone materials; b) Presence, range and frequency of artefact types; and c) Presence and types of other features.
A broader range of stone material and artefact types generally equates to the potential for information to address a broader range of research questions. The presence of non-microlith and microlith tool types also equates to a higher potential to address relevant research questions. The presence and frequency of particular stone or artefact types or other features also has relevance to the issue of representativeness (eg. a rare type may be present).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 178 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Integrity:
The state of preservation of the evidence (integrity) is also related to representativeness and research potential. The higher the integrity of evidence, the greater the level of scientific information likely to be obtained from its further study. This translates to greater importance for the evidence within a local or regional context, as it may be a suitable example for preservation within a sample representative of the entire cultural resources of a region.
The criteria used in assessing integrity, particular for artefact sites, include: a) Horizontal spatial distribution of artefacts; b) Vertical spatial distribution of artefacts; c) Preservation of intact features such as midden deposits, hearths or knapping floors; d) Preservation of site contents such as charcoal and shell which may enable accurate direct dating or other analysis; and e) Preservation of artefacts which may enable use-wear/residue analysis.
Generally, many of these criteria can only be applied to evidence obtained by controlled excavation. High levels of ground disturbance limit the possibility that the evidence would surpass the threshold of significance on the basis of integrity (ie. the area would be unlikely to possess intact spatial distributions, intact features, in situ charcoal or shell, etc).
Aboriginal (Cultural) Significance:
Aboriginal (cultural) significance refers to the value placed upon Aboriginal heritage evidence by the Aboriginal community.
All heritage evidence tends to have some contemporary significance to Aboriginal people, because it represents an important tangible link to their past and to the landscape. Heritage evidence may be part of contemporary Aboriginal culture or be significant because of its connection to spiritual beliefs or as a part of recent Aboriginal history.
Consultation with the local Aboriginal community is essential to identify the level of Aboriginal significance.
Educational Value:
Educational value refers to the potential of heritage evidence to be used as an educational resource for groups within the community.
Historic Value:
Historic value refers to the importance of heritage evidence in relation to the location of an historic event, phase, figure or activity.
Aesthetic Value:
Aesthetic value includes all aspects of sensory perception. This criterion is mainly applied to art sites or mythological sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 179 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 9.2 Significance of Aboriginal Heritage Evidence within the Potential Impact Area
The significance of the 1,005 recorded Aboriginal heritage sites or potential deposits within the current study area (ie. those sites/PADs that may be subject to potential impacts and require further management consideration) has been assessed in relation to the criteria presented in Section 9.1. Due to the large number of sites involved, the significance assessment for individual sites is presented in Appendix 4, which also includes details of the potential impacts and feasible management strategies. A summary of the significance assessment is presented below and in Table 9.1 and the distribution of sites of moderate or higher significance is shown on Figures 9.1-9.3.
Table 9.1: Significance of Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area.
Significance moderate- low- Site Type high high moderate moderate low uncertain Total Artefact Scatter 11 29 30 51 231 352 Grinding Grooves 3 1 2 3 9 Grinding Grooves and Artefact Scatter 1 1 Isolated Find 9 197 206 Ochre Quarry 2 2 Rockshelter with Art 1 2 1 4 Rockshelter with Art and Artefacts 1 1 1 3 Rockshelter with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 1 1 Rockshelter with Artefacts 6 12 14 27 53 112 Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves 1 2 3 Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 1 1 3 5 Rockshelter with PAD 1 4 8 18 265 296 Scarred Tree 3 1 1 5 Stone Arrangement 5 5 Waterhole/Well 1 1 Total 33 49 63 107 752 1 1005
Significance moderate- low- Site Type high high moderate moderate low uncertain Total Artefact Scatter 3.13% 8.24% 8.52% 14.49% 65.63% - 100% Grinding Grooves 33.33% 11.11% 22.22% - 33.33% - 100% Grinding Grooves and Artefact Scatter 100% - - - - - 100% Isolated Find - - - 4.37% 95.63% - 100% Ochre Quarry 100% - - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Art 25.00% 50.00% - - 25.00% - 100% Rockshelter with Art and Artefacts 33.33% - 33.33% - 33.33% - 100% Rockshelter with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 100% - - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Artefacts 5.36% 10.71% 12.50% 24.11% 47.32% - 100% Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves - - 33.33% 66.67% - - 100% Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 20.00% 20.00% 60.00% - - - 100% Rockshelter with PAD 0.34% 1.35% 2.70% 6.08% 89.53% - 100% Scarred Tree - - 60.00% - 20.00% 20.00% 100% Stone Arrangement 100% - - - - - 100% Waterhole/Well - - 100% - - - 100% Total 3.28% 4.88% 6.27% 10.65% 74.83% 0.10% 100%
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 180 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 9.1: Distribution of open artefact sites of moderate or higher significance within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 181 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 9.2: Distribution of open grinding groove, ochre quarry, scarred tree, stone arrangement and waterhole/well sites of moderate or higher significance within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 182 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Figure 9.3: Distribution of rock shelter sites of moderate or higher significance within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 183 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 It is noted that all Aboriginal heritage is of interest and contemporary value to the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal heritage evidence represents a tangible link with the traditional past and with the lifestyle and values of community ancestors. The Aboriginal community themselves are in the best position to identify the levels of cultural significance and the stakeholders have endorsed or not disputed the significance assessment presented in Table 9.1 and Appendix 4 (refer to Section 8 and Appendix 6).
The key conclusions of the significance assessment are presented below for each site type. In overall terms, 74.8% of the sites are assessed as being of low significance within a local context, with 10.7% of sites assessed as being of low to moderate significance, 6.3% of moderate significance, 4.9% of moderate to high significance and 3.3% of high significance (refer to Table 9.1). Five sites are assessed as potentially being of significance within a regional context, four of them stone arrangements and one a large artefact scatter site at Old Ulan Village (ID# 79). However, if occupation deposits were to be identified in rock shelters or open contexts that relate to occupation earlier than the mid-late Holocene period (older than say 5,000 years BP), these may also rate as being of regional significance.
Artefact Scatters and Isolated Finds
Eleven (3.1%) of the open artefact occurrences are assessed as being of high significance within a local context, 29 (8.2%) as being of moderate to high significance, 30 (8.5%) of moderate significance, 51 (14.5%) of moderate to low significance, and 231 (65.6%) of low significance (refer to Table 9.1 and Appendix 4). The distribution of artefact sites of moderate or higher significance is shown on Figure 9.1.
Artefact scatters and isolated artefacts are common occurrences throughout the region and are therefore generally of low representative value. The sites tended to be of lower significance if levels of ground disturbance were high (and therefore the integrity of any evidence low), there was a limited range and nature of artefact evidence, and/or the potential for deposits of research value was low. Artefact occurrences tended to be of higher significance if the site integrity was high and there was a higher potential for deposits of research value, a broad range and nature of evidence present, and/or rare or unusual types present. Artefact occurrences were also of higher significance if they related to specific behaviour such as stone material procurement, or were associated with other features or had potential historical associations (eg. at Old Ulan Village).
Research potential relates to the probability that the sites contain sub-surface deposits that may yield evidence useful in addressing locally relevant research questions, such as those relating to occupation patterns or stone technology. This was assessed in relation to the detailed model of occupation presented in Section 5.1 and thus assumes that deposits of higher research potential will generally be located where more focused occupation has occurred, such as in the primary and secondary resource zones. As discussed in Section 7.4, the occurrence of these contexts within the study area is very limited.
The artefact scatter sites of high local significance include:
ID# 65 in the open cut extension area, with associated grinding groove evidence;
A cluster around Old Ulan Village near Ulan Creek and a higher order tributary of Ulan Creek (ID# 75, 79, 97, 497, 499, 500 and 1332);
Several in the Echidna Sill site complex (ID# 512 and 1098) also close to Ulan Creek; and
Several (ID# 791 and 793) near the higher order section of Mona Creek.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 184 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Grinding Grooves (Open Sites)
Three of the grinding groove sites (ID# 1074, 1075 and 1076) form a site complex near the Echinda Sill area and are assessed as being of high significance within a local context, on the basis of their representative value, high integrity and extensive nature (Figure 9.2). Aesthetic and educational values may also apply to these sites. A grinding groove and artefact scatter site complex (ID# 65) in the open cut extension area is also assessed as being of high significance, with the groove site separately assessed as ID# 416 as being of moderate significance. ID# 526 is assessed as being of moderate to high significance on the basis of representative value and high integrity. Three of the grinding groove sites are assessed as being of low significance on the basis of low integrity, low potential and/or not being of particular representative value.
Ochre Quarries
The two ochre quarry sites (ID# 158 and 807) are assessed as being of high or potentially high significance within a local context, on the basis of their representative value (Figure 9.2).
Rock Shelters with Artefacts, Art and/or Grinding Grooves and Rock Shelters with PADs
Eleven (2.6%) of the rock shelter sites are assessed as being of high significance within a local context, 19 (4.5%) as being of moderate to high significance, 27 (6.4%) of moderate significance, 47 (11.1%) of moderate to low significance, and 320 (75.5%) of low significance (refer to Appendix 4). The distribution of rock shelter sites of moderate or higher significance is shown on Figure 9.3.
The research potential of rock shelters was one of the primary criteria used in assessing their significance, as there can be stratified deposits with datable cultural evidence (potentially extending back many thousands or even tens of thousands of years) and typically, due to sedimentation processes or other visibility constraints, any evidence visible on the surface of the shelter floor does not necessarily provide an accurate indication of the nature of the buried deposits.
The research potential and significance of the rock shelter sites was assessed with reference to various criteria (refer to Appendix 4), including:
1) Size of the habitable floor area: A larger habitable floor area (the floor area of a rock shelter where the ceiling height is about one metre or more) equates to higher potential, as family groups may have been accommodated, a broader range of activities performed, and overnight camps and stays of longer duration been more feasible. Conversely, a small floor area limits the potential to short-duration/low-intensity activities such as people having sought temporary shelter from adverse weather; 2) Internal roof height: A low internal roof height (eg. less than standing height) is inferred to have reduced the attractiveness of a shelter for occupation of any more intensity than temporary shelter from adverse weather; 3) Nature of artefacts (count, density, range, specific types): As with artefact sites, a broader range and nature of evidence, including less common or rare items, is an indicator of higher potential and significance. However, due to site formation processes and factors influencing the visibility of items on the current shelter floors, the absence of evidence or a limited range of visible evidence is not taken to be a factor that lowers the level of significance;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 185 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 4) Depth of deposit: The deeper the deposit within a rock shelter, the higher the potential for stratification and spatially (vertically) separate evidence of discrete episodes of occupation from different time periods. Hence, a deeper deposit equates to higher potential and a shallower deposit equates to lower potential; 5) Extent of potential deposit: A larger PAD, including often in areas marginally forward of the dripline, equates to higher potential, whereas a smaller PAD equates to lower potential; 6) Complexity (presence of grooves and/or art): The presence of grooves and/or art adds to the range of activities performed in a shelter and equates to higher significance and possibly research potential; 7) Proximity to potable water: The topographic context of each shelter was considered, particularly proximity to potable water, especially higher order watercourses (refer to the detailed model of occupation presented in Section 5.1, which assumes that deposits of higher research potential will generally be located where more focused occupation has occurred, such as in the primary and secondary resource zones); and 8) Potential integrity: Although problematic to assess in the absence of controlled hand excavation, where low integrity was inferred (typically due to shallow deposits and clear evidence of extensive animal activity, such as wombat burrows, and/or erosion) this typically negates most other criteria and equates to low research potential and low significance.
Rock shelter sites of low significance typically had small habitable floor areas and potential deposits, occasionally with shallow deposits and/or low internal roof heights. Consequently they had low research potential. Such shelters may not even have been used by Aboriginal people (in the case of PADs where evidence is not visible), or if occupied, may only have been for short-duration/low-intensity activities, such as the seeking of temporary shelter from adverse weather. However, without excavation of a sample from a shelter, where artefacts are not visible it cannot be stated that the shelter was not occupied by Aboriginal people, nor can the nature and resulting evidence of any occupation be known.
Rock shelter sites of moderate or high potential often had no obvious substantial ground disturbance (ie. most or all of the PAD appeared relatively intact, albeit that integrity can only fully be clarified through controlled excavation of deposits) and had moderate to large habitable floor areas and potential deposits, often with moderate or deep deposits. Often low internal roof heights were not a constraint in shelters of moderate or high significance. For some shelters, the presence of other features such as grinding grooves and/or art added to the level of significance. The level of significance was also enhanced for a number of shelters where a broad range and nature of evidence was present, and/or rare or unusual types were present. Shelters of moderate to high significance are more likely to have been occupied by groups of people, for overnight or longer stays, and been used for a wider range of activities than just temporary shelter from adverse weather.
Nevertheless, as noted above, in any shelter irrespective of the assessed level of potential, this factor can only be adequately assessed through controlled excavation. Without excavation, the nature of any evidence present in sub-surface deposits cannot be adequately identified. Controlled excavation of any shelter may lead to a revision of the assessment of significance, either upward (in the case of a shelter where deposits of higher research value than anticipated are revealed) or downward (in the case of a shelter where anticipated deposits of research value do not exist or are in a state of low integrity).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 186 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The 30 rock shelter sites of moderate to high or high significance comprise:
ID# 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 862, 901, 906, 907, 908 and 937 in the "Brokenback" valley area;
ID# 190, 487, 994, 995 also in the "Brokenback" valley area but south-east of the above group;
ID# 271 in elevated terrain south of the Brokenback groups;
ID# 335 on southern headwater tributaries of Mona Creek;
ID# 483 on southern headwater tributaries of Mona Creek;
ID# 163 and 164 on southern headwater tributaries of Mona Creek;
ID# 735 on Mona Creek north of the other Mona Creek sites listed above;
ID# 1134, 1146 and 1149 along the northern side of the valley of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek;
ID# 1266 and 1267 along the southern side of the valley of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek;
ID# 106 along the northern side of the valley of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek at the Echidna Sill site complex; and
ID# 1089 along the southern side of the valley of the higher order "Valley Way" tributary of Ulan Creek at the Echidna Sill site complex.
Hence, the only really distinct cluster of rock shelter sites of moderate to high or high significance is in the Brokenback valley area (refer to Figure 9.3).
Scarred Trees
Three of the five scarred tree sites (ID# 820, 1082 and 1305) are assessed as being of moderate significance within a local context, on the basis of some representative value, although an Aboriginal origin of any of the scars is not certain (Figure 9.2). One site, ID# 366, is assessed as being of low significance, due to its very low integrity (dead, felled tree), while ID# 488 could not be assessed as it is situated within an area not subject to survey due to access constraints, and insufficient information is available from the original recording.
Stone Arrangements
Four of the five stone arrangement sites (ID# 589, 603, 697 and 700) are assessed as being of high significance within a local context and potentially of significance within a regional context, on the basis of their representative value and research value. A fifth stone arrangement site, ID# 1286, is assessed as being of high significance within a local context on the basis of representative value (Figure 9.2).
Waterhole/Well
The single waterhole/well site, ID# 1391, is assessed as being of potentially moderate significance within a local context, primarily on the basis of representative value. It is an uncommon form of evidence, as known to date within the locality, but any Aboriginal use of the feature is uncertain (Figure 9.2).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 187 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Other Cultural Values
No sites or places associated with ceremonies, spiritual/mythological beliefs or traditional knowledge, which date from the pre-contact period and have persisted until the present time, or places associated with historical associations which date from the post-contact period and are remembered by people today, were identified within the study area.
However, as documented above, the physical manifestations of evidence of past occupation (Aboriginal objects or archaeological/heritage sites) are generally of contemporary significance to the Aboriginal community, as they represent a tangible link with the traditional past and with the lifestyle and values of community ancestors.
The representatives also disclosed a number of associations with the study area of contemporary cultural significance, including:
In general terms, the use of subsistence or other resources, with comments made about the presence of various native flora and fauna where observed within the study area. These comments were not of a historical nature (ie. did not relate to plant and animal resource use areas known from the post-contact period) but rather were general observations of the occurrence of particular species and their known traditional uses (eg. for food, medicine, tools, etc.);
In general terms, the traditional use of the area by north-eastern Wiradjuri people, and an ongoing cultural and spiritual connection to the land and resources of the study area by the north-eastern Wiradjuri; and
In relation to survey area #343, Wendy Lewis (Warrabinga; pers. comm. 23/2/08) expressed the view that this location is of cultural significance and a possible ceremonial area, given the nearby large artefact scatters to the north (eg. ID# 762 and 767) and the stone arrangement sites visible about one kilometre to the south-west (eg. ID# 700) (refer to Figure 7.5).
In general terms, the attachment of the north-eastern Wiradjuri people to the landscape and continuing strong cultural connections with the locality of the study area was evident. As noted by Goulding (2002:63), land is a fundamental part of Aboriginal culture and such cultural connections are integral to the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal people, which can be complex and is not always obvious to others. Representatives not of north-eastern Wiradjuri descent have also expressed a strong spiritual and cultural connection with the locality.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 188 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 10. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
10.1 National
While the primary legislation offering protection to Aboriginal heritage in NSW is enacted by the state, several Acts administered by the Commonwealth may also be relevant.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 provides for the protection of areas and objects which are of significance to Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. The Act allows Aboriginals to apply to the Minister to seek protection for significant Aboriginal areas and objects. The Minister has broad powers to make such a declaration should the Minister be satisfied that the area or object is a significant Aboriginal area or object and is under immediate threat of injury or desecration. An ‘emergency declaration’ can remain in force for up to thirty days. It is an offence under the Act to contravene a provision of a declaration. Provisions are made for monetary penalties for a corporation or person found guilty of contravening the Act, along with imprisonment for a maximum of five years for a person found guilty of contravening the Act.
Under the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ means: ‘the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships’ (Section 3).
A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ refers to: An area of land or water in Australia being of 'particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition' (Section 3). A ‘significant Aboriginal object’ refers to: An object (including Aboriginal remains) of ‘particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition' (Section 3).
For the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to be injured or desecrated if: a) in the case of an area, it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; or the use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected by reason of anything done in or near the area; or passage through or over, or entry upon the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; and b) in the case of an object, it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition (Section 3).
A new national heritage system commenced on 1 January 2004, largely replacing the previous Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Its primary features under the amended Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (AHC Act) include:
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 189 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 A National Heritage List of places of national heritage significance;
A Commonwealth Heritage List of heritage places owned or managed by the Commonwealth;
Creation of the Australian Heritage Council – an independent expert body to advise the Minister on the listing and protection of heritage places; and
Continued management of the Register of the National Estate, a list of more than 13,000 heritage places around Australia that has been compiled by the former Australian Heritage Commission since 1976.
The study area does not contain any heritage items registered for indigenous values under the Acts listed above. However, the Talbragar Fish Fossil Reserve is listed for natural values on the Register of the National Estate (ID #465) and may therefore also be subject to the provisions of the EPBC Act. Assessment of this item is addressed elsewhere in the Environmental Assessment for this project.
Places on the Register of the National Estate are protected under the EPBC Act by the same provisions that protect Commonwealth Heritage places. Under Section 28(1) of the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency must not take inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction an action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on the environment (including heritage) inside or outside the Australian jurisdiction without the approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
10.2 State
The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides the primary basis for the legal protection and management of Aboriginal heritage sites within NSW. Implementation of the Aboriginal heritage provisions of this Act in relation to development proposals is the responsibility of the Planning and Aboriginal Heritage Section of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) (DECC). The rationale behind the Act is to prevent unnecessary or unwarranted destruction of Aboriginal objects and to protect and conserve objects where such action is considered warranted (DECC 2009a, 2009b).
