129 Marys Mount Road

Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment 129 MARYS MOUNT ROAD

MARCH 2017

suite 1, 216 carp st (po box 470) bega nsw 2550 australia t (02) 6492 8333 www.nghenvironmental.com.au e [email protected] unit 18, level 3, 21 mary st suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st (po box 5464) surry hills nsw 2010 australia wagga wagga nsw 2650 australia t (02) 8202 8333 t (02) 6971 9696

unit 17, 27 yallourn st (po box 62) 35 morrisset st (po box 434) fyshwick act 2609 australia bathurst nsw 2795 australia t (02) 6280 5053 0448 820 748

Document Verification Project Title: 129 Marys Mount Road

Project Number: 16-059 Project File Name: 16-059 Marys Mount Rd Due Dil v1 Revision Date Prepared by (name) Reviewed by (name) Approved by (name) Draft 16/03/17 Kirsten Bradley Matthew Barber Matthew Barber

NGH Environmental prints all documents on environmentally sustainable paper including paper made from bagasse (a by- product of sugar production) or recycled paper.

NGH Environmental Pty Ltd (ACN: 124 444 622. ABN: 31 124 444 622) and NGH Environmental (Heritage) Pty Ltd (ACN: 603 938 549. ABN: 62 603 938 549) are part of the NGH Environmental Group of Companies.

unit 17, 27 yallourn st (po box 62) 35 morrisset st (po box 434) fyshwick act 2609 australia bathurst nsw 2795 australia t (02) 6280 5053 0448 820 748

Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT ...... I FIELD ASSESSMENT ...... I IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION...... I RECOMMENDATIONS ...... II 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ...... 1 1.2 FORMAT OF THIS REPORT ...... 1 2 GROUND DISTURBANCE ...... 4 3 REGISTER SEARCH AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT ...... 4 3.1 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ...... 5 4 IMPACT AVOIDANCE ...... 9 5 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT AND VISUAL INSPECTION ...... 9 6 FURTHER ASSESSMENT ...... 15 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 15 8 REFERENCES ...... 17

TABLES

Table 1 Breakdown of previously recorded Aboriginal sites in the region...... 4

Table 2 Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity of landforms in Goulburn (AMBS 2010:25)...... 6

FIGURES

Figure 1. General project location...... 2

Figure 2. Project location...... 3

Figure 3. AHIMS sites...... 5

Figure 4. Areas of Aboriginal heritage sensitivity near Goulburn mapped by AMBS (2012:33)...... 8

Figure 5. Field survey results, sites and PADs...... 14

16-059 Draft i Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

PLATES

Plate 1. View north-west up slope to house...... 10

Plate 2. View south of cut near the house and shed...... 10

Plate 3. View east from slope up to house...... 10

Plate 4. View north across PAD 1 towards the house...... 10

Plate 5. View west with Marys Mount IF1 at range pole looking down the slope ...... 12

Plate 6. Marys Mount IF1...... 12

Plate 7. View north with Marys Mount IF1 at range pole looking up to the hill crest at the shed...... 12

Plate 8. View south-west across PAD 2...... 12

Plate 9. View south from the centre of PAD 3...... 12

Plate 10. View south in woodland area along access track...... 12

Plate 11. View of east of outcropping in north-west of the project area towards dam...... 13

Plate 12. View south from the north-western boundary...... 13

Plate 13. View south of exposure near fence line and gate...... 13

Plate 14. View east from the south-western boundary adjacent to Marys Mount Rd...... 13

16-059 Draft ii Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AHIMS Aboriginal heritage information management system Km kilometres LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council M Metres NPW Act National Parks And Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) NSW New South Wales OEH (NSW) Office of Environment and Heritage, formerly Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water PAD Potential Archaeological Deposit REF Review of Environmental Factors

16-059 Draft iii Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT No sites are registered with AHIMS within the proposed project area for the residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 on Marys Mount Road, although 29 sites have been recorded in the general vicinity. An isolated stone artefact and a low density artefact scatter are located within 200m of the project area, with the closest site located 50m to the south-west. Using the predictive model for the Goulburn region as refined by Fuller in 1989 the study area has landforms present which are predicted to have low to medium archaeological sensitivity. The hill crest within the project area is also a sensitive landscape as defined by OEH. This is in accordance with the landscape model provided in the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales which outlines ridge tops and ridge lines have higher potential to contain Aboriginal objects. Given that stone artefacts have been recorded in close proximity to the current assessment area as dispersed surface scatters and isolated finds the project area has potential to contain Aboriginal sites and object.

FIELD ASSESSMENT The field inspection of the project area identified the presence of a single Aboriginal artefact, Marys Mount IF1, along an access track. Three areas of potential archaeological deposit (PAD) were also identified within Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161. Mature trees within the vicinity of the project area were visually inspected and considered not to be culturally modified.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION The field assessment identified the presence of a single Aboriginal artefact Marys Mount IF1 and three areas of PAD. The residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 outside the identified PADs and Marys Mount IF1 is unlikely to impact Aboriginal heritage objects and does not require further assessment for Aboriginal sites and objects. It may be possible for MaxiWealth to redesign the proposed development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 to avoid the site Marys Mount IF1 and the PADs, thus negating the need to conduct further archaeological assessments. If it is not possible to avoid the PADs subsurface investigations, by test pitting, will need to be undertaken to accurately determine the presence, nature, extent and significance of Aboriginal sites and an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA) will be required. Should the subsurface investigation of the PADs identify the presence of Aboriginal sites MaxiWealth will