With the exception of some artefacts in collections, the Act generally defines all Aboriginal objects to be the property of the Crown. The Act then provides various controls for the protection, management and destruction of these objects. An 'Aboriginal object' is defined as
'any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains' [Section 5(1)].
In practice, archaeologists generally subdivide the legal category of 'object' into different site types, which relate to the way Aboriginal heritage evidence is found within the landscape. The archaeological definition of a 'site' may vary according to survey objectives, however it should be noted that even single and isolated artefacts are protected as objects under the Act.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 190 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, it is an offence for a person to:
Knowingly destroy, damage or deface an Aboriginal object or place, or knowingly cause or permit the destruction, defacement or damage to an Aboriginal object or place, without first obtaining the consent of the Director-General of DECC;
Disturb or excavate any land, or cause any land to be disturbed or excavated, for the purpose of discovering an object, without first obtaining the consent of the Director- General of DECC; and
Collect on any land an object that is the property of the Crown, other than an object under the control of the Australian Museum, without obtaining appropriate authorisation from the Director-General of DECC.
Penalties for infringement of the Act include up to 50 penalty units or imprisonment for six months, or both (or 200 penalty units in the case of a corporation).
Consents regarding the use or destruction of objects are managed through the DECC Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) system. The issuing of permits is dependent upon adequate archaeological assessment and review, together with an appropriate level of Aboriginal community liaison and involvement. DECC determination of permit applications is guided by the DECC (2009a) policy Guide to Determining and Issuing Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits. Section 87 AHIPs are typically required (apart from Part 3A Major Projects) to disturb or move an Aboriginal object or disturb land for the purposes of discovering an Aboriginal object. Section 90 AHIPs are typically required (apart from Part 3A Major Projects) to allow any impacts to (eg. destroy, damage or defance) an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place. The Director-General may attach any terms and conditions seen fit to any AHIP granted for the above activities. Failure to comply with a term or condition is deemed to be a contravention of the Act.
Under the Part 3A Major Project amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, subsequent to project approval being granted, a Section 90 AHIP to impact Aboriginal objects or a Section 87 AHIP under the NPW Act is generally not required. In lieu however, a Part 3A application involving a Statement of Commitments outlining proposed heritage management and mitigation measures, must be approved by the Department of Planning in consultation with DECC. Typically, the assessment conducted by any applicant is required to comply with the DECC (2005) draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation, which itself requires conduct of the assessment in accordance with the consultation policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (DECC 2004) and the Aboriginal Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (1997).
Also, under more recent Part 3A Major Project amendments (Section 75U{4}), a Section 87 AHIP is generally not required for the investigation of artefact deposits where the investigation is being undertaken for the purpose of complying with environmental assessment requirements issued in connection with an application for approval to carry out a project or for a concept plan for a project.
An appeals process is available whereby an applicant, dissatisfied with the refusal of the Director-General to grant a Section 90 AHIP, or with any conditions or restrictions attached to the s90 AHIP, may appeal to the Minister. The Minister may refuse to grant an appeal or partially or wholly grant an appeal. The decision of the Minister on the appeal is final and is binding on the Director-General and the appellant. The Land and Environment Court also has powers to consider whether a decision made under the NPW Act (eg. an AHIP) has been made legally (ie. in accordance with administrative law principles). Such a review may be requested by any person (DECC 2009b).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 191 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The Minister also has substantial powers under Section 12 to direct DECC to carry out works and activities, either generally or in a particular case, in relation to the identification, conservation and protection of, and prevention of damage to, Aboriginal objects and places.
Under s30K of the NPW Act, ‘Aboriginal areas’ may also be declared over private land, where Aboriginal objects or places are located, with the consent of the owner or occupier. The purpose of reserving land as an 'Aboriginal area' is to identify, protect and conserve areas associated with a person, event or historical theme, or containing a building, place, object, feature or landscape of natural or cultural significance to Aboriginal people, or of importance in improving public understanding of Aboriginal culture and its development and transitions.
Under s84 of the NPW Act, ‘Aboriginal places’ may be declared by the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, over a place that, in the opinion of the Minister, is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal places may or may not contain Aboriginal objects.
Under Section 91AA of the NPW Act, if the Director-General is of the opinion that any action is being, or is about to be carried out that is likely to significantly affect an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place or any other item of cultural heritage situated on land reserved under the Act, the Director-General may make a stop-work order for a period of 40 days. A person that contravenes a stop-work order may be penalised up to 1,000 penalty units and an additional 100 units for every day the offence continues (10,000 units and 1,000 units respectively in the case of a corporation).
Under s91 of the NPW Act, a person who is aware of the location of an Aboriginal object that is the property of the Crown or, not being the property of the Crown, is real property, and does not, in the prescribed manner, notify the Director-General thereof within a reasonable time after the person first becomes aware of that location is guilty of an offence against this Act unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that the Director-General is aware of the location of that Aboriginal object. The "prescribed manner" is currently taken to be 1998 and 2001 Site Recording Forms (DECC 2009b).
Under s85A of the NPW Act, the Director-General may "dispose" of Aboriginal objects that are the property of the crown: a) by returning the Aboriginal objects to an Aboriginal owner or Aboriginal owners entitled to, and willing to accept possession, custody or control of the Aboriginal objects in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, or b) by otherwise dealing with the Aboriginal objects in accordance with any reasonable directions of an Aboriginal owner or Aboriginal owners referred to in paragraph (a), or c) if there is or are no such Aboriginal owner or Aboriginal owners - by transferring the Aboriginal objects to a person, or a person of a class, prescribed by the regulations for safekeeping (commonly known as a Care Agreement that is implemented between DECC and the Aboriginal person or community organisation).
Under s85A(3) of the NPW Act, the regulations may make provision as to the manner in which any dispute concerning the entitlement of an Aboriginal owner or Aboriginal owners to possession, custody or control of Aboriginal objects for the purposes of this section is to be resolved.
The study area contains Aboriginal objects protected under the NPW Act. UCML has lodged a Part 3A Major Project application for the project under the EP&A Act.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 192 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 10.3 Local
Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) the Minister may make various planning instruments such as Local Environment Plans (LEPs) (Section 70).
The Mid-Western Regional Interim Local Environmental Plan 2008 applies to the Ulan study area, replacing the Mudgee Local Environmental Plan 1998 following the inclusion of Mudgee Shire within the amalgamated Mid-Western Regional Council. The Plan sets out objectives and controls for the development of land in the local government area, although is not relevant to projects defined as an activity under Part 3A or Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
Section 32 of the Mid-Western Regional Interim Local Environmental Plan 2008 contains generic provisions relating to heritage assessment and conservation. No Aboriginal heritage items within the study area are listed in Schedule 5, Environmental Heritage, of the Mid- Western Regional Interim Local Environmental Plan 2008, although one natural item (#2070410), the Talbragar Fish Fossil Reserve, is listed and occurs within the study area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 193 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 11. POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The proposed works associated with the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project have been outlined in Section 1.2 and are shown on Figures 1.2 to 1.5. Principally they comprise an extension of open cut mining west of the existing pit, underground mining of the Ulan No.3 and Ulan West areas, new infrastructure primarily associated with the operation of the Ulan West mine, along with continued use and/or modification of existing infrastructure.
The impacts of the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project on Aboriginal heritage (comprising both the identified Aboriginal objects, the potential resource and cultural values) can potentially manifest itself in two distinct ways:
Direct impacts from surface works (refer to Section 11.1); and
Indirect impacts to the ground surface through underground mining induced subsidence (refer to Section 11.2).
In addition, a key component of the project requirements is consideration of these impacts within a regional context (ie. cumulative impacts - refer to Section 11.3).
Further discussion is not required for existing facilities or proposed facilities that are located in modified areas which have been extensively impacted by earthmoving works, such that there is negligible potential for any Aboriginal heritage evidence to survive. These include (refer to Figures 1.3-1.5 and Section 1.2):
Major existing infrastructure such as the UCML rail loop, CHPP, underground surface facilities, administration and corporate offices, coal stockpiles, open cut administration centre, workshop and bathhouse, and the landing strip;
Minor existing infrastructure such as the sealed access roads, conveyors, ventilation shafts, service boreholes, Bobadeen quarry, man riding facility and winding shaft office store and bath house, communication towers, etc.;
Major proposed infrastructure/works such as the product coal stockpile, portion of the out of pit emplacement area within the existing open cut, stockpiles within the existing open cut, course reject and tailings emplacement areas within the existing open cut and rehabilitated land, rehabilitation works within the existing open cut and rehabilitated land, and the Ulan West surface facilities, administration and workshop; and
Minor proposed infrastructure/works, such as conveyors, etc., within the existing open cut and rehabilitated land.
The potential impacts of the project on each of the Aboriginal sites within the heritage study area is presented in Appendix 4 and summarised in Table 11.1 for each site type. This summary in Table 11.1 refers to the potential impacts prior to the implementation of any mitigation measures. The level of impacts will be reduced by the implementation of various mitigation measures and management strategies, as outlined in Sections 12 and 13.
In the absence of appropriate management and mitigation measures, it is concluded that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be high within a local context, but relatively low within a regional context.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 194 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 11.1: Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
Potential Impacts1 surface - surface - continuing nil continuing use, surface surface - surface - Site Type proposed2 subsidence3 use4 - possible possible5 high6 Total Artefact Scatter 234 47 5 21 45 352 Grinding Grooves 3 4 1 1 9 Grinding Grooves and Artefact Scatter 1 1 Isolated Find 174 16 1 15 206 Ochre Quarry 1 1 2 Rockshelter with Art 1 3 4 Rockshelter with Art and Artefacts 3 3 Rockshelter with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 1 1 Rockshelter with Artefacts 27 85 112 Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves 3 3 Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 1 4 5 Rockshelter with PAD 44 246 6 296 Scarred Tree 5 5 Stone Arrangement 4 1 5 Waterhole/Well 1 1 Total 494 350 63 5 31 62 1005
Potential Impacts1 surface - surface - continuing nil continuing use, surface surface - surface - Site Type proposed2 subsidence3 use4 - possible possible5 high6 Total Artefact Scatter 66.48% - 13.35% 1.42% 5.97% 12.78% 100% Grinding Grooves 33.33% 44.44% - - 11.11% 11.11% 100% Grinding Grooves and Artefact Scatter - - - - - 100% 100% Isolated Find 84.47% - 7.77% - 0.49% 7.28% 100% Ochre Quarry 50.00% - - - 50.00% - 100% Rockshelter with Art 25.00% 75.00% - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Art and Artefacts - 100% - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Art and Grinding Grooves and Artefacts - 100% - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Artefacts 24.11% 75.89% - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves - 100% - - - - 100% Rockshelter with Grinding Grooves and Artefacts 20.00% 80.00% - - - - 100% Rockshelter with PAD 14.86% 83.11% - - 2.03% - 100% Scarred Tree 100% - - - - - 100% Stone Arrangement 80.00% 20.00% - - - - 100% Waterhole/Well - - - - 100% - 100% Total 49.15% 34.83% 6.27% 0.50% 3.08% 6.17% 100%
1. The potential impacts summary only relates to direct impacts proposed under the project and is prior to the implementation of mitigation measures (such as the Brokenback Conservation Area). Possible future impacts such as those that may arise from drilling are excluded from this table, but addressed for individual sites in Appendix 4. 2. Where subsidence impacts are assessed as 10% or less, the impact is included in the 'nil proposed' category. 3. Subsidence is only included as an impact where the risk of perceptible impacts is assessed as higher than 10%. 4. 'Surface - continuing use' mainly refers to roads and existing drilling activities. 5. 'Surface - possible' refers to a site that may be wholly or partially impacted by open cut mining or linear/small-scale high level works, but the level of impacts is unclear prior to detailed design. 6. 'Surface - high' refers to open cut mining or total linear/small-scale high level impacts (eg. surface infrastructure).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 195 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Prior to the implementation of mitigation measures, almost half (49.2%) of all Aboriginal sites within the study area will not be subject to direct impacts from the project. However, a small proportion of these sites may be subject to future impacts through low-level continuing land use (eg. pastoral use) or future small-scale mining related activities (eg. exploratory drilling or remediation of subsidence) for which the details of or locations of are not currently known. Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to address these potential impacts.
Open artefact sites are the only site type potentially subject to impacts from continuing surface use, for example through maintenance and/or use of roads. Such sites comprise 6-7% of the total number of sites in the study area.
Other surface impacts, either probable (as in the case of sites in the open cut extension area or other areas of small-scale high level impacts, such as surface infrastructure) or possible (as in the case of sites on the margins of the open cut area or small-scale high level impact areas where flexibility in design may allow impacts to be avoided) may affect about 9-10% of the total number of sites in the study area. These surface impacts are largely (89%) related to open artefact sites, but six rock shelters, two grinding groove sites, one waterhole/well and one ochre quarry may also be affected (refer to Appendix 4 for specific mitigation and management measures).
The greatest potential impact of the project on Aboriginal heritage, both in terms of site numbers and significant sites, is from underground mining induced subsidence (refer to Tables 11.1 and 11.2). Approximately 34.8% of the total number of sites in the study area may be subject to subsidence impacts (greater than 10% probability of perceptible impacts), prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. As outlined in Table 11.1, rock shelter sites are the type primarily affected by subsidence, with approximately 81% of rock shelter sites potentially affected. Four of the nine open grinding groove sites and one stone arrangement site of the five identified may also be subject to subsidence impacts. Otherwise, no other site types are anticipated to be affected by subsidence.
11.1 Potential Surface Impacts
The nature and level of potential direct surface impacts of relevance to Aboriginal heritage can be categorised as follows:
Broad-scale high level impacts (eg. open cut mining);
Small-scale high level impacts, potentially with some flexibility in location (eg. linear impacts such as conveyors, water pipelines and power lines, and small area impacts such as exploratory drilling, ventilation shafts, service boreholes, man riding shafts and dewatering bores);
12 Low-level continuing land-use impacts (eg. irrigation, pastoral and rural use ); and
Low-high level continuing land-use impacts (eg. maintenance and use of lightly formed or unformed vehicle tracks).
12 These impacts are not necessarily directly related to or a component of the Continued Operations project, but should be considered in terms of the overall management of the Aboriginal heritage resource within the mining lease.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 196 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 11.2: Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, with respect to their assessed level of significance, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
Significance moderate- low- Potential Impacts high moderate low uncertain Total high moderate nil proposed 11 18 31 49 384 1 494 subsidence 12 18 26 39 255 350 surface - continuing use 6 8 3 10 36 63 surface - continuing use, surface - possible 5 5 surface - possible 1 1 1 4 24 31 surface - high 3 4 2 5 48 62 Total 33 49 63 107 752 1 1005
Significance moderate- low- Potential Impacts high moderate low uncertain Total high moderate nil proposed 33.33% 36.73% 49.21% 45.79% 51.06% 100% 49.15% subsidence 36.36% 36.73% 41.27% 36.45% 33.91% - 34.83% surface - continuing use 18.18% 16.33% 4.76% 9.35% 4.79% - 6.27% surface - continuing use, surface - possible - - - - 0.66% - 0.50% surface - possible 3.03% 2.04% 1.59% 3.74% 3.19% - 3.08% surface - high 9.09% 8.16% 3.17% 4.67% 6.38% - 6.17% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Broad-scale high level impacts (eg. open cut mining)
Approximately 47 (4.7%) of all sites recorded within the study area may be subject to broad- scale high level impacts associated with the open cut extension (part of the 'surface - high' and 'surface - possible' categories in Table 11.1) (refer to Figure 7.4 and Appendices 4 and B11).
Open artefact sites comprise 42 (89%) of these sites, while the sole waterhole/well, two rock shelters with PADs and one open grinding groove site (listed here as both a grinding groove and grinding groove/artefact scatter to encompass previous and different recorded extents) may also be affected.
Of these sites, the grinding groove site (ID# 416) is of moderate significance (although the broader groove/artefact scatter complex, ID# 65, is of high significance), the waterhole/well (ID# 1391) is of moderate significance, and the rock shelter/PADs (ID# 1395 and 1396) are of low significance. These shelter sites lie adjacent to the western margin of the open cut area and may not be subject to direct impacts (but could be affected by blasting).
Of the 42 open artefact sites directly within the open cut area, 36 (86%) are of low significance, three are of low to moderate significance, one is of moderate significance, and two are of moderate to high significance (refer to Appendix 4).
Any sites affected by open cut mining are anticipated to be totally impacted by earthmoving works. Blasting associated with the open cut may also result in impacts to sites immediately adjacent to the open cut area, including within some areas that have not been subject to investigation as part of this project. Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to address these potential impacts. The level of impacts will be reduced by the implementation of various mitigation measures (refer to Section 12).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 197 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Small-scale high level impacts
Approximately 53 (5.3%) of all sites recorded within the study area may be subject to small- scale high level impacts associated with surface infrastructure and other facilities (part of the 'surface - high' and 'surface - possible' categories in Table 11.1) (refer to Figure 7.4 and Appendices 4 and B11).
These impacts may be limited to small discrete areas (eg. exploratory drilling, ventilation shafts, service boreholes, man riding shafts and dewatering bores) or narrow linear corridors (eg. conveyors, water pipelines and power lines). The level of impacts to each Aboriginal site may vary in relation to the nature and extent of the site and nature of the proposed works, but in many cases impacts to the ground surface and heritage evidence are anticipated to be high, where these works occur.
Small-scale high level impacts may occur to four rock shelters with PADs (1.4% of the total number of this site type within the study area), one ochre quarry of the two recorded within the study area, one open grinding groove site of the nine recorded within the study area, and 47 open artefact sites (8.4% of the total number of this site type within the study area). Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to address these potential impacts. The level of impacts will be reduced by the implementation of various mitigation measures (refer to Section 12).
Of these sites, the ochre quarry (ID# 158) is assessed as being of potentially high significance, all four rock shelters with PADs (ID# 1011, 1012, 1194 and 1195) as being of low significance, and the grinding groove site (ID# 519) as being of low significance. Of the 47 open artefact sites, 35 (74%) are of low significance, seven are of low to moderate significance, three are of moderate to high significance (ID# 796, 799 and 804), and two of high significance (ID# 791 and 793) (refer to Appendix 4).
Low-level continuing land-use impacts
Continuation of existing land-use practices, including the use of land by UCML or lessees to UCML for pastoral or agricultural purposes, may result in additional impacts to Aboriginal heritage evidence within the project area and therefore requires management consideration. Although these impacts are not necessarily directly related to or a component of the Continued Operations project, they should be considered in terms of the overall management of the Aboriginal heritage resource within the mining lease.
Impacts could arise from:
Livestock trampling artefacts;
Livestock, cropping, vegetation removal or vehicle use that promotes erosion which subsequently affects the spatial distribution of artefacts;
Livestock trampling grinding grooves or deposits in rock shelters;
Machinery or vehicles traversing over stone artefacts or open grinding grooves;
Vegetation removal affecting scarred trees or promoting erosion which affects open artefact sites; and/or
Construction or modification of dams, vehicle tracks, fences, irrigation works, etc, which directly affects heritage sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 198 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In relation to these sites, the level of potential impacts is generally unlikely to be different or greater than previous impacts which have occurred over several centuries of non-indigenous occupation. Nevertheless, management strategies can be adopted to ensure that significant additional impacts do not occur, or inadvertent impacts do not occur to heritage sites of significance. Such measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13.
Low-high level continuing land-use impacts
Continuation of existing land-use practices, mostly relating to the maintenance and use of lightly formed or unformed vehicle tracks or roads, for both mining and rural related purposes, or continuation of existing exploratory drilling, may also result in impacts to Aboriginal heritage evidence within the project area and therefore requires management consideration.
Approximately 68 recorded open artefact sites (12.2% of the total number of this site type within the study area), may be subject to impacts from ongoing use or future maintenance of vehicle tracks, and similar works. However, few vehicle tracks were subject to direct archaeological survey during the current project, due to the operational constraints that would have arisen from the identification of Aboriginal heritage evidence along them. Hence, further artefact evidence could be expected to be identified in these areas during future surveys and will require future management.
Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to inspect roads that have not been subject to archaeological survey, and to address these potential impacts. The level of impacts will be reduced by the implementation of various mitigation measures (refer to Section 12).
11.2 Potential Subsidence Impacts
The impacts of underground mining on the ground surface occur through subsidence and have the potential to affect Aboriginal heritage evidence, particularly rock shelter and grinding groove sites. The potential subsidence impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage have been assessed by Mills (2009), based on previous studies at Ulan and the Western Coalfields. Mills (2009: Appendix 1) also presents a description of the general processes and effects of underground mining and subsidence.
The key conclusions of Mills (2009) with respect to the Aboriginal site types susceptible to subsidence within the study area are presented in Appendix 5. In general, Mills (2009) concludes that:
Maximum subsidence (typically in the central part of each longwall panel) is expected to be in the range 0.9 - 1.5 metres (1.4 metres typically in the Ulan No.3 mining area and 1.2 metres typically in the Ulan West mining area) with the possibility of increasing up to 1.6 metres at the southern end of the first three Ulan West longwall panels in areas where there is no Triassic Sandstone;
Subsidence over the chain pillars is expected to increase with overburden depth, ranging from 0.2 metres in shallow areas of Ulan West and over the isolation barrier pillar in Ulan No.3 up to approximately 0.8 metres in the deeper areas of Ulan No.3 over the normal chain pillars;
An angle of draw of 26.5° is considered likely to give a reasonable approximation of the extent of vertical subsidence impacts for assessment purposes. Subsidence impacts outside of the mining area, and particularly those outside the 26.5° angle of draw (from the mining area), are expected to be imperceptible for all practical purposes;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 199 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Subsidence over each panel is likely to be substantially complete once the panel has been mined, but additional subsidence is likely when the next longwall panel is mined, mainly within 100-150 metres of the intermediate chain pillar;
Maximum tilts of 10-20 millimetres per metre (mm/m) are expected over most of the mining area (overburden depth greater than 150 metres) increasing to 20-40 mm/m in areas where the overburden is 120-150 metres, and to 40-120 mm/m where the overburden depth is less than 120 metres (at the southern end of the first Ulan West longwall panels);
Tilt is likely to be permanent near the solid goaf edges and be greater near the start and finish of each longwall panel. Over the centre of each longwall panel, tilt is likely to be transitory, although some low levels of residual tilt may remain, particularly in the shallower areas;
Systematic horizontal ground movements of 150 mm are expected to occur in a direction toward the goaf and then in the direction of mining once the longwall face has passed. Additional horizontal movements associated with surface topography of up to 300 mm are expected to occur in a downslope direction, with larger horizontal movements of up to 500 mm expected in areas where mining is in the same direction as the slope;
Maximum horizontal strains of 5-15 mm/m are expected over most of the project mining area. Strains up to 50 mm/m are expected to occur in areas of less than 120 metres overburden depth at the southern end of the first few Ulan West longwall panels. Assuming maximum subsidence of 1.6 metres, data elsewhere from the Western Coalfields indicates that compression strains of up to 40 mm/m and tensile strains of up to 30 mm/m would be expected at a minimum overburden depth of approximately 80 metres; and
Permanent tension cracks are expected in the vicinity of panel edges and along the tops of topographic highs. Tension cracks are expected to be greatest at the start of each panel and most apparent on hard surfaces. They may also occur at regular intervals along the centre of the panel interspersed with compression humps. Previous experience indicates that cracks are generally less than 150 mm wide at overburden depths of 150 metres and less than 40 mm wide at overburden depths of 250 metres. Cracks are likely to be generally more perceptible in areas of low overburden depth, especially near the southern end of the first few longwall panels in the Ulan West mining area, where they may reach 250 mm wide parallel to the panel edges. Permanent compression humps are expected at topographic lows such as drainage channels and at regular intervals along the panel. With each subsequent longwall panel mined, there is likely to be additional vertical subsidence over the intermediate chain pillar. The tensile strains over the goaf edge are likely to reduce as a result of this additional subsidence. The compressive strains are likely to generally increase as a result of the additional subsidence.
Mills (2009) has prepared a generic assessment of the types of subsidence impacts that can be expected to occur and the probability of impact for each of the Aboriginal site types susceptible to subsidence within the study area (refer to Appendices 4 and 5). Further assessment of individual sites of significance may be undertaken.
Mills (2009) has assessed the sites in relation to the potential for rock falls and the probability of 'perceptible impacts'. 'Perceptible impact' is taken to refer to any changes in the rock formations that are associated with mining activity and subsidence movements. Such impacts may include tensile cracking, ranging from fine cracks to major fractures, shear movements on bedding planes and through intact strata, perceptible disturbance of any formations, and rock falls, ranging from minor dislocation of material through to major falls.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 200 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The probability of perceptible impacts is a generic estimate based on the stratigraphic horizon in which the rock shelters are formed, rather than the specific geometries of individual sites. Large, continuous, overhanging formations are likely to be more susceptible to rock falls than pagoda features and isolated rocks, so there may be significant differences in potential impacts at individual sites that cannot be captured without a specific site assessment (Mills 2009). As noted above, further assessment of individual sites of significance may be undertaken where required (eg. will lead to a refinement of the recommended mitigation/management strategy).
Mills (2009) describes the probability for subsidence impacts on sandstone rock formations in various categories (refer to Appendices 4 and 5):
Almost certain: >90% probability;
Likely: 50 - 90% probability;
Possible: 11 - 49% probability;
Unlikely: 1 - 10% probability; and
Most unlikely: <1% probability.
Potential Subsidence Impacts on Rock Shelter Sites
As identified in Table 11.1, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures subsidence impacts (assumed to be a greater than 10% probability of perceptible impacts) are anticipated to occur to the following rock shelter sites identified within the study area:
85 (75.9%) of the rock shelters with artefacts;
Three (ID# 194, 708 and 1149) of the four rock shelters with art;
All three rock shelters with art and artefacts (ID# 189, 197 and 1054);
The only rock shelter with art, grinding grooves and artefacts (ID# 190);
All three rock shelters with grinding grooves (ID# 462, 470 and 917);
Four (ID# 163, 164, 171 and 188) of the five rock shelters with grinding grooves and artefacts; and
246 (83.1 %) of the rock shelters with PADs.
In terms of the assessed level of significance of the shelter sites that may be affected by subsidence (prior to the implementation of any mitigation measures), all 11 sites of high significance, 17 of the 19 sites of moderate to high significance, and 25 of the 27 sites of moderate significance may be subject to subsidence impacts (refer to Table 12.5).
However, if impacts are avoided to the Brokenback conservation area as marked on Figure 12.1 and Table 12.6, then subsidence impacts would be avoided to 13 of these sites, including six sites of high significance (ID# 194, 195, 196, 197, 907 and 908), four sites of moderate to high significance (ID# 192, 193, 901 and 906), and three sites of moderate significance (ID# 917, 935 and 944) (refer to Section 12).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 201 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Where subsidence impacts do occur to rock shelters, it is anticipated that any rock falls would affect the integrity of a shelter and potentially sterilise a portion of the archaeological deposit, however in the absence of rock art, unless major rock fall occurs the effects on the deposits may not be substantial. Nevertheless, rock fall may reduce the visual integrity of a site and aspects of its heritage significance. Rock fall does have the potential to totally impact or substantially affect any painted rock art on shelter walls.
Cracking is a potential cause of more substantive impacts to heritage. Although cracking may not directly affect archaeological deposits, major cracking of the type that has occurred in some locations at Ulan has the effect of rendering a shelter susceptible to collapse or rock fall, and effectively unsafe. Such cracking may effectively sterilise the Aboriginal heritage resource within the shelter, as it is not available for Aboriginal community members to safely visit or for any future scientific research (eg. excavation) to be safely conducted. Cracking may also reduce the visual integrity of a site and aspects of its heritage significance, particularly grinding groove evidence.
In general, mining subsidence movements are considered to be unlikely to impact directly on most of the grinding grooves located within the rock shelter sites, particularly where the rock formations on which the grooves are located are isolated boulders or small rocks that appear to be disconnected from the main body of the rock mass (eg. ID# 163, 164, 171, 188, 462, 470 and 917) and therefore are unable to generate the forces necessary to cause them to fracture (cf. Mills 2007). However, where there is potential for rock falls to occur, the rocks on which the grinding grooves are located may be buried under rock fall debris or impacted by the fall of this debris (cf. Mills 2007). Also, grinding grooves that are located on the main body of the rock mass (eg. at ID# 190) may be subject to the same subsidence impacts as the shelter generally.
Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to address these potential impacts. The level of impacts will be reduced by the implementation of various mitigation measures (refer to Section 12).
Potential Subsidence Impacts on Open Artefact Sites
Mills (2009) concludes that mining subsidence is not expected to significantly affect the context of any of the open artefact sites. No significant impacts have been noted at previously undermined open sites (Mills 2007). Temporary cracking during the period of active mining may affect the ground surface in the locality of those sites situated directly over the longwall panels. There is potential for more permanent tension cracks within about 50 to 90 metres of chain pillar edges and close to the ends of the panels. However, previous experience at Ulan indicates that these tension cracks are not commonly evident and gradually fill in over a period of years (Mills 2005, 2007).
As such, the potential impacts of subsidence on any of the open artefact sites within the underground mining area is assessed as very low or negligible. Any effects are likely to be short-term in duration, minimal in extent and confined to the context of the sites (sediments in which the artefacts are located) rather than direct impacts or damage to the artefacts themselves.
There is some potential for post-mining subsidence repair works to surface infrastructure (eg. roads, tracks, dams, fences, contour banks, pipelines, powerlines, telecommunications cables, etc.) to impact on identified or potential artefact evidence. Generally any such repair works are anticipated to be confined to relatively small areas and to locations that already exhibit high levels of ground disturbance due to the existing infrastructure. As such, the potential for impacting artefact deposits of high significance or research potential is considered to be generally low. Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to address these potential impacts.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 202 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Potential Subsidence Impacts on Other Site Types
As outlined in Table 11.1, other than rock shelters, subsidence impacts (>10% probability) are not anticipated to occur to any other site types other than one stone arrangement and four open grinding groove sites. The stone arrangement site, ID# 1286, is assessed as having a 20% risk of perceptible impacts, although these are considered unlikely to significantly affect the site.
Grinding groove sites are by their nature located on rock outcrops. Such outcrops tend to be sensitive to surface cracking. There is some potential (approximately 30%) for subsidence impacts as a result of horizontal compression and tension cracking to impact on four grinding groove sites (ID# 363, 526, 1161 and 1210). Impacts to site ID# 363 will primarily occur through mining under the current approvals and has been addressed elsewhere (with a Section 90 AHIP granted). ID# 363 is assessed as being of moderate significance, ID# 526 as being of moderate to high significance, and ID# 1161 and 1210 as being of low significance. Three grinding groove sites of high significance, ID# 1074-1076, are located marginally east of the Ulan West underground mine and will not be subject to impacts from the project.
11.3 Regional Context
An objective of the NPW Act (Section 2A{1}) is the "conservation of objects, places or features … of cultural value within the landscape, including, but not limited to … places, objects and features of significance to Aboriginal people …". This objective is to be achieved by applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development (Section 2A{2}), defined in Section 6 of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 as requiring the integration of economic and environmental considerations (including cultural heritage) in the decision-making process. In regard to Aboriginal cultural heritage, ecologically sustainable development can be achieved by applying the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle (DECC 2009b).
Intergenerational equity is the principle whereby the present generation should ensure the health, diversity and productivity of the environment for the benefit of future generations. In terms of Aboriginal heritage, intergenerational equity can be considered in terms of the cumulative impacts to Aboriginal objects and places in a region. If few Aboriginal objects and places remain in a region (for example, because of impacts under previous AHIPs), fewer opportunities remain for future generations of Aboriginal people to enjoy the cultural benefits of those Aboriginal objects and places. Information about the integrity, rarity or representativeness of the Aboriginal objects and places proposed to be impacted, and how they illustrate the occupation and use of land by Aboriginal people across the region, are therefore relevant to the consideration of intergenerational equity and the understanding of the cumulative impacts of a proposal (DECC 2009b:26).
The precautionary principle states that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In applying the precautionary principle, decisions should be guided by (DECC 2009b:26):
A careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and
An assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 203 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The precautionary principle is relevant to DECC’s consideration of potential impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage where:
The proposal involves a risk of serious or irreversible damage to Aboriginal objects or places or to the value of those objects or places; and
There is uncertainty about the Aboriginal cultural heritage values or scientific or archaeological values, including in relation to the integrity, rarity or representativeness of the Aboriginal objects or places proposed to be impacted (DECC 2009b:26).
Where this is the case, DECC (2009b) instructs that a precautionary approach should be taken and all cost-effective measures implemented to prevent or reduce damage to the objects/place.
Hence, the extent to which the heritage resource present within the study area may exist elsewhere in the region is therefore highly relevant to an assessment of the potential impacts of the project with respect to the principles of ecologically sustainable development, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, along with the significance assessment of the sites (representative value) and an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the project (particularly with respect to Wilpinjong Coal Mine and Moolarben Coal Mine Stages 1 and 2, as required by DECC). It is noted however that the Moolarben Stage 2 project is not approved and therefore the impacts are not confirmed.
An analysis of the evidence from the study area within a regional context has been undertaken (refer to Section 7.8). However, as noted, there are numerous problems and constraints that limit comparison of the evidence within a regional context. Notable constraints to the assessment are the absence of quantitative baseline data from the region, along with the limited extent of the region that has been subject to systematic archaeological sampling, and the problems inherent with the quality and suitability of the information from the existing studies. No regional heritage assessments have been undertaken to any level of detail sufficient to provide suitable quantitative or baseline data for comparison. In fact, the present study represents the most detailed and comprehensive heritage assessment undertaken to date within the region (refer to Section 7.8).
Two avenues of inquiry can be pursued, as to whether similar heritage resources to those identified within the study area exist elsewhere within the region:
1) By comparison of the identified resource with other heritage studies in the region and known site databases; and 2) By examination of topographic mapping and aerial photographs to identify if comparable environmental contexts exists elsewhere in the region, in which a similar potential resource may occur.
Identified Resource
The identified heritage resource of the study area has been analysed in a regional context in Section 7.8.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 204 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Few of the heritage items or evidence located within the study area appear to be very rare or unique within a regional context. Artefact scatters, rock shelters and to a lesser extent grinding grooves are common site types in the region. Nevertheless, several of the site types within the impact area are less common or even rare within the region (as far as the current state of knowledge of identified sites is concerned), such as the ochre quarries, stone arrangements and waterhole/well. Also, certain types of the artefact evidence are less common, such as the axes, grindstones, muller and possible bone point. The boomerang identified previously in ID# 164 is possibly the only single item that rates as very rare within a regional context.
The evidence for lithic procurement from the colluvial gravel sources at ID# 580 and 804, and possible tuff procurement at ID# 400 and 412 and elsewhere outcrops of tuff occur in the southern portion of the open cut extension area, is also less common or rarely reported within the region (although many similar such areas may exist).
Only five of the sites within the study area have been assessed as potentially being of significance within a regional context, four of them stone arrangements and one a large artefact scatter site at Old Ulan Village (ID# 79).
As discussed in Sections 11.1 and 11.2, the impacts of the project on the sites of regional significance can almost entirely be avoided or mitigated. One stone arrangement site, ID# 1286, is assessed as having a 20% risk of perceptible impacts, although this is considered unlikely to significantly affect the site. The three other stone arrangement sites of potential regional significance will not be affected by the project, and can be managed to ensure that impacts do not inadvertently occur from continuing land use. Similarly, impacts are not proposed to occur to one ochre quarry (ID# 807) and can be avoided to the other ochre quarry (ID# 158) through implementation of appropriate management strategies (refer to Sections 12 and 13). The single waterhole/well site, ID# 1391, is only assessed as being of potentially moderate significance within a local context, as Aboriginal use of the feature is uncertain. However, impacts can be successfully mitigated through removal of the small boulder hosting the evidence from the open cut area. The boomerang previously identified in ID# 164 is possibly the only single item that rates as very rare within a regional context, and impacts can be successfully mitigated through salvage of this evidence and the associated deposit.
Hence, it is concluded that in the absence of appropriate management and mitigation measures, the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be relatively low within a regional context. After the implementation of the measures described above and outlined in Appendix 4, the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be very low within a regional context.
Potential Resource
As a result of the limited archaeological investigations undertaken to date within the region, clearly the vast majority of the regional heritage resource represents a potential resource, which although not yet identified and recorded, almost certainly exists in consideration of predictive models of site location, the environmental contexts present, and the results of existing studies.
Topographical mapping and aerial photographs can be used to prepare a preliminary assessment, as suitable quantitative baseline data is absent.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 205 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Analysis of a 'region' comprising about a 40 kilometre radius from Ulan village, and extending from Mudgee north to Cassilis, west to Dunedoo and east to Bylong, indicates that:
Focalised impacts (areas in which heritage is unlikely to survive, such as urban areas, mines and roads) may have affected less than 5% of this area;
Generally low-intensity rural land-use (areas in which common forms of heritage evidence are typically likely to survive, albeit in some cases with reduced integrity) may have affected a large proportion of this area; and
Areas specifically reserved for conservation (eg. National Parks, Nature Reserves and registered conservation zones) comprise around 10% of this area.
Within these conserved areas, including Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve and part of Goulburn River National Park, many comparable environmental contexts to the current study area exist. In particular, the dissected sandstone terrain and watercourses with exposed sandstone bedrock, in which rock shelter and grinding groove sites typically occur, are common in these conserved areas. The studies of Haglund (1980b, 1981c, refer also to DECC 2003a) confirm the presence of numerous rock shelters with deposits and/or art, artefact scatters and grinding grooves within these conserved areas. Hence, although detailed quantitative comparison is not possible, it is inferred that similar heritage evidence to that identified within the current study area will frequently occur in these conserved areas. The Goulburn River National Park covers an area of 70,161 hectares (including areas outside the 40 kilometre radius analysed above), with the adjoining Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve covering a further 5,935 hectares (DECC 2003a).
Hence, analysis of the potential resource in the region supports the conclusions above that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be relatively low within a regional context prior to the implementation of mitigation measures, and very low after the implementation of such measures. Furthermore, additional conservation measures will be adopted within the project area to offset the impacts of the project within a local context (refer to Section 12).
Cumulative Impact with Moolarben and Wilpinjong
Following a conclusion that the impacts of the project will be relatively low within a regional context prior to, and very low after, the implementation of mitigation measures, it logically follows that the cumulative impact of the project within a regional context (in combination with other mining projects in the region such as Moolarben Stages 1 and 2 and Wilpinjong) will be very low. It is apparent that the principle impacts within a regional context relate primarily to the Moolarben Stages 1 and 2 project, particular to open artefact sites in valley contexts.
11.4 Conclusion
In the absence of appropriate management and mitigation measures, it is concluded that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be high within a local context, but relatively low within a regional context.
After implementation of the mitigation and management strategies outlined in Sections 12 and 13 it is concluded that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be moderate within a local context and very low within a regional context. By extension, the cumulative impacts of the project within a regional context will also be very low.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 206 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The project is not inconsistent with the principle of intergenerational equity as outlined in Section 11.3. The project will not cause, within a regional context, a loss of heritage resources that could be viewed as being very rare or unique or unlikely to exist elsewhere. Similar heritage evidence to that likely to be subject to impacts from the project almost certainly exists elsewhere in many locations in the region, including within substantial conservation areas (Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve and Goulburn River National Park).
In relation to the precautionary principle (refer to Section 11.3), the comprehensive nature of the archaeological survey and assessment and consultation process substantially reduces the risk of lack of scientific certainty.
The present study sampled virtually the geographic extent of the study area, consistent with the DECC (2005) Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation. By comparison, the adjacent Moolarben studies (Hamm 2006a, 2006b, 2008b) only sampled portions (about one-fifth) of the Moolarben project areas. Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to obtain survey coverage of the small portions of the present study area that could not be sampled during the current assessment.
Nevertheless, as identified in the predictive model (refer to Sections 5 and 7.9) and in Section 9, in the absence of excavation of deposits, the nature and significance of evidence within rock shelter or open artefact sites cannot be known for certain. Controlled excavation of a deposit may lead to a revision of the assessment of significance, either upward (in the case of a site where deposits of higher research value than anticipated are revealed) or downward (in the case of a site where anticipated deposits of research value do not exist or are in a state of low integrity). If occupation deposits were to be identified in rock shelters or open contexts that relate to occupation earlier than the mid-late Holocene period (older than say 5,000 years BP), these may rate as being of regional significance. Measures are proposed in Sections 12 and 13 to satisfactorily address this issue, with respect to consideration of the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 207 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 12. POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
12.1 General Strategies
The potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage are discussed in Section 11. In the absence of appropriate management and mitigation measures (refer below and to Section 13), it is concluded that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be high within a local context, but relatively low within a regional context.
General strategies are outlined below that are typically available for the management of identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources. A key consideration in selecting suitable strategies is the recognition that Aboriginal heritage is of primary importance to the Aboriginal community, and that decisions about the management of the sites should be made in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders.
Specific options for the project are discussed in Section 12.2 and the recommended strategies are presented in Section 13.
12.1.1 Strategy A: Further Investigation
In circumstances where an Aboriginal site is identified (particularly an open artefact site, rock shelter or shell midden), but the extent of the site, the nature of its contents, its level of integrity and/or its level of significance cannot be adequately assessed solely through surface survey (generally because of conditions of low surface visibility or sediment deposition), sub-surface testing may be an appropriate strategy to further assess the site. Testing is also appropriate in locations where artefact deposits are predicted to occur through application of a predictive model of site location (eg. PADs in rock shelters or in open contexts), in order to identify whether such deposits exist and their nature, extent, integrity and significance.
Test excavations can take the form of auger holes, shovel pits, mechanically excavated trenches or surface scrapes. A Section 87 AHIP is generally required from DECC to undertake sub- surface testing. However, under more recent Part 3A Major Project amendments to the EP&A Act (Section 75U{4}), a Section 87 AHIP is generally not required for the investigation of artefact deposits where the investigation is being undertaken for the purpose of complying with environmental assessment requirements issued in connection with an application for approval to carry out a project or for a concept plan for a project.
DECC determination of permit applications is guided by the DECC (2009a) policy Guide to Determining and Issuing Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits. Typically, approval of a Section 87 AHIP can take up to eight weeks, following receipt by DECC of all necessary information. A research design specifying the aims and methods is an essential component of an AHIP application and therefore requires DECC approval. The application must also comply with the relevant DECC Aboriginal consultation policy.
This is a pro-active strategy, which should result in the identification, assessment and management of the Aboriginal heritage resource prior to any development activity occurring. Following assessment of each Aboriginal site, management strategies as outlined below (B - E) can be applied.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 208 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Several other aspects of the potential heritage resource may require consideration as to whether further investigation is necessary as part of the environmental assessment stage or post-approval stage. These include areas that were not sampled during the assessment (eg. due to property access restrictions) or for which subsequent design changes have occurred, in which future field inspection may be required. Typically, small areas or modifications can satisfactorily be addressed in a post-approval management plan.
Another issue potentially requiring further investigation, in relation to surface impacts, is where a moderate or high potential for skeletal remains has been identified. Any burial sites are likely to be of high cultural value to the Aboriginal community and potentially of high scientific significance. The potential survival over time of any skeletal remains will depend upon the conditions in which they are preserved (eg. the acidity level of the soil) and post-depositional processes (eg. the action of floods and erosion), along with the age of the burial. These factors will vary on a location by location basis and are problematic to predict. The probability of detecting burials by field survey alone is extremely low, due to the cover of vegetation and soil.
The probability of detecting burials by archaeological excavation can vary, depending on the techniques used and the size of the target zone. In a broad area with no specifically known burial locations, the only feasible excavation method of identifying burials would be through the use of mechanical surface scrapes. In this process, a dozer or grader or similar machinery would be used to systematically expose the surface and progressively remove thin layers of soil. The exposed surface would be carefully inspected for the presence of skeletal remains. This method has been successfully applied in the Hunter Valley to identify an intact traditional Aboriginal burial (Kuskie and Donlon 2003). However, the significant drawbacks to the use of this method during the environmental assessment stage include the substantial environmental impacts, potential for significant inadvertent impacts to any skeletal remains uncovered, and the constraints on future management of any remains found (eg. in situ conservation may not be feasible). After development approval is granted however, many of these drawbacks are no longer relevant, particularly if the Aboriginal stakeholders are in agreeance with a strategy for managing any remains identified.
Other methods can also be used to detect buried skeletal remains, including geophysical techniques that typically identify contrasts in density, conductivity, magnetic susceptibility and other characteristics of the underlying soil (DECC 2003b). The suitable application or success of such methods, including ground magnetic survey, ground penetrating radar, electromagnetic survey and resistivity, depends on many site specific factors (eg. existing ground disturbance, intrusion of foreign materials, soil type and vegetation).
12.1.2 Strategy B: Conservation
The strategy of conservation is suitable for all heritage sites, but particularly those of high archaeological significance and/or high cultural significance. Conservation is also highly appropriate for specific landform units or archaeological/environmental contexts as part of a regional strategy aimed at conserving a representative sample of identified and potential heritage resources.
Options exist within development proposals that can be utilised for the conservation of identified or potential Aboriginal heritage resources, including exclusion of development from zones of high heritage significance or potential, or preservation of areas within formal conservation zones.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 209 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In the case of underground mining, options for conservation include the avoidance of undermining specific significant sites susceptible to subsidence (eg. grinding grooves and rock shelters) or potentially significant sites (eg. certain PADs in rock shelters) by altering mine plans to avoid any undermining and subsidence, or restricting the extent of coal extracted ("partial extraction") underneath the sites in order to minimise the potential level of subsidence.
In the case of surface impacts, options for conservation include re-routing linear impact zones (eg. pipelines or roads) to avoid identified sites of significance, relocating minor surface infrastructure (eg. ventilation shafts) where feasible to avoid identified sites of significance, or altering construction methods to minimise the surface impact area within the vicinity of significant sites or potential resources. In the case of open cut mining, options for conservation are limited to the exclusion of mining within the vicinity of specific sites, which may be of greater feasibility around the margins of any proposed impact area.
In the case of continuing land use practices, such as the continued use and maintenance of existing roads, the options for conservation tend to be limited. Typically, a similar resource will potentially exist in adjacent, less-disturbed areas, and therefore options such as closing an existing road and constructing a new road are actually likely to result in higher impacts to the heritage resource.
12.1.3 Strategy C: Mitigated Impact (Salvage)
In circumstances where an Aboriginal site may be of moderate or high significance within a local context, but the options for conservation are limited and the surface collection of artefacts or excavation of deposits could yield benefits to the Aboriginal community and/or the archaeological study of Aboriginal occupation, the strategy of salvage can be considered.
Salvage in these circumstances may include the collection of surface artefacts and/or systematic excavation of artefact deposits (eg. in a rock shelter susceptible to collapse from subsidence), as part of a Section 90 AHIP obtained from DECC or a Part 3A Major Project Approval obtained from the Department of Planning.
The imperative for such salvage measures can be assessed in relation to:
The nature of the identified and expected evidence, its significance and its research potential (ie. the potential for salvage to provide additional, useful evidence that will enhance the overall understanding of the nature of human occupation in the locality);
The views of the Aboriginal stakeholders, as salvage may be warranted to minimise the impacts of development on the cultural values of the evidence; and
The extent of potential development impacts on particular sites or potential resources.
Salvage of other site types may also be warranted, for example scarred trees or grinding grooves. Salvage of a scarred tree may involve cutting and removing the tree or the portion of the tree containing the scar. Similarly, grinding grooves may be salvaged by removal of the freestanding rock they are situated on, or in the case of grooves on open bedrock, cutting and removing the section of bedrock with the grooves.
This strategy is the primary means of minimising impacts to Aboriginal heritage from development where the option of conservation is not feasible.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 210 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 DECC determination of Section 90 AHIP applications is guided by the DECC (2009a) policy Guide to Determining and Issuing Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits. Typically, approval of a Section 90 AHIP can take up to eight weeks, following receipt by DECC of all necessary information. A research design specifying the aims and methods is an essential component of an AHIP application and therefore requires DECC approval. The application must also comply with the relevant DECC Aboriginal consultation policy.
12.1.4 Strategy D: Unmitigated Impact
The strategy of unmitigated impact involves the proponent causing impacts to the heritage resource without any mitigation measures. This strategy is typically suitable when the heritage evidence is of low scientific significance, the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders hold no objections, and it is unfeasible to implement any other strategy.
Typically a Section 90 AHIP is required from DECC prior to any impacts occurring to any identified Aboriginal objects (even isolated stone artefacts). The Section 90 AHIP must normally be obtained prior to the commencement of works affecting the evidence, because all objects are protected under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Alternatively, if a Part 3A approval is granted, a Section 90 AHIP may not be required, but in lieu a Statement of Commitments outlining proposed heritage management measures must be approved by the Department of Planning and implemented.
DECC determination of Section 90 AHIP applications is guided by the DECC (2009a) policy Guide to Determining and Issuing Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits. Typically, approval of a Section 90 AHIP can take up to eight weeks, following receipt by DECC of all necessary information. A research design specifying the aims and methods is an essential component of an AHIP application and therefore requires DECC approval. The application must also comply with the relevant DECC Aboriginal consultation policy.
12.1.5 Strategy E: Monitoring
An alternative strategy for zones where archaeological deposits are predicted to occur is to monitor construction, particularly any initial earthmoving and soil removal works, for the presence of artefacts, shell or skeletal remains. This is particularly relevant to the current project for the areas of direct surface impacts, such as the open cut mine.
Monitoring is one of the primary strategies for managing the possible occurrence of Aboriginal skeletal remains. However, as with the conduct of surface scrapes, feasible management strategies should skeletal remains be uncovered may be limited to those other than in situ conservation (for example, excavation and reburial elsewhere may be the only feasible strategy). The nature of construction methods (eg. the use of earthmoving machinery to rapidly excavate large quantities of soil) tends to limit the potential for successful identification of heritage evidence during monitoring. An alternative approach to address the potential for skeletal remains involves the conduct of controlled surface scrapes or the use of non-invasive geophysical techniques where appropriate (refer to Sections 12.1.1 and 12.1.3).
Monitoring for the presence of shell and stone artefacts can also be of value to the Aboriginal community, who may be seeking to identify and salvage material that was not visible on the surface during a preliminary investigation. The sieving of graded deposits is a practical measure that can enhance the benefits of monitoring for artefacts.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 211 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Therefore monitoring in lieu of or in addition to controlled salvage (eg. surface scrapes or hand excavations) could be considered as a final salvage measure after Part 3A approval is granted, to enable Aboriginal community representatives the opportunity to inspect for and identify if any unexpected or unusual features are uncovered within areas of direct surface impacts, and to permit their salvage. Monitoring and collection may permit Aboriginal community representatives to mitigate the impacts of development on the cultural values of the heritage evidence. However, mitigation measures such as surface scrapes and localised hand excavations typically address these issues more satisfactorily in areas of moderate and high potential for artefact deposits (refer to Section 12.1.3). The nature of construction methods (eg. the use of earthmoving machinery to rapidly excavate large quantities of soil without scientifically appropriate spatial control) tends to limit the potential for successful identification of heritage evidence during monitoring of such work.
In relation to potential subsidence impacts, monitoring is primarily associated with inspecting and recording the condition of identified grinding groove and rock shelter sites before and after undermining has taken place, in order to identify if any subsidence related impacts have occurred. Such information can be used to refine the modelling involved in assessing potential subsidence impacts and guide future assessments within a locality.
12.2 Assessment of Specific Options for Aboriginal Sites Within the Study Area
The assessment of specific strategies for the management of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources within the study area, that may be subject to impacts, can be considered in relation to various criteria such as the nature of the heritage evidence, its significance (eg. research value, representative value and cultural value), the nature of the potential impacts, and the views of the Aboriginal stakeholders.
Consideration of management options can be discussed within general categories, based on the nature and level of potential impacts (refer to Sections 12.2.1-12.2.5):
Broad-scale high level impacts (eg. open cut mining);
Small-scale high level impacts, potentially with some flexibility in location (eg. linear impacts such as conveyors, water pipelines and power lines, and small area impacts such as exploratory drilling, ventilation shafts, service boreholes, man riding shafts and dewatering bores);
Low-level continuing land-use impacts (eg. irrigation, pastoral and rural use);
Low-high level continuing land-use impacts (eg. maintenance and use of lightly formed or unformed vehicle tracks); and
Subsidence impacts.
Further discussion is not required for existing facilities or proposed facilities that are located in modified areas which have been extensively impacted by earthmoving works, such that there is negligible potential for any Aboriginal heritage evidence to survive.
The recommended management strategies and the primary rationale for each strategy for each Aboriginal site within the study area are presented in Appendix 4 and summarised in Tables 12.1-12.5.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 212 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 12.1: Summary of potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage site types within the study area1.
Management Strategy salvage or unmitigated impact tablish conservation offset impacts or unmitigated impact entially unmitigated impact
Site Type avoid impacts investigation further monitor, avoid impacts, investigation further salvage, monitor, avoid impacts, conservation avoid impacts investigation, further further investigation, avoid of shelter rock as part consider monitor, investigation, further investigation and salvage further or conservation for sample salvage or impacts potentially avoid investigation, further further investigation, potentially salvage further investigation, potentially further investigation, pot monitor conservation for sample of shelter consider rock as part monitor, investigation and salvage further or no action salvage salvage, avoid impacts unmitigated impact monitor, unmitigated impact, es Total Artefact Scatter 19 15 1 8 3 8 10 222 22 3 41 352 Grinding Grooves 3 1 1 4 9 Grinding Grooves and 1 1 Artefact Scatter Isolated Find 2 2 172 1 29 206 Ochre Quarry 1 1 2 Rockshelter with Art 2 1 1 4 Rockshelter with Art and 2 1 3 Artefacts Rockshelter with Art and Grinding Grooves and 1 1 Artefacts Rockshelter with Artefacts 1 3 51 24 33 112 Rockshelter with Grinding 3 3 Grooves Rockshelter with Grinding 1 3 1 5 Grooves and Artefacts Rockshelter with PAD 6 29 45 216 296 Scarred Tree 3 1 1 5 Stone Arrangement 1 4 5 Waterhole/Well 1 1 Total 25 1 15 3 8 6 2 8 3 8 12 3 91 466 26 3 321 4 1005
1. Implementation of the Brokenback Conservation Area will result in the avoidance of impacts to a total of 27 rock shelter sites, comprising one rock shelter with art, one rock shelter with art and artefacts, one rock shelter with grinding grooves, nine rock shelters with artefacts and 15 rock shelters with PADs, that otherwise would have been susceptible to subsidence impacts. These sites are listed in the table above in the "monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation or further investigation and salvage" column.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 213 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 12.2: Summary of potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, with respect to the assessed level of significance1.
Significance moderate- low- Management Strategies high high moderate moderate low uncertain Total avoid impacts 3 5 7 9 1 25 avoid impacts, monitor, further investigation 1 1 avoid impacts, monitor, salvage, further investigation 6 5 2 2 15 conservation 3 3 further investigation, avoid impacts 5 1 1 1 8 further investigation, avoid impacts or unmitigated impact 6 6 further investigation, monitor, consider as part of rock shelter 1 1 2 sample for conservation or further investigation and salvage further investigation, potentially avoid impacts or salvage 2 2 3 1 8 further investigation, potentially salvage 2 1 3 further investigation, potentially salvage or unmitigated impact 3 5 8 further investigation, potentially unmitigated impact 12 12 monitor 1 1 1 3 monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation 11 17 24 38 1 91 or further investigation and salvage no action 1 12 23 44 386 466 salvage 1 2 4 4 15 26 salvage, avoid impacts 3 3 unmitigated impact 321 321 monitor, unmitigated impact, establish conservation offset 1 1 2 4 Total 33 49 63 107 752 1 1005
Significance moderate- low- Management Strategies high high moderate moderate low uncertain Total avoid impacts 9.09% 10.20% 11.11% 8.41% 0.13% - 2.49% avoid impacts, monitor, further investigation 3.03% - - - - - 0.10% avoid impacts, monitor, salvage, further investigation 18.18% 10.20% 3.17% 1.87% - - 1.49% conservation 9.09% - - - - - 0.30% further investigation, avoid impacts 15.15% 2.04% - - 0.13% 100.00% 0.80% further investigation, avoid impacts or unmitigated impact - - - - 0.80% - 0.60% further investigation, monitor, consider as part of rock shelter - - 1.59% 0.93% - - 0.20% sample for conservation or further investigation and salvage further investigation, potentially avoid impacts or salvage 6.06% 4.08% - 2.80% 0.13% - 0.70% further investigation, potentially salvage - - - 1.87% 0.13% - 0.20% further investigation, potentially salvage or unmitigated impact - - - 2.80% 0.66% - 1.00% further investigation, potentially unmitigated impact - - - - 1.60% - 1.19% monitor - 2.04% 1.59% 0.93% - - 0.30% monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for 33.33% 34.69% 38.10% 35.51% 0.13% - 9.05% conservation or further investigation and salvage no action 3.03% 24.49% 36.51% 41.12% 51.33% - 46.27% salvage 3.03% 4.08% 6.35% 3.74% 1.99% - 2.69% salvage, avoid impacts - 6.12% - - - - 0.30% unmitigated impact - - - - 42.69% - 31.94% monitor, unmitigated impact, establish conservation offset - 2.04% 1.59% - 0.27% - 0.40% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1. Implementation of the Brokenback Conservation Area will result in the avoidance of impacts to six rock shelter sites of high significance, four of moderate to high significance, three of moderate significance, two of low to moderate significance and 12 of low significance, that otherwise would have been susceptible to subsidence impacts. These sites are listed in the table above in the "monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation or further investigation and salvage" row.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 214 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 12.3: Summary of potential management strategies for Aboriginal heritage sites within the study area, with respect to the nature of potential impacts1.
Potential Impacts
surface - surface - continuing use, nil continuing surface - surface - surface - Management Strategies proposed subsidence use possible possible high Total avoid impacts 25 25 avoid impacts, monitor, further investigation 1 1 avoid impacts, monitor, salvage, further 15 15 investigation conservation 3 3 further investigation, avoid impacts 5 2 1 8 further investigation, avoid impacts or unmitigated 6 6 impact further investigation, monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation or further 2 2 investigation and salvage further investigation, potentially avoid impacts or 1 7 8 salvage further investigation, potentially salvage 2 1 3 further investigation, potentially salvage or 7 1 8 unmitigated impact further investigation, potentially unmitigated 6 6 12 impact monitor 3 3 monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for 91 91 conservation or further investigation and salvage no action 458 1 7 466 salvage 7 1 18 26 salvage, avoid impacts 3 3 unmitigated impact 251 31 5 6 28 321 monitor, unmitigated impact, establish conservation 4 4 offset Total 494 350 63 5 31 62 1005
1. Implementation of the Brokenback Conservation Area will result in the avoidance of impacts to and conservation of 27 rock shelter sites. These sites are listed in the table above in the "monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation or further investigation and salvage" row and "subsidence" column.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 215 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 12.4: Summary of potential impacts and management strategies for open artefact sites within the study area, with respect to their assessed level of significance.
Significance moderate- low- Impacts high high moderate moderate low Total nil proposed 3 16 26 41 322 409 surface - continuing use 6 8 3 10 36 63 surface - continuing use, surface - possible 5 5 surface - possible 1 4 17 22 surface - high 2 4 1 5 48 60 Total 11 29 30 60 428 558
Significance
moderate- low- Impacts high high moderate moderate low Total nil proposed 27.27% 55.17% 86.67% 68.33% 75.23% 73.12% surface - continuing use 54.55% 27.59% 10.00% 16.67% 8.41% 11.29% surface - continuing use, surface - possible - - - - 1.17% 0.90% surface - possible - 3.45% - 6.67% 3.97% 3.94% surface - high 18.18% 13.79% 3.33% 8.33% 11.21% 10.75% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Significance moderate- low- Impacts Management Strategies high high moderate moderate low Total nil proposed avoid impacts 2 5 5 9 21 no action 1 11 21 32 322 387 nil proposed total 3 16 26 41 322 408 surface - continuing use avoid impacts, monitor, salvage, further investigation 6 5 2 2 15 no action 5 2 7 salvage 1 3 3 7 salvage, avoid impacts 3 3 unmitigated impact 31 31 surface - continuing use total 6 8 3 10 36 63 surface - continuing use, unmitigated impact 5 5 surface - possible surface - continuing use, surface - possible - total 5 5 surface - possible further investigation, potentially salvage 1 1 2 further investigation, potentially salvage or unmitigated 3 4 7 impact further investigation, potentially unmitigated impact 6 6 further investigation, potentially avoid impacts or 1 1 salvage unmitigated impact 6 6 surface - possible total 1 4 17 22 surface - high further investigation, avoid impacts 1 1 further investigation, potentially avoid impacts or 2 1 3 1 7 salvage further investigation, potentially salvage 1 1 further investigation, potentially salvage or unmitigated 1 1 impact further investigation, potentially unmitigated impact 6 6 salvage 2 1 1 12 16 unmitigated impact 28 28 surface - high total 2 4 1 5 48 60 Grand Total 11 29 30 60 428 558
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 216 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 12.5: Summary of potential impacts and management strategies for rock shelter sites (including PADs) within the study area, with respect to their assessed level of significance1.
Significance Impacts high moderate-high moderate low-moderate low Total nil proposed 2 2 8 61 73 subsidence 11 17 25 39 253 345 surface - possible 6 6 Total 11 19 27 47 320 424
Significance Impacts high moderate-high moderate low-moderate low Total nil proposed - 10.53% 7.41% 17.02% 19.06% 17.22% subsidence 100% 89.47% 92.59% 82.98% 79.06% 81.37% surface - possible - - - - 1.88% 1.42% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Significance
moderate- low- Impacts Management Strategies high high moderate moderate low Total nil proposed monitor 1 1 1 3 no action 1 1 7 61 70 nil proposed total 2 2 8 61 73 further investigation, monitor, consider as subsidence part of rock shelter sample for conservation 1 1 2 or further investigation and salvage monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation or further 11 17 24 38 1 91 investigation and salvage no action 1 1 unmitigated impact 251 251 subsidence total 11 17 25 39 253 345 further investigation, avoid impacts or surface - possible 6 6 unmitigated impact surface - possible total 6 6 Grand Total 11 19 27 47 320 424
1. Implementation of the Brokenback Conservation Area will result in the conservation of 27 rock shelter sites, comprising six rock shelter sites of high significance, four of moderate to high significance, three of moderate significance, two of low to moderate significance and 12 of low significance, that otherwise would have been susceptible to subsidence impacts. These sites are listed in the table above in the "subsidence" rows and the "monitor, consider as part of rock shelter sample for conservation or further investigation and salvage" row.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 217 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Table 12.6: Aboriginal heritage sites no longer susceptible to subsidence impacts after establishment of the Brokenback Conservation Area.
Ulan Probability of Probability of ID# Site Type Significance Perceptible Impacts Rock Falls 192 Rock Shelter with Artefacts moderate - high 0% 0% 193 Rock Shelter with Artefacts moderate - high 0% 0% 194 Rock Shelter with Art high 0% 0% 195 Rock Shelter with Artefacts high 0% 0% 196 Rock Shelter with Artefacts high 0% 0% 197 Rock Shelter Art and Artefacts high 0% 0% 897 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 898 Rock Shelter with Artefacts low - moderate 0% 0% 899 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 901 Rock Shelter with Artefacts moderate - high 0% 0% 902 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 905 Rock Shelter with PAD low 10% 0% 906 Rock Shelter with PAD moderate - high 0% 0% 907 Rock Shelter with PAD high 0% 0% 908 Rock Shelter with Artefacts high 0% 0% 909 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 910 Rock Shelter with Artefacts low 0% 0% 911 Rock Shelter with PAD low - moderate 0% 0% 912 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 913 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 914 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 916 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0% 917 Rock Shelter with Grinding Grooves moderate 0% 0% 919 Rock Shelter with PAD low 10% 0% 935 Rock Shelter with Artefacts moderate 0% 0% 944 Rock Shelter with PAD moderate 0% 0% 945 Rock Shelter with PAD low 0% 0%
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 218 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Brokenback Conservation Area
Figure 12.1: Proposed Brokenback Conservation Area.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 219 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 ID# 1074-1076 Groove Conservation Area
0 250 metres
ID# 323 Groove Conservation Area
0 250 metres
Figure 12.2: Proposed Grinding Grooves Conservation Areas (top ID# 1074-1076 conservation area, bottom - ID# 323 conservation area).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 220 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 12.2.1 Management of Broad-Scale High Level Impacts
Approximately 47 sites may be subject to broad-scale high level impacts associated with the open cut extension (refer to Section 11.1, Figure 7.4 and Appendices 4 and B11). Management strategies for individual sites are outlined in Appendix 4.
In general, due to the nature of the proposed works, feasible options for conservation or avoidance of impacts are limited to only those sites around the margins of the proposed impact area. As such, impacts may be avoided to the two rock shelters with PADs (ID# 1395 and 1396), although given the low significance of these sites, unmitigated impact is also feasible.
Vibrations from blasting within the open cut may affect these rock shelter sites, along with others such as ID# 74 that are outside of the current study area. Procedures are required in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to enable future assessment of the potential impact zone from blasting, heritage survey of any portions of this impact zone that have not been investigated to date, and management of any additional sites that may be identified within this zone of impact.
The waterhole/well site (ID# 1391) is of moderate significance but is situated in a location where avoidance of impacts may not be feasible. However, this site comprises a single small boulder, for which the removal of and appropriate display (eg. in an Aboriginal community cultural centre or keeping place or at the UCML office) may serve educational benefits. Hence, salvage is warranted and would serve to adequately mitigate the impacts of the project. Alternatively, unmitigated impact may be feasible were it to be supported by the Aboriginal stakeholders.
The grinding groove site (ID# 416) is of moderate significance (although the broader groove/artefact scatter complex, ID# 65, is of high significance) but is also situated in a location where avoidance of impacts may not be feasible. In order to mitigate the impacts of the project, removal of the sandstone slab hosting the grooves, with its appropriate display (eg. in an Aboriginal community cultural centre or keeping place or at the UCML office) would serve educational benefits and reduce the impacts of the project. Alternatively, unmitigated impact may be feasible were it to be supported by the Aboriginal stakeholders.
Most (86%) of the open artefact sites are of low significance. Many are small, isolated or relate to recordings in the early 1980s, and relocation of this evidence would be problematic. Hence, unmitigated impact is a feasible strategy for many of these sites. Surface collection of several sites (eg. ID# 70, 71, 405, 407, 415, 417, 418, 419 and 424) may assist to mitigate impacts and address locally relevant research issues, particularly relating to the procurement and management of tuff. Surface collection may also be warranted for site ID# 1386, of low to moderate significance, if impacts cannot be avoided. However, as this site is located on the margin of the open cut study area, impacts may be avoided during detailed design.
Several open artefact sites of low significance (ID# 62, 63 and 64) are located in areas previously surveyed by Haglund, but not resurveyed during the current investigation (refer to Figure 7.3). These small portions of the open cut study area require survey using a methodology consistent with the current investigation and any sites identified (only anticipated to be open artefact occurrences) managed according to procedures identified in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 221 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 For the open artefact sites of moderate or higher significance, along with several sites of lower significance that form part of the broader ID# 65 site complex, additional mitigation measures are warranted, assuming that avoidance of impacts is not feasible. Impacts to the ID# 65 site complex, of high significance, including the smaller recorded loci of ID# 421-423, could be mitigated through the conduct of surface collections and surface scrapes, with the localised hand excavation of any features of significance identified during the scrapes. The potential methodology is discussed in Section 12.2.8. Similarly, the impacts of the project would be mitigated by the conduct of similar measures at ID# 411.
For the tuff lithic procurement sites ID# 400 and 412, both of moderate to high significance, and ID# 1394 of moderate significance, surface collection and hand excavation are warranted to mitigate the impacts of the project. The potential methodology is discussed in Section 12.2.8.
After implementation of these mitigation and management measures, the effects of the open cut mining project on Aboriginal heritage would be reduced, educational and cultural benefits would arise from retrieval and display of evidence, and scientific benefits would arise through salvage and analysis of evidence with respect to locally relevant research questions (refer to Section 12.2.8).
12.2.2 Management of Small-Scale High Level Impacts
Until detailed design of surface infrastructure, essential services and other facilities is completed, it is problematic to assess the potential impacts and therefore the most appropriate management strategies. These impacts may be limited to small discrete areas (eg. exploratory drilling, ventilation shafts, service boreholes, man riding shafts and dewatering bores) or narrow linear corridors (eg. conveyors, water pipelines and power lines). Approximately 53 known sites may be subject to impacts, the levels of which may vary in relation to the nature and extent of each site and the nature of the proposed works (refer to Section 11.1, Figure 7.4 and Appendices 4 and B11).
Management strategies for individual sites are outlined in Appendix 4. In almost every case, reassessment of the potential impacts is required once detailed design plans are available. Where impacts would be avoided, appropriate protective measures may be required to ensure that inadvertent impacts do not occur during construction (refer to Section 12.2.8).
As identified in Appendix 4, in a number of cases the sites are of low significance and only portions may be affected by the proposed works, in which case unmitigated impact is a feasible strategy. For the ochre quarry (ID# 158) site of high significance, all impacts should be avoided. For the grinding groove site (ID# 519), although of low significance, consideration is warranted during detailed design to ensure that impacts are avoided if feasible. The four rock shelters with PADs (ID# 1011, 1012, 1194 and 1195) are all of low significance, and although consideration is warranted during detailed design to ensure that impacts are avoided if feasible, unmitigated impact is an alternative strategy.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 222 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Most (74%) of the open artefact sites are of low significance. A number of these are very small and in some cases relocation of this evidence would be problematic. For many of these sites, unmitigated impact may be feasible. For several open artefact sites of low or low to moderate significance, if it becomes apparent after detailed design that impacts cannot be avoided, surface collection may be warranted (eg. ID# 270, 371, 372, 456, 556, 602, 606 and 1386). Several sites also relate to the previous surveys by Haglund, but were not resurveyed during the current investigation, generally due to property access constraints (eg. ID# 127, 168 and 169) (refer to Figure 7.3). These areas require survey using a methodology consistent with the current investigation and any sites identified (only anticipated to be open artefact occurrences) managed according to procedures identified in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
Avoidance of impacts to ID# 804 of moderate to high significance is warranted. If impacts cannot be avoided to ID# 356 of low to moderate significance, surface collection and potentially salvage excavation may be warranted (depending on the detailed design and extent of impacts). Mitigation measures are also warranted for the cluster of sites around the Mona Creek valley flat, including ID# 791 and 793 of high significance, ID# 796 and 799 of moderate to high significance, and ID# 795 and 800 of low to moderate significance. If impacts cannot be avoided to these sites and the associated environmental contexts of high potential, measures such as surface collection and salvage excavation may assist in mitigating the impacts of the project and addressing locally relevant research issues, particularly relating to occupation models. The potential methodology is discussed in Section 12.2.8.
After implementation of these mitigation and management measures, the effects of the project on Aboriginal heritage would be reduced, and educational, cultural and scientific benefits would derive from the retrieval and analysis of evidence with respect to locally relevant research questions (refer to Section 12.2.8).
12.2.3 Management of Low-High Level Continuing Land-Use Impacts
Continuation of existing land-use practices, mostly relating to the maintenance and use of lightly formed or unformed vehicle tracks or roads, for both mining and rural related purposes, or continuation of existing exploratory drilling, may also result in impacts to Aboriginal heritage evidence within the project area and therefore requires management consideration.
At present, it is apparent that approximately 68 recorded open artefact sites may be subject to impacts from ongoing use or future maintenance of vehicle tracks, and similar works (Table 12.4 and Appendix 4). Unmitigated impact may be an appropriate strategy for 36 of these sites, all of which are of low significance. No action may presently be required for seven sites of low or low to moderate significance (ID# 797, 1306, 1309, 1311, 1314, 1316 and 1317), however if future road upgrades were to occur, surface collection and in the case of ID# 1316 and 1317 close to Old Ulan Village, potentially excavation, may be warranted.
Several sites of moderate to high significance are situated in the Echidna Sill locality and drilling and associated access track works have recently occurred. For these sites (ID# 508, 509 and 510), continued implementation of an existing Section 90 AHIP (#1093252) is necessary, which has involved salvage of artefacts from the impact area, along with avoidance of further impacts. Other sites in the Echidna Sill locality that have been salvaged under the same Section 90 AHIP, ID# 512 of high significance and ID# 506 of moderate to high significance, require implementation of the existing AHIP, avoidance of other impacts (eg. off the designated roads/impact areas), future monitoring and potentially additional collections in future should further road upgrades be required.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 223 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The same Section 90 AHIP is in-force in the Old Ulan Village locality, to enable exploratory drilling and associated use of access tracks and Old Ulan Road. Implementation of the existing AHIP, avoidance of other impacts (eg. off the designated roads/impact areas), future monitoring and potentially additional collections in future should further road upgrades be required, are warranted for ID# 79, 97, 497, 499 and 500 of high significance, 493, 495, 496 and 498 of moderate to high significance, 501 and 502 of moderate significance, and 494 and 504 of low to moderate significance. Old Ulan Road is a key access route and alternatives, such as the construction of a new road, would result in greater impacts to the heritage resource.
For several other artefact sites of between low and moderate significance in the Old Ulan and Echidna Sill areas (ID# 492, 505, 507 and 511), continued implementation of the existing Section 90 AHIP is required in relation to the drilling program, but future action may not be necessary as the sites are not situated along vehicle tracks.
Salvage is also considered to be warranted for sites of between low and moderate significance, ID# 648, 1137 and 1140, where for example less common artefact types and/or a modest range and extent of evidence are present, and salvage would mitigate impacts to the scientific and cultural values of this evidence. This may comprise surface collection of items from the road surface prior to any future maintenance or ongoing use.
In general however, many existing vehicle tracks within the study area were not subject to direct archaeological survey during the current project, due to the operational constraints that would have arisen from the identification of Aboriginal heritage evidence along them. Inspection of these areas using a methodology consistent with the current investigation and management of any sites identified (only anticipated to be open artefact occurrences) in accordance with procedures specified in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan is warranted.
After implementation of these mitigation and management measures, including the present Section 90 AHIP for the Old Ulan and Echidna Sill areas, the effects of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be reduced, and educational, cultural and scientific benefits will derive from the retrieval and analysis of evidence with respect to locally relevant research questions (refer to Section 12.2.8).
12.2.4 Management of Low Level Continuing Land-Use Impacts
Continuation of existing land-use practices, including the use of land by UCML or lessees for pastoral or agricultural purposes, may result in additional impacts to Aboriginal heritage evidence within the project area. Although these impacts are not necessarily directly related to or a component of the Continued Operations project, consideration of their management is warranted.
Provision of relevant information about the nature and the location of such sites to relevant UCML personnel and contractors, and other landowners and users of the land within the project area, is an essential first step. Adequate identification of specific sites on the ground (eg. fencing, stakes and/or signage) may also be warranted, particularly for sites of high significance such as the stone arrangements.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 224 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In circumstances where new works are required, for example fencelines, vehicle tracks, significant vegetation removal, contour banks or farm dams, ongoing implementation of the procedures outlined in the UCML Proposed Works Application/Review form would be crucial in ascertaining whether any identified Aboriginal sites may be subject to impacts. If impacts are identified as potentially arising, either the works can be modified to reduce or avoid the risk of impact, or management strategies as outlined in Appendix 4 for each site could be applied. This may include measures such as surface collection of any sites of moderate or higher significance for which impacts cannot be avoided. Such measures would need to be specified in the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
For many open artefact sites however, the impacts from continuing land use (such as pastoral use) are anticipated to be no different or greater than previous impacts which have occurred over several centuries of non-indigenous occupation. Many sites identified within the study area that may be affected by ongoing low-level land use are of low significance. Substantial conservation areas exist in the region (eg. Goulburn River National Park and Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve) which almost certainly include similar suites of environmental contexts and heritage resources to those present within the study area. As such, the imperative for specific conservation measures for the open artefact sites within the study area in relation to continuing low-level land use is low.
Additional protective measures, such as fencing or signage, may be warranted if there is a risk that livestock or human visitation could damage the deposits of higher significance within the rock shelters. Given the relatively remote physical locations of these shelter sites, it is considered that the risk of impacts from continuing land use is presently very low. Additional protective measures may also be warranted for other sites of high significance, particularly the stone arrangements, to ensure that inadvertent impacts do not occur. All such measures would need to be specified in the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
12.2.5 Management of Subsidence Impacts
Approximately 350 sites may be subject to impacts from mining induced subsidence (refer to Section 11.2, Table 11.1, Figure 7.4 and Appendices 4 and B11). Management strategies for individual sites are outlined in Appendix 4.
As outlined in Table 11.1, other than rock shelters, subsidence impacts (>10% probability) are not anticipated to occur to any other sites other than one stone arrangement and four open grinding groove sites.
The stone arrangement site, ID# 1286, is assessed as having a 20% risk of perceptible impacts, although these are considered unlikely to significantly affect the site. Although of high local significance, the arrangement is small and given the relatively low probability of impacts, and its location within the longwall panel (rendering avoidance of impacts problematic), monitoring may represent a suitable strategy for this site.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 225 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Impacts to the grinding groove site ID# 363 will primarily occur through mining under the current approval and a Section 90 AHIP (#1101386) has been granted for this site. Monitoring may be warranted to identify if additional impacts arise from mining of the adjacent panel within the current project area. ID# 526 is assessed as being of moderate to high significance, however due to its position within the longwall panel, avoidance of impacts would be problematic. Monitoring of any potential impacts at this site (refer to Section 12.2.8) and establishment of two offsetting grinding groove conservation areas (ID# 323 and ID# 1074- 1076; refer to Figure 12.2) would serve to mitigate the possible impacts of the project on this site. ID# 1161 and 1210 are assessed as being of low significance, and on this basis, with establishment of the offsetting conservation areas, monitoring may be the only measure warranted.
As identified in Section 11.2 and Tables 11.1 and 12.5, subsidence will have the greatest impact on rock shelter sites. Three key strategies can be implemented to mitigate the effects of subsidence: avoidance of impact and establishment of a conservation area, further investigation and salvage, and monitoring.
Through establishment of the 58 hectare Brokenback Conservation Area (refer to Figure 12.1 and Table 12.6 and Section 12.2.6) subsidence impacts can be avoided to a total of 27 rock shelter sites, comprising one rock shelter with art, one rock shelter with art and artefacts, one rock shelter with grinding grooves, nine rock shelters with artefacts and 15 rock shelters with PADs. Most importantly, these conserved sites would include six (ID# 194, 195, 196, 197, 907 and 908) of the 11 sites of high significance that would have been susceptible to impacts, four (ID# 192, 193, 901 and 906) of the 17 sites of moderate to high significance that would have been susceptible to impacts, and three (ID# 917, 935 and 944) of the 25 sites of moderate significance that would have been susceptible to impacts (Table 12.6). The conservation area would also include a rock shelter with grinding grooves and artefacts of moderate significance (ID# 198) and a rock shelter with art of moderate to high significance (ID# 937), that were unlikely to be affected by subsidence.
Other important rock shelter sites within the UCML project area will not be subject to impacts from the project, including:
A cluster of at least eight rock shelters with artefacts adjacent to Mona Creek, including sites ID# 180-187 (Mona Creek 23-30) (refer to Figure 3.5);
At least three rock shelters (two with artefacts and one with art and artefacts), including sites ID# 160-162 (Cockabutta Creek 18-20) (refer to Figure 3.5); and
Various rock shelter sites within the previously undermined longwall panels, that were not affected by subsidence.
Measures will be required to implement and manage the Brokenback Conservation Area, including revision of the mine plan to ensure subsidence impacts are avoided, formal designation of the conservation area, and ongoing management of the area in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan to ensure that impacts to the heritage resource are avoided or minimised.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 226 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 The second key strategy available to mitigate the impacts of subsidence on rock shelter sites is to further investigate and salvage sites that may be affected. Excluding the sites in the Brokenback Conservation Area, a total of five shelters of high significance, 13 of moderate to high significance, 22 of moderate significance and 37 of low to moderate significance, may be subject to subsidence impacts. In relation to these 77 shelters, a two phase investigation of a representative sample would serve to mitigate potential subsidence impacts and address relevant research questions, particularly those relating to occupation models and the chronology of occupation within the Ulan locality. This may involve:
Selection of a representative sample (from the 77 sites of low to moderate or higher significance that are susceptible to impacts, as listed in Appendix 4), with an attempt to include within each sample sites from different locations in the study area and with different characteristics (eg. size of habitable floor area and PAD, nature of identified evidence and topographic context);
An initial small excavation within the selected sample to identify the nature of deposits and research potential;
On the basis of the initial 'test' excavations, revision of the sample to include one or several sites of each level of significance for further, more detailed mitigation; and
More detailed salvage excavation of this revised sample.
In general, subsidence is not likely to impact directly on most of the grinding grooves located within the rock shelter sites, particularly where the rock formations on which the grooves are located are isolated boulders or small rocks that appear to be disconnected from the main body of the rock mass (eg. ID# 163, 164, 171, 188, 462, 470 and 917). However, where there is potential for rock falls to occur, the rocks on which the grinding grooves are located may be buried under rock fall debris or impacted by the fall of this debris (cf. Mills 2007). Hence, salvage, even if only temporary removal of these relatively small rocks hosting grooves while undermining occurs, may be warranted to negate the potential for impacts to this form of evidence. Grinding grooves that are located on the main body of the rock mass (eg. at ID# 190) may be subject to the same subsidence impacts as the shelter generally, and further action other than monitoring may not be feasible.
The third key strategy with respect to subsidence and rock shelter sites is monitoring. Inspecting and recording the condition of identified rock shelter sites before and after undermining has taken place, in order to identify if any subsidence related impacts have occurred, can assist with refining the modelling involved in assessing potential subsidence impacts and thereby guide future assessments within the locality, and enable documentation of the actual impacts of the project and provide an understanding of the intact heritage resource post-mining (refer to Section 12.2.8).
Implementation of the measures above will assist in offsetting and reducing the potential subsidence impacts of the project, and provide educational and cultural benefits from the retrieval and display of evidence, and scientific benefits through the salvage and analysis of evidence with respect to locally relevant research questions such as the chronology of occupation, stone technology and occupation models (refer to Section 12.2.8).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 227 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Notwithstanding the implementation of these measures, 241 shelters of low significance may be subject to subsidence impacts. Considering the limited potential for these shelters to yield deposits of research value or contribute to a greater understanding of Aboriginal occupation of the locality, along with the inclusion of a sample of these shelters within the Brokenback Conservation Area and in other areas where impacts will not occur, unmitigated impact is a feasible strategy for these shelters. A further 67 shelters of low significance, eight of low to moderate significance, two of moderate significance and two of moderate to high significance that have been identified within the project area are not anticipated to be subject to subsidence impacts (ie. 10% or less probability).
12.2.6 Conservation Areas
A key management strategy outlined above is the modification of the Ulan West mine plan to enable the establishment of a formal conservation area and avoidance of impacts to a number of key rock shelter sites. Through establishment of the 58 hectare Brokenback Conservation Area (as marked on Figure 12.1) subsidence impacts can be avoided to a total of 27 rock shelter sites, as listed in Table 12.6.
In relation to this conservation area, a formal Conservation Management Plan would be required and should include a location plan, description of the Aboriginal sites, and statement of the policies and actions required for the ongoing conservation of the Aboriginal heritage evidence within the conservation area. Procedures will need to be implemented to ensure that inadvertent impacts do not occur to the Aboriginal sites (potentially involving appropriate barriers, signage and staff/contractor awareness training). Some type of formal designation of the conservation area is strongly warranted, such that it will not be affected by any potential future modifications to mine plans.
Three grinding groove sites of high significance, ID# 1074-1076, are located marginally east of the Ulan West underground mine and will not be subject to impacts from the project. Similarly, a significant grinding groove site (ID# 323) is located marginally east of the Ulan No. 3 underground mine and will not be subject to impacts from the project. The establishment of two Grinding Groove Conservation Areas to encompass these sites (as marked on Figure 12.2), involving similar procedures to that noted above, will assist in offsetting the impacts of the project on several other grinding groove sites and ensuring the long-term conservation of this significant evidence.
Other notable sites within the UCML project area and mine lease will not be subject to impacts from the project. The cluster of at least eight rock shelters with artefacts adjacent to Mona Creek, including ID# 180-187 (Mona Creek 23-30), and the three rock shelter sites ID# 160-162 (Cockabutta Creek 18-20), are the most notable areas in which impacts from the current project will be avoided (refer to Figure 3.5).
12.2.7 Further Investigation Required
As identified in Sections 12.2.1-12.2.5 and Appendix 4, further investigation is required of specific Aboriginal sites and zones within the study area, or in relation to certain types of impacts. Specific mitigation and monitoring measures are summarised in Section 12.2.8. Such investigations should only be undertaken by archaeologists qualified and experienced in Aboriginal heritage in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, and should occur prior to any development impacts occurring to those specific areas or sites.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 228 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Four of the five stone arrangement sites (ID# 589, 603, 697 and 700), assessed as being of high significance within a local context and potentially of significance within a regional context, have not been recorded in detail. Although direct impacts are not proposed, given the significance of these sites and need to avoid impacts from continuing land use, detailed recording of this evidence is warranted. This would entail the use of a theodolite or differential GPS to accurately record the location of the stones and produce site plans, to facilitate protection of these sites.
Several larger artefact scatter sites (eg. ID# 1084, 1091, 1092 and 1098) were also not fully recorded during the field investigation. Should any impacts be proposed to those sites, further detailed recording may be warranted.
Approximately 53 sites may be affected by small-scale high impact works, such as surface infrastructure and essential services. These works may occur in small, discrete areas or along narrow, linear corridors. Reassessment of the potential impacts on these sites is generally required, once detailed design plans are available. Subsequent to this assessment, appropriate management strategies can be implemented (refer to Appendix 4).
Due to property access constraints at the time of the survey or revisions to the study area boundaries subsequent to the completion of the survey, approximately 661 hectares or 12% of the overall study area has not been subject to archaeological survey (refer to Figure 7.3 and Appendix B11). This comprises about 604 hectares of the potential subsidence impact area and 57 hectares of the potential surface impact area (all outside of the subsidence impact area). In addition, within the survey areas actually sampled, operational roads (particularly unformed or lightly formed vehicle tracks with heritage potential) were generally not surveyed. Survey is strongly warranted for these areas, prior to any impacts occurring, using the same methodology as for the present investigation in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. Any sites identified can be managed in accordance with procedures specified in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
Vibrations from blasting within the open cut may affect sites that are outside of the current study area, including some areas that have not been subject to archaeological survey. Procedures are required in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to enable future assessment of the potential impact zone from blasting, and survey of any portions of this impact zone that have not been investigated to date in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Any sites identified can then be managed in accordance with procedures specified in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
Additional facilities, such as a pipeline to the Talbragar River, access roads, power easements and other essential services, may also be constructed in future within the project area. As the locations of these works have not yet been determined, they have not necessarily formed part of the study area for this assessment. All such areas will require survey in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Any sites identified can then be managed in accordance with procedures specified in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
Additional exploratory drilling and other minor works involving ground disturbance may occur within the study area in future. Comment is made in the "appropriate management strategy" column in Appendix 4 for each open site, in relation to suitable strategies to address any potential small-scale future impacts that may arise, such as from exploratory drilling.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 229 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In circumstances where new works are required, for example fencelines, vehicle tracks, significant vegetation removal, contour banks or farm dams, ongoing implementation of the procedures outlined in the UCML Proposed Works Application/Review form would be crucial in ascertaining whether any identified Aboriginal sites may be subject to impacts. This would also be applicable for any post-mining subsidence repair works to surface infrastructure, although generally any such repair works are anticipated to be confined to relatively small areas and to locations that already exhibit high levels of ground disturbance due to the existing infrastructure. If impacts are identified as potentially arising, either the works can be modified to reduce or avoid the risk of impact, or management strategies as outlined in Appendix 4 for each site could be applied. This may include measures such as surface collection of any sites of moderate or higher significance for which impacts cannot be avoided. Such measures would need to be specified in the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
Prior to granting a Section 138 approval under the Coal Mines Regulations Act 1982 (NSW) to allow underground mining to proceed, the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) generally requires submission and approval of a Subsidence Management Plan (SMP) application. This requirement is now being enforced through the powers available under Section 239(2) of the NSW Mining Act 1992. The intention of this approval is not to redefine the activities permitted under a Development Approval and Mining Lease, but to assess and ensure appropriate management systems are in place to address potential subsidence related impacts resulting from the approved mining. The SMP applications normally must be prepared in accordance with the DPI (2003) Guidelines for Subsidence Management Approval Applications. Subsequent to the completion of the archaeological survey of the areas susceptible to subsidence impacts for which coverage was not achieved during the present study, it is anticipated that future SMP requirements in relation to Aboriginal heritage will have been fulfilled, and further surveys or consultation will not be required in relation to any SMP requirements.
12.2.8 Mitigation and Monitoring Required
As identified in Sections 12.2.1-12.2.5 and Appendix 4, mitigation and monitoring measures are required for specific Aboriginal sites and zones within the study area, or in relation to certain types of impacts. Such investigations should only be undertaken by archaeologists qualified and experienced in Aboriginal heritage in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, and should occur prior to any development impacts occurring to those specific areas or sites.
Surface collections are warranted for a number of open artefact sites where direct surface impacts may occur. In general, a typical procedure may involve delineation of the area of the site and proposed impacts, followed by systematic collection of artefacts within the area of proposed impact, with artefact locations recorded (eg. by using measurements off baselines, or by collection within a grid such as 5 x 5 metre squares, or by GPS). Generally, each site should be photographed and recorded, a plan prepared with the artefact locations, and the artefacts subject to washing and drying if required, followed by recording and curation.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 230 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Salvage excavation (by hand) is warranted for several open artefact sites (eg. ID# 400 and 412) where direct surface impacts may occur. Broad area hand excavations should be conducted in order to retrieve the evidence that comprises the feature or site in a manner consistent with obtaining maximum possible information to address relevant research aims and mitigate the impacts of the project. In general, this may involve excavation by shovel and trowel of a number of contiguous one square metre units to the depth of the A unit soil/top of B unit soil or visible or predicted cultural deposits. The area required for hand excavation could be expected to vary in relation to the extent of the site, the extent of the area of proposed impacts and the nature of the evidence and research questions. Soil from each excavation unit should be dry or wet-sieved through small (eg. 2.5 mm) mesh. For hearths, the location of any hearth stones should be plotted and samples retrieved for radiometric dating. Generally, each site should be photographed and recorded, a plan prepared with the excavation location, and the artefacts subject to washing and drying if required, followed by recording and curation.
Salvage by surface scrapes and localised hand excavation of any features of significance identified during the scrapes is warranted for several open artefact sites (eg. ID# 65 and 411) where direct surface impacts may occur. Surface scrapes are typically undertaken in order to enable the broader nature of the spatial distribution of evidence to be identified, collection of identified artefacts, and the inspection for, identification of, and salvage prior to development impact of any significant, unexpected or unusual features. In general, a dozer, grader or similar machinery would be used to progressively expose the surface (firstly by removal of vegetation, then by subsequent removal of thin layers of soil [eg. 2-5 centimetres depth]). The scraping would be monitored and after each pass of the machinery, inspection for and collection of any visible artefact evidence would be conducted, with individual artefact positions recorded by measurements off base-lines or by use of a collection grid (eg. 5 x 5 metre squares). Any features of potential significance (eg. in situ hearths or dense artefact clusters representative of activity areas) identified during the surface scrapes would typically be subject to hand excavation, following the salvage excavation procedures identified above, in order to retrieve the evidence that comprises the feature. Generally, each scrape/excavation area should be photographed and recorded, a plan prepared with the scrape location, and any artefacts collected subject to washing and drying if required, followed by recording and curation.
Salvage is warranted for one grinding groove site (ID# 416). This is anticipated to involve removal of the sandstone slab hosting the grooves, with its appropriate display (eg. in an Aboriginal community cultural centre or keeping place or at the UCML office). Temporary removal of the portable rocks hosting grinding grooves in the shelters ID# 163, 164, 171, 188, 462, 470 and 917 prior to undermining is also warranted, to minimise the impacts of the project. The portable rocks/grooves could be temporarily removed to a safe storage area at the UCML office or placed in an open context adjacent to the shelters, prior to undermining, and replaced in their original positions in the shelters after undermining and all subsidence impacts have occurred (anticipated to be approximately six months afterwards).
Salvage is warranted for the waterhole/well site (ID# 1391). This is anticipated to involve removal of the single, small boulder, prior to impacts occurring. The display of this item in an Aboriginal community cultural centre or keeping place or at the UCML office may serve educational benefits.
The mitigation of subsidence impacts to the 77 rock shelter sites of low to moderate or higher significance is anticipated to involve:
Selection of a representative sample (from the 77 sites of low to moderate or higher significance that are susceptible to impacts, as listed in Appendix 4), with an attempt to include within each sample sites from different locations in the study area and with different characteristics (eg. size of habitable floor area and PAD, nature of identified evidence and topographic context, including proximity to potable water);
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 231 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 An initial small excavation within each shelter in the selected sample to identify the nature of deposits, site integrity and research potential. Consideration must be given to the impacts that excavation itself will cause (albeit offset by the impacts anticipated to occur through subsidence), and therefore balance the need to minimise disturbance while retrieving sufficient information to address the project aims. As such, a suitable scope and methodology could involve excavation by hand of a 2 x 1 metre trench within each of the shelters, with each excavation located to the extent possible in a similar position within each shelter (ie. central portion of main habitable floor area, extending from near or at the rear of the shelter towards or across the dripline). In general, the excavation would be undertaken by trowel, in small units (eg. 0.5 x 0.5 metre area) and shallow spits (eg. 0.05 metres depth, within stratigraphic levels) to the depth of the cultural deposits. Soil from each excavation unit would be dry sieved through small (eg. 2.5 mm) mesh, with soil samples retained for analysis. For hearth or fireplace features, the location of any hearth stones would be plotted and samples retrieved for radiometric dating. Generally, each site would be photographed and recorded, a plan prepared with the excavation location, and the artefacts subject to washing and drying if required, followed by recording and curation;
On the basis of the initial 'test' excavations, the shelter sample could be revised to include one or several sites of each level of significance for further, more detailed salvage excavation, to mitigate the overall impacts of the project on this type of evidence; and
More detailed salvage excavation could occur for this revised sample, using a similar methodology as outlined above for the 'test' excavations, but involving samples of a larger proportion of each rock shelter. The excavation area could be expected to vary in relation to the potential subsidence impacts, extent of the habitable floor area and PAD, nature of the evidence, and the spatial area and quantity of data required to address relevant research questions and thereby successfully mitigate the impacts of the project.
All heritage evidence salvaged under the approval will need to be curated in an appropriate manner. The means of curation will be resolved in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC during formulation of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan. A number of options are available and various views have been expressed to date by the registered stakeholders (refer to Section 8.2 and Table 8.1). Options include:
Reburial of items after recording and analysis, for example those salvaged from rock shelter sites within each rock shelter, or those collected from open artefact sites along roads as close as possible to their original positions but adjacent to the impact area;
Reburial of items after recording and analysis at a different location to which they were retrieved, for example within the Brokenback Conservation Area; and/or
Storage and display of items with appropriate interpretative material to realise educational and cultural awareness benefits, for example at the UCML mine office, or an Aboriginal stakeholder organisation office or keeping place, or at a specifically built keeping place/educational facility within the mine lease.
An application will be required to DECC under Section 85A of the NP&W Act ("Care Agreement") for the curation of any salvaged items that are removed from any site. Provisions will also need to be included in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to allow for the temporary storage of items at locations off the mine site (for example, during analysis and recording).
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 232 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 As a complementary measure to any displays of salvaged evidence, an educational video presentation may be warranted to showcase the heritage resources and cultural background of the study area, and UCML's management of those resources in consultation with the Aboriginal community.
All heritage mitigation and monitoring measures undertaken for the project will need to be adequately documented. Such documentation is anticipated to include the preparation of report(s) consistent with the DECC Aboriginal Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (1997), project approval and conditions of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan, and provision of those reports to relevant stakeholders (such as DECC and the Aboriginal community) within appropriate timeframes.
The heritage mitigation measures undertaken for the project, apart from mitigating the impacts of the project on scientific and cultural values, should also seek where possible to contribute to an improved understanding of Aboriginal occupation of the Ulan locality. This can be achieved through the use of appropriate methods and the analysis of the data obtained to address relevant research questions, particularly those relating to occupation models, stone working technology, stone material procurement and use, and the chronology of occupation within the Ulan locality. The rock shelter excavations are anticipated to be of high value in refining the occupation model (refer to Sections 5.1 and 7.7). However, further detailed analysis of the comprehensive data obtained during the current survey assessment, the most detailed and comprehensive heritage assessment undertaken to date within the region (refer to Section 7.8), would also be of benefit in examining issues such as site and artefact distribution and occupation models.
Monitoring of subsidence impacts is warranted for a number of rock shelter sites and open grinding groove sites, along with one stone arrangement site (refer to Appendix 4). This is anticipated to comprise inspection and recording of the condition of these sites after undermining has taken place, and comparison with the condition prior to undermining, to identify any subsidence impacts. The detailed site recordings undertaken during the present assessment are assumed to be generally sufficient for baseline data. Fresh cracking or rock fall should generally be readily identifiable during post-subsidence monitoring. Monitoring will assist with refining the modelling involved in assessing potential subsidence impacts and thereby guide future assessments within the locality. It will also enable documentation of the actual impacts of the project and provide an understanding of the heritage resource left intact post-mining.
UCML maintains an Aboriginal Site Database that lists known Aboriginal sites within the Ulan lease areas and some adjacent areas (typically areas that have been subject to archaeological surveys in relation to UCML projects). The current version of the UCML Aboriginal Site Database at the completion of this project is Revision 10. An important element of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan will be the continued maintenance of this site database, in both tabular and GIS form. Site records will also need to be lodged in a timely manner with DECC for any previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage evidence that is identified within the project area during the course of operations and further heritage assessments.
Where impacts are to be avoided to identified heritage sites, but occur within close proximity, appropriate site-specific precautionary measures, such as informing relevant staff and contractors of the nature and location of the items and need to avoid impacts, along with temporary protective fencing and signage, may be warranted.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 233 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 In general, heritage awareness training is also warranted for all staff and contractors prior to undertaking any tasks on site that may give rise to any interactions with Aboriginal heritage. Such training may include the presentation of information about the Aboriginal culture and history of the locality, nature of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage evidence within the project area, heritage management measures and legal obligations. As requested by the Aboriginal stakeholders, such awareness training could be extended to all mine staff and contractors, regardless of their specific interactions on site with heritage.
Provisions will also need to be included in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to guide the management of any previously unrecorded sites or different forms of heritage evidence within the project area (for example, skeletal remains), in lieu of a Section 90 AHIP. This may include temporary protection, longer-term conservation or avoidance of impacts, mitigation, monitoring or unmitigated impact. Strategies will vary in relation to the nature of the evidence, its significance and the nature of the proposed impacts.
Provisions will need to be included in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to enable the assessment of any future alterations that may be proposed to the mine plan. This may include assessment of the potential impacts on Aboriginal sites and formulation of management strategies in consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders.
As requested by the Aboriginal stakeholders, provisions will need to be included in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan to ensure that Aboriginal community representatives are permitted access to the Conservation Areas or other identified sites when requested, with consideration of safety and operational requirements at the time.
Reassessment of the predictive model (refer to Section 7.9) indicated that generally a widespread but low to very low density distribution of artefact evidence is expected across virtually all landform units of the study area, apart from in areas which have been substantially impacted by recent land-use. However, a higher artefact density and potentially deposits of research significance may occur where more focused occupation and/or repeated Aboriginal occupation has occurred. Such contexts, anticipated to comprise the low gradient valleys in proximity of higher order (eg. fourth order) watercourses, occupy only a very small portion of the study area (eg. the higher order portions of Mona Creek, Ulan Creek's 'Valley Way' tributary and Ulan Creek's 'Old Ulan Village' tributary). Although the discussion throughout Section 12 focuses on the identified resource, justifiably so in the context of the comprehensive survey coverage, the potential artefact resource will also require consideration in the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan in relation to any future extensive surface impacts that may be proposed. The management strategies for the identified sites (refer to Appendix 4) are sufficient at present to address the known probable impacts of the project on the potential artefact resource.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 234 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 13. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Aboriginal heritage assessment reported herein has been commissioned in relation to the Part 3A Major Project application lodged by UCML for the Ulan Coal - Continued Operations project.
A total of 1,005 Aboriginal heritage sites and rock shelters with PADs have been recorded within the study area/potential impact area (Figure 7.4). In the absence of appropriate management and mitigation measures, it is concluded that the impacts of the project on Aboriginal heritage will be high within a local context, but relatively low within a regional context.
The following management and mitigation measures are proposed, with consideration of legal requirements under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the results of the survey and consultation with the local Aboriginal community:
Provisions relating to Aboriginal heritage will be included in an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (AHMP) for the project. These provisions will be formulated in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC and specify the policies and actions required to manage the potential impacts of the proposal on Aboriginal heritage after Part 3A approval is granted. The AHMP will comprise detail that, subject to Part 3A project approval, will guide management of the Aboriginal heritage resource in lieu of a Section 90 Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit. The primary elements of the AHMP are outlined below:
x Management strategies for individual sites as outlined in Appendix 4 will be implemented;
x The Brokenback Conservation Area will be established (as marked on Figure 12.1) and managed in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan formulated in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. The Plan will include a location plan, description of the Aboriginal sites, and statement of the policies and actions required for the ongoing conservation of the Aboriginal heritage evidence within the conservation area. Procedures will be implemented to ensure that inadvertent impacts do not occur to the Aboriginal sites (potentially involving appropriate barriers, signage and staff/contractor awareness training). Formal designation of the conservation area will occur, such that it will not be affected by any potential future modifications to mine plans;
x Two Grinding Groove Conservation Areas will be established (as marked on Figure 12.2) to firstly encompass ID# 1074-1076 and secondly encompass ID# 323. These areas will be managed in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan formulated in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. The Plan will include a location plan, description of the Aboriginal sites, and statement of the policies and actions required for the ongoing conservation of the Aboriginal heritage evidence within the conservation areas. Procedures will be implemented to ensure that inadvertent impacts do not occur to the Aboriginal sites (potentially involving appropriate barriers, signage and staff/contractor awareness training). Formal designation of the conservation areas will occur, such that it will not be affected by any potential future modifications to mine plans;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 235 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 x Impacts under the project will be avoided to the Mona Creek 23-30 rock shelter sites (ID# 180-187) and the Cockabutta Creek 18-20 sites (ID# 160-162). Detailed recording of the evidence within these locations will be conducted and consideration given to the implementation of formal conservation management plans for these areas, where UCML retains ownership or control of the land;
x Where impacts will be avoided to identified heritage evidence, appropriate site-specific precautionary measures, such as informing relevant staff and contractors of the nature and location of the items and need to avoid impacts, potentially along with temporary protective fencing and signage, will be implemented for those sites within close proximity of the area of works;
x As a general principle, all relevant contractors and staff engaged on the project who are undertaking tasks on site that may give rise to any interactions with Aboriginal heritage will receive heritage awareness training prior to commencing work on-site. The training package will be formulated in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and include, but not be limited to, the presentation of information about the Aboriginal culture and history of the locality, nature of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage evidence within the project area, heritage management measures, and legal obligations. Cultural awareness training will be extended to all mine staff and contractors regardless of their specific interactions on site with heritage, to broaden general awareness and understanding of Aboriginal culture and heritage;
x The UCML Aboriginal Site Database will continue to be maintained and regularly updated, in both tabular and GIS form, and printed copies made available to the registered Aboriginal stakeholders upon request;
x Site records will be lodged in a timely manner with DECC for any previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage evidence that is identified within the project area during the course of operations and further heritage assessments;
x Further investigation will occur for specific heritage sites or areas as identified in Appendix 4 and Section 12.2.7, including: - Detailed recording of the stone arrangements (ID# 589, 603, 697 and 700) to facilitate their protection; - Detailed recording of larger artefact scatter sites (for example ID# 1084, 1091, 1092 and 1098) that were not fully recorded during the current investigation, should any future impacts be proposed to those sites; - Review of the potential impacts on sites that may be affected by small-scale high impact works, such as surface infrastructure and essential services, once detailed design plans are available. Subsequent to this assessment, management strategies can be implemented as outlined in Appendix 4; - Implementation of procedures outlined in the UCML Proposed Works Application/Review form followed by implementation of management strategies outlined in Appendix 4 should any small-scale impacts be proposed in future, such as those associated with additional exploratory drilling, other minor works involving ground disturbance, other works such as fencelines, vehicle tracks, significant vegetation removal, contour banks or farm dams, or any post-mining subsidence repair works to surface infrastructure;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 236 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 - Archaeological survey of all potential impact areas that could not be sampled during the present investigation, currently totalling about 604 hectares for the potential subsidence impact area and 57 hectares for the potential surface impact area (outside of the subsidence impact area) (refer to Figure 7.3 and Appendix B11). The survey will be conducted in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Subsequent to the survey, management strategies can be implemented as outlined in the AHMP for previously unrecorded sites; - Archaeological survey of those unformed or lightly formed vehicle tracks with heritage potential that could not be sampled during the present investigation. The survey will be conducted in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Subsequent to the survey, management strategies can be implemented as outlined in the AHMP for previously unrecorded sites; - Identification of the zone of impact of blasting associated with the open cut operations, and archaeological survey of those areas that were not sampled during the present investigation. The survey will be conducted in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Subsequent to the survey, management strategies can be implemented as outlined in the AHMP for previously unrecorded sites; and - Archaeological survey of all additional facilities that may be designed in future (excluding works within totally modified areas), such as the pipeline to the Talbragar River, access roads, power easements and other essential services, but have not been sampled during the present investigation. The survey will be conducted in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders using the same methodology as for the present investigation, prior to any impacts occurring. Subsequent to the survey, management strategies can be implemented as outlined in the AHMP for previously unrecorded sites;
x In order to mitigate the impacts of the project on scientific and cultural values and to retrieve and conserve samples of the heritage evidence, mitigation measures will be implemented prior to any impacts occurring to the specified sites and areas, as outlined in Appendix 4 for individual sites and in Section 12.2.8, including: - Salvage of the waterhole/well site (ID# 1391) and open grinding groove site (ID# 416); - Temporary removal of the portable rocks hosting grinding grooves in the shelters ID# 163, 164, 171, 188, 462, 470 and 917 prior to undermining, with these rocks being replaced in or as close as possible to their original positions in the shelters after subsidence impacts have occurred; - Salvage of stone artefacts by systematic surface collection from the open artefact sites specified in Appendix 4, involving procedures outlined in Section 12.2.8; - Salvage by broad-area hand excavation of the open artefact sites specified in Appendix 4 (for example ID# 400 and 412), involving procedures outlined in Section 12.2.8; - Salvage by mechanical surface scrapes, and localised hand excavation of any features of significance identified during the scrapes, of the open artefact sites specified in Appendix 4 (for example ID# 65 and 411), involving procedures outlined in Section 12.2.8; and
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 237 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 - Mitigation of subsidence impacts to the 77 rock shelter sites of low to moderate or higher significance that are susceptible to impacts, as listed in Appendix 4, through a four stage process as outlined in Section 12.2.8: 1) Selection of a representative sample from the 77 sites; 2) An initial small excavation in each shelter within the selected sample to identify the nature of deposits and research potential; 3) On the basis of the initial 'test' excavations, revision of the sample to include one or several sites of each level of significance for further, more detailed salvage excavation, to mitigate the overall impacts of the project on this type of evidence; and 4) More detailed salvage excavation of this revised sample;
x All heritage mitigation and monitoring measures undertaken for the project will be adequately documented. Report(s) will be prepared consistent with the DECC Aboriginal Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (1997), project approval and AHMP, and provided to relevant stakeholders (such as DECC and the Aboriginal community) within appropriate timeframes;
x All heritage evidence salvaged under the approval will be curated in an appropriate manner, as determined in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DECC during preparation of the AHMP. An application will be made to DECC under Section 85A of the NP&W Act for the curation of any salvaged items that are removed from any heritage site. Temporary storage of items at locations off the mine site (for example, during analysis and recording) will be allowed;
x An educational video will be produced to showcase the heritage resources and cultural background of the study area, and UCML's management of those resources and interactions with the Aboriginal community, in consulation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders;
x Provisions will be included to guide the assessment of any future alterations that may be proposed to the mine plan. This will include an assessment of the potential impacts of any changes on the heritage resource, and formulation of management strategies in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders;
x Provisions will be included to guide the management of any previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage sites within the project area, in lieu of a Section 90 AHIP. Management provisions will vary in relation to the nature of any evidence identified, its significance and the nature of the proposed impacts, and may include temporary protection, longer-term conservation or avoidance of impacts, mitigation, monitoring or unmitigated impact;
x Should any skeletal remains be detected during the course of development, work in that location will cease immediately and the finds will be reported to the appropriate authorities, including the Police, DECC and registered Aboriginal stakeholders. Subject to the Police requiring no further involvement, if project impacts cannot be avoided, any Aboriginal skeletal remains identified will be retrieved by hand excavation and reburied outside of the impact zone at a location agreed to by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders;
x Provisions will be included to ensure that Aboriginal community representatives are permitted access to the Conservation Areas or other identified sites in the UCML lease area when requested, in consideration of safety and operational requirements at the time;
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 238 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 x Archaeological investigations will only be undertaken by archaeologists qualified and experienced in Aboriginal heritage, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders, and occur prior to any development impacts occurring to those specific areas or sites;
x The registered Aboriginal stakeholders will be afforded the opportunity to be involved in any archaeological field studies as per the DECC (2004) Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants policy;
x Monitoring of subsidence impacts will be conducted for a number of rock shelter sites and open grinding groove sites, along with one stone arrangement site, as specified in Appendix 4. This will comprise inspection and recording of the condition of these sites after undermining has taken place, and comparison with the condition recorded prior to undermining to identify any subsidence impacts, with the information used to guide future assessments and document the actual impacts of the project;
x The AHMP will be regularly verified to establish that it is functioning as designed (ie. policies adhered to and actions implemented) to the standard required. This will involve review of the plan to identify the degree to which the policy objectives are being met, the suitability of the actions in terms of addressing the policy objectives, the quality of performance of the actions, and any additional policies or actions or modifications to existing policies or actions that may be required to enable better functioning of the plan;
Under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 it is an offence to knowingly destroy, damage or deface an Aboriginal object without obtaining the prior written permission of the Director-General of DECC. Therefore, no activities or work should be undertaken within the Aboriginal site areas as described in this report, in the absence of a valid Section 90 Consent or in lieu, Part 3A approval;
Single copies of this final report should be forwarded to the registered Aboriginal stakeholders; and
Three copies of this final report should be forwarded to: Manager, North West Branch Planning and Aboriginal Heritage Section Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) PO Box 2111 Dubbo NSW 2830.
After implementation of these management and mitigation measures, it is concluded that the risk of residual impacts to Aboriginal heritage from the proposal will be moderate within a local context and very low within a regional context.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 239 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 REFERENCES
Attenbrow, V.J. 1987 The Upper Mangrove Creek Catchment: A Study of Quantitative Changes in the Archaeological Record. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.
Boismier, W. A. 1991 The role of research design in surface collection: an example from Broom Hill, Braishfield, Hampshire. In, A. J. Schofield (ed) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxbow Monograph 4. Oxbow Books: Oxford.
Burless, J. K. 1997 The Wiradjuri: A Preliminary Study (Draft Version). Unpublished report to Haglund & Associates.
Camilli, E. 1989 The occupational history of sites and the interpretation of prehistoric technological systems: an example from Cedar Mesa, Utah. In, Torrence, R. (ed) Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Clayton, I. and Barlow, A. 1997 Wiradjuri of the Rivers and Plains. Heinemann Library.
Connell Wagner 1995 Ulan Coal Mines Limited - Heritage Management Plan. Report to UCML.
Corkill, T. 1991 Survey for Aboriginal Archaeological Sites at Ulan Colliery, New South Wales: Proposed Overland Conveyor and ‘Creek Site’ Development. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Cubis, L. 1981 Archaeological Survey of the Beryl to Ulan 132 kV Electricity Transmission Line. Unpublished report.
Dean-Jones, P. and Mitchell, P. B. 1993 Hunter Valley Aboriginal Sites Assessment Project: Environmental Modelling for Archaeological Site Potential in the Central Lowlands of the Hunter Valley. Unpublished report to NPWS.
DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change, formerly NPWS) 1997 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards and Guidelines. NPWS: Sydney.
DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change, formerly NPWS) 2003a Lost But Not Forgotten: A Guide to Methods of Identifying Aboriginal Unmarked Graves. NSW NPWS: Sydney.
DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change, formerly NPWS) 2003b Goulburn River National Park and Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve Plan of Management. NPWS: Sydney.
DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change, formerly NPWS) 2004 Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants. DECC: Sydney.
DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change, formerly NPWS) 2005 Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation. DECC: Sydney.
DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) 2009a Guide to Determining and Issuing Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits. DECC: Sydney.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 240 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 DECC (Department of Environment and Climate Change) 2009b Operational Policy: Protecting Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. DECC: Sydney.
DoP (Department of Planning) 2007 Major Project Assessment, Moolarben Coal Project: Director General's Environmental Assessment Report. Department of Planning: Sydney.
DPI (NSW Department of Primary Industries) 2003 Guideline for Applications for Subsidence Management Approvals. Report by NSW Department of Mineral Resources.
Dunnell, R. and Dancy, W. 1983 Siteless survey: A regional scale data collection strategy. In, M. Schiffer (ed) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 6. Academic Press: New York.
Edgar, J. 1997 Survey for Aboriginal Archaeological Sites at Ulan Coal Mines Limited, NSW: Proposed Longwalls 13-17 and Service Corridor (Revised Version). Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Etheridge, R. 1918 The Dendroglyphs or ‘Carved Trees’ of NSW. NSW Govt. Printer, Sydney.
Foley, R. 1981 A model of regional archaeological structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47:1-17.
Fox, T. 1996a Ulan Coal Mine - Aboriginal Consultancy - Terry Fox Report No. 1 - 16 June 1996. Unpublished report to UCML.
Fox, T. 1996b Draft Report No. 2 - Discussions with Murong Gialinga, Soldiers Club, Mudgee; 18 June 1996, Meeting No. 2. Unpublished report to UCML.
Godden Mackay Pty Ltd 1992 Old Ulan Conservation Study. Unpublished report to Connell Wagner Pty Ltd.
Gollan, K. 1992 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study: Northeast Forests New South Wales. Unpublished report to NPWS.
Goulding, M. 2002 Cultural Places, Contested Spaces: An Approach to Managing Aboriginal Peoples' Attachments to Landscape, Coffs Harbour Region Cultural Heritage Study Stage 2. Report to NSW NPWS.
Gresser, P. J. 1961 Stone Arrangements of the Aborigines of the Bathurst District. MS 21/7, AIATSIS: Canberra.
Gresser, P. J. 1965 Old Aboriginal Campsites, Stone Arrangements, etc. Dubbo, N.S.W. MS 21/22, AIATSIS: Canberra.
Haglund, L. 1980 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Coal Mining Area at Ulan, NSW. Unpublished report to Longworth and McKenzie Pty Ltd.
Haglund, L. 1980b Preliminary Survey to Assess Archaeological Resources in the Area of the Proposed Kerrabee Dam. Unpublished report to NSW NPWS.
Haglund, L. 1981a Archaeological Survey and Sampling at the Site of the Ulan Coal Mine, Ulan, NSW. Unpublished report to Longworth and McKenzie Pty Ltd.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 241 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Haglund, L. 1981b Ulan Coal Mine: Archaeological Investigations in Connection with Proposed Changes in Development Plans. Unpublished report to Kinhill Engineers Pty Ltd.
Haglund, L. 1981c Archaeological Investigations in the Area of the Proposed Kerrabee Dam. Unpublished report to NSW NPWS.
Haglund, L. 1985 Assessment of the Prehistoric Heritage in Mudgee Shire. Unpublished report to Mudgee Shire Council
Haglund, L. 1992 Sample Surveys in Relation to Proposed Mine Extension in the Ulan Area, NSW. Unpublished report to Connell Wagner Pty Ltd.
Haglund, L. 1996a Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: NPWS Site 36-3- 177, Ulan Heritage Identifier 116. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Haglund, L. 1996b Archaeological Inspection and Monitoring of Track and Drill Site East of Ulan Creek, 9/10/1996 and 15/10/1996. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Haglund, L. 1996c Summary Report on Preliminary Survey for Aboriginal Sites in the Spring Gully Area, West of Cassilis Road, Ulan, NSW. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Haglund, L. 1997 Re: Ulan Open Cut Mine: Trench Through Proposed Highwall Zone 3: Aboriginal Heritage Aspects. Clarification of Report of 18.5.97 in Response to Comments from the NPWS. Unpublished report to UCML.
Haglund, L. 1999a Ulan Coal Mines Second Longwall Project Environmental Impact Statement (Expanded Version): Preliminary Survey for Aboriginal Sites, Parts I-III. Unpublished report to Kinhill Engineers Pty Ltd.
Haglund, L. 1999b Addendum (Archaeological Aspects) to: Ulan Coal Mines Second Longwall Project Environmental Impact Statement (Expanded Version). Unpublished report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Haglund, L. 1999c Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: Archaeological Review and Inspection in Relation to Potential High Wall Mining - Areas West and North-west of Trench A. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Haglund, L. 1999d Report on Aboriginal Heritage Studies Relating to SEPP No. 34 Application by Ulan Coal Mines Pty Ltd. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited (draft 1998).
Haglund, L. 2001a Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: Site SG5, Aboriginal Rock Shelter Site, in Compliance with Requirements Under NPWS Consent #1002. Volume 1. Overview. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Haglund, L. 2001b Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: Site SG5, Aboriginal Rock Shelter Site, in Compliance with Requirements Under NPWS Consent #1002. Volume II1. Executive Summary (Plain English). Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Hall, R. 1991 Far East Gippsland Archaeological Survey. Unpublished report to Victoria Archaeological Survey.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 242 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Hall, R. 1992 A Predictive Archaeological Assessment of Crown-Timber Lands in the Glen Innes Management Area. Unpublished report to NSW Forestry Commission.
Hall, R. and Lomax, K. 1993 Grafton Management Area Supplementary Report - Archaeological Report. Unpublished report to NSW Forestry Commission.
Hamm, G. 2006a Moolarben Coal Project - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. Unpublished report to Moolarben Coal Mines Pty Limited.
Hamm, G. 2006b Responses to Issues Raised in Respect of the Moolarben Coal Project Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. Unpublished report to Moolarben Coal Mines Pty Limited.
Hamm, G. 2008a Aboriginal Heritage Plan for MCP Stage 1 Development Areas: Open Cut 1 and Main Infrastructure Area. Unpublished report to Moolarben Coal Mines Pty Limited.
Hamm, G. 2008b Moolarben Coal Project - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Stage 2. Unpublished report to Moolarben Coal Mines Pty Limited.
Heritage Office 1996 Regional Histories of New South Wales. Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning: Canberra.
Hiscock, P. 1984 An Analysis of the Prehistoric Stone Working Technology Represented at Sites 5, 12 and 13 at Redbank Creek, United Collieries Coal Lease, Hunter Valley, NSW. Unpublished report to Anutech Pty Ltd for United Collieries Pty Ltd.
Hiscock, P. 1985 Data Recorded on Artefacts in Square AA at Sandy Hollow 1. Unpublished report to ANUTECH Pty Ltd.
Hiscock, P. 1986 Technological Change in the Hunter River valley and the Interpretation of Late Holocene Change in Australia. Archaeology in Oceania. 21: 40-50.
Hiscock, P. 1994 Technological responses to risk in Holocene Australia. Journal of World Prehistory. 8: 267-292.
Hiscock, P. and Attenbrow, V. 1998 Early Holocene Backed Artefacts from Australia, Archaeology in Oceania 33:49-62.
Hiscock, P. and Mitchell, S. 1993 Stone Artefact Quarries and Reduction Sites in Australia: Towards a Type Profile. AGPS: Canberra.
Horton, D. 1994 Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
Horton, D. 2000 Map of Australia Showing the Names of Tribal/Language Groups that Traditionally Occupied that Area as Documented in The Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia. AIATSIS: Acton, ACT.
Howitt, A. W. 1904 [2001] The Native Tribes of South-East Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.
Kamminga, J. 1980 A functional investigation of Australian microliths. The Artefact 5 (1):1- 18.
Koettig, M. 1989 Test Excavations at Portion 147 Pokolbin, Near Cessnock. Unpublished report to the McInnes Group.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 243 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Koettig, M. 1994 Bulga Lease Authorisation 219 Salvage Excavations. Volumes 1-5. Unpublished report to Saxonvale Coal Pty Ltd.
Kuskie, P. J. 2000a An Assessment of Two Aboriginal Grinding Groove Sites at Ulan Coal Mine, Central Tablelands, New South Wales. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Ltd.
Kuskie, P. J. 2000b An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Mount Arthur North Coal Mine, Near Muswellbrook, Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Report to URS (Australia) Pty Limited.
Kuskie, P. 2002 An Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Basalt Quarry Within Mining Lease 1468, Ulan Coal Mine, Central Tablelands, New South Wales. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Kuskie, P. 2004 Proposed Open Cut Mine Extension, Additional Infrastructure and Consolidation of Consents at Ulan Coal Mine, New South Wales: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume 2 (Working Draft). Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Kuskie, P. J. 2005 Sub-Surface Archaeological Investigation of Stages 2-4 of "The Dairy", a Proposed Residential Development at Dolphin Point, Near Burrill Lake,on the South Coast of New South Wales. Volumes A & B. Unpublished report to Elderslie Property Investments Pty Ltd on behalf of Dolphins Point Developments Pty Ltd and Dolphin Point Properties Pty Ltd.
Kuskie, P. 2007 Ulan West Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Unpublished report to Umwelt (Australia Pty Ltd) on behalf of Ulan Coal Mines Ltd.
Kuskie, P. 2008 Ulan Coal Mines Limited - Project Waratah: Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Unpublished report to Umwelt (Australia Pty Ltd) on behalf of Ulan Coal Mines Ltd.
Kuskie, P and Clarke, E. 2003 Proposed Open Cut Mine Extension, Additional Infrastructure and Consolidation of Consents at Ulan Coal Mine, New South Wales: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Volume 1). Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Kuskie, P. and Clarke, E. 2004 Salvage of Aboriginal Heritage Sites in the Mount Arthur North Coal Mine Lease, Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Volumes A-C. Unpublished report to BHP Billiton.
Kuskie, P. and Clarke, E. 2005a Proposed Open Cut Mine Extension and Additional Infrastructure at Ulan Coal Mine, New South Wales: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Kuskie, P. and Clarke, E. 2005b Archaeological Survey of Aboriginal Heritage Within SMP Application Area (Longwall Panels 23-26 and W1) of Mining Lease 1468, Ulan Coal Mine, Central Tablelands, New South Wales. Volumes A & B. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Kuskie, P and Clarke, E. 2007 Archaeological Survey of Aboriginal Heritage Within SMP Application Area (Longwall Panels W2-W3) of Mining Lease 1468, Ulan Coal Mine, Central Tablelands, New South Wales: Volumes A & B. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 244 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Kuskie, P. and Clarke, E. in prep. An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment of the Proposed Western Open Cut Extension at Ulan Coal Mine, Near Mudgee, New South Wales. Unpublished report to Umwelt Australia on behalf of Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Kuskie, P. and Donlon, D. 2003 Traditional Aboriginal Burial at Mount Arthur North, Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Unpublished report to Mount Arthur North Project and Wonnarua Elders.
Kuskie, P. and Ingram, C. 2008 Sub-Surface Archaeological Investigation of Lots 463 and 464 DP 870019, Lot 64 DP 651132 and Lot 469 DP 881116, Raymond Terrace Road, Thornton North, Lower Hunter Valley, New South Wales, in Relation to a Proposed Residential Development. Unpublished report to Clarendon Residential Group Pty Ltd.
Kuskie, P.J. and Kamminga, J. 2000 Salvage of Aboriginal Archaeological Sites in Relation to the F3 Freeway near Lenaghans Drive, Black Hill, New South Wales. Volumes 1-3. Unpublished report to NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (Major Projects, Newcastle).
Kuskie, P. and Webster, V. 2001 Archaeological Survey of Aboriginal Heritage Within Longwall Panels 18-22, Mining Leases 1468 and 1341, Ulan Coal Mine, Central Tablelands, New South Wales. Volumes 1 and 2. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Langford-Smith, T. (ed) 1978 Silcrete in Australia. Department of Geography, University of New England: Armidale.
Mathews, R. H. 1894 Some stone implements used by the Aborigines of New South Wales. Journal and Proceedings of Royal Society of New South Wales (28):301-305.
McBryde, I. M. 1985 Backed blade industries from the Graman rock shelters: Some evidence on function. In V. N. Misra and P. Bellwood (eds), Recent Advances in Indo-Pacific Prehistory. Oxford & IBH Publishing: Bombay.
McDonald, J. 1994 Dreamtime Superhighway: An Analysis of the Sydney Basin Rock Art and Prehistoric Information Exchange. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
McDonald, R. C., Isbell, R. F., Speight, J. G., Walker, J. and Hopkins, M. S. 1984 Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook. Inkata Press: Melbourne.
Miller, J. 1985 Koori: A Will to Win: The Heroic Resistance, Survival and Triumph of Black Australia. Angus & Robertson: Sydney.
Mills, K. W. 1996 Subsidence Assessment of Archaeological Sites Above Longwalls 13-17 at Ulan Mine. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Mills, K. W. 1997 Assessment for Surface Subsidence Effects - MLA80 at Ulan Coal Mines. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Mills, K. W. 1999 Specific Subsidence Assessment for Archaeological Sites in MLA80. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Mills, K. W. 2005 Subsidence Assessment for Longwalls 23-26 and Longwall W1 at Ulan Coal Mine. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 245 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Mills, K. W. 2007 Subsidence Assessment for Longwalls W2 and W3 at Ulan Coal Mine. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Mills, K. W. 2009 Part 3A Subsidence Assessment Ulan Coal Continuing Operations. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Moolarben Coal Mines Pty Ltd 2008 Moolarben Coal Project Stage 2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment. Report to Department of Planning.
Moore, D. R. 1970 Results of an Archaeological Survey of the Hunter River Valley, New South Wales, Australia. Records of the Australian Museum, 28(2): 25-64.
Moore, D. R. 1981 Results of an Archaeological Survey of the Hunter River Valley, New South Wales, Australia. Part II. Records of the Australian Museum. 33: 388-442.
Mulvaney, D.J. and Kamminga, J. 1999 Prehistory of Australia. Allen and Unwin: Sydney.
Murphy, B. W. and Lewis. J. W. 1998 Soil Landscapes of the Dubbo 1:250,000 Sheet (Dubbo, Wellington, Gulgong, Mudgee). Dept. of Land and Water Conservation Research Centre, Cowra, NSW.
Navin, K. T. 1990 Greenfields Heritage Study: Broke, Ulan and Gunnedah, Aboriginal Cultural Resource Component. Unpublished report to Roslyn Muston & Associates for The Electricity Commission of NSW.
Navin Officer 2005 Wilpinjong Coal Project Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished report to Wilpinjong Coal Pty Ltd.
OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management Pty Ltd 2005 Indigenous and Non- Indigenous Heritage Assessment: Wollar - Wellington 330kV Electricity Transmission Line. Unpublished report to International Environmental Consultants and Transgrid.
Packard, P. 1991 Sites and Sampling in the South East Forests: Research Design, Sampling Methodologies and Sample Selection for a Proposed Site Survey Project. Unpublished report to NPWS and NSW Forestry Commission.
Packard, P. 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of State Forests in the Kempsey and Wauchope Forestry Management Areas. Unpublished report to NSW Forestry Commission.
Peabody (Wilpinjong Coal Mine) 2008 Wilpinjong Coal Mine Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan and North Eastern Wiradjuri Cultural Heritage Management Plan. Unpublished report.
Pearson, M. 1981 Seen Through Different Eyes: Changing Land Use and Settlement Patterns in the Upper Macquarie River Region of NSW from Prehistoric Times to 1860. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Sydney University.
Peterson, N. 1976 Tribes and Boundaries in Australia. AIAS: Canberra.
Purcell, P. 2002 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment: NSW Western Regional Assessments, Brigalow Belt South Bioregion (Stage 2). Unpublished report to Resource and Conservation Assessment Council.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 246 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 Rich, E. 1993 Proposed Bengalla Coal Mine, Muswellbrook NSW: Archaeological Survey for Aboriginal Sites. Unpublished report to Envirosciences Pty Ltd and Bengalla Joint Venture.
Roberts, B. 1974 Chimney in the Forest. The Mudgee Guardian.
Smith, C. 1993 An Archaeological Investigation of the Urbenville Management Area, North- Eastern New South Wales. Unpublished report to NSW Forestry Commission.
Sokoloff, B. 1977 Aboriginal prehistory: Interpretation of artefacts. Hunter Natural History 9:19-26.
Stead, R. 1987 Towards a Classification of Australian Aboriginal Stone Arrangements: An Investigation of Methodological Problems with a Gazatteer of Selected Sites. Unpublished BA (Honours) Thesis, Australian National University: Canberra.
Summerfield, M.A. 1983 Silcrete. In A. S. Goudie and K. Pye (eds), Chemical sediments and geomorphology: Precipitates and residua in near-surface environments. Academic Press, London,
Therin, M. 2000 Spring Gully 5 Salvage Excavation Use-wear and Residue Report. In, Haglund, L. 2001a Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: Site SG5, Aboriginal Rock Shelter Site, in Compliance with Requirements Under NPWS Consent #1002. Volume 1. Overview. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Thompson, K. 1985 A History of the Aboriginal People of East Gippsland. Unpublished report to Land Conservation Council, Victoria.
Tindale, N.B. 1974 Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. ANU: Canberra.
Turner, J. and Blyton, G. 1995 The Aboriginals of Lake Macquarie: A Brief History. Lake Macquarie City Council: Speers Point.
UCML (Ulan Coal Mines Ltd) 2007 Heritage Management Plan. Unpublished report.
WES (Wells Environmental Services) 2006 Moolarben Coal Project Environmental Assessment Report.
White, E. 2001a Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: Site SG5, Aboriginal Rock Shelter Site, in Compliance with Requirements Under NPWS Consent #1002. Volume II: Stone Artefact Analysis. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
White, E. 2001b A comment on the stone artefact assemblage from squares E7 and E8 at site SG5, Ulan, NSW. In, Haglund, L. 2001a Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: Site SG5, Aboriginal Rock Shelter Site, in Compliance with Requirements Under NPWS Consent #1002. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Witter, D. 1992 Regions and Resources. Unpublished PhD Thesis, RSPacS, Australian National University.
Witter, D. 1994 Volume Index and Stone Tool Economic Classes in Haglund, L. (1996a) Salvage Excavation Completed for Ulan Coal Mines Ltd: NPWS Site 36-3-177, Ulan Heritage Identifier 116. Unpublished report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 247 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The consultant wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the following people:
Jamie Lees, Phil English, Cheryl Holden and staff, Ulan Coal Mines Ltd;
Barbara Crossley, Rod Williams, Meaghan Russell and staff, Umwelt (Australia) Pty Ltd;
Ken Mills, SCT Operations Pty Ltd;
Maria Cotter, Richard Whyte, Sheridan Ledger, Paul Houston, Sharlene Freeburn, Shannon Freeburn and David Gordon, Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW;
Members of the Warrabinga Native Title Claimants Aboriginal Corporation, North East Wiradjuri, Murong Gialinga Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation, Wiradjuri Council of Elders and Mudgee Local Aboriginal Land Council, including but not limited to Dennis Barber, Rod Barber, Corey Birch, Brion Booth, Ronnie Booth, Rob Clegg, Chantelle Davey, Martin de Launey, Lavinia Flick, Nathan Flick, Debbie Foley, Larry Foley, Kathleen Franklin, Flo Grant, Wayne Howden, Ben Howell, Tony Kennedy, Glen Lane, John Lewis, Wendy Lewis, Aleisha Lonsdale, Christine Maynard, David Maynard, Lola McConnell, Shane Menzies, Geoff Murray, Warranha Ngumbaay, Jasmine Oakenfull, Heather Porter, Julie Pumpa, Jan Stewart, Emma Syme, Lyn Syme, Todd Verrills, Abbi Whillock, Kelli Whillock, Toni Whillock, Kevin Williams, Robyn Williams and Patrick Williams-Davis13; and
Staff of South East Archaeology who assisted with the project including Clare Anderson, Chris Carter, Sue Hudson, Caroline Ingram, Michael Marsh, Helen Selimiotis, Megan Stanford and Lydia Williams.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained within this report is based on sources believed to be reliable. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy by using the best possible data and standards available. The accuracy of information generated during the course of this field investigation is the responsibility of the consultant.
However, as no independent verification is necessarily available, South East Archaeology provides no guarantee that the base data (DECC AHIMS) or information from informants (obtained in previous studies or during the course of this investigation) is necessarily correct, and accepts no responsibility for any resultant errors contained therein and any damage or loss which may follow to any person or party. Nevertheless this study has been completed to the highest professional standards.
13 Aboriginal persons listed here may have represented and/or be members of one or more of the named organisations during the Continued Operations project.
Ulan Coal Continued Operations: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment - Volume A 248 South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2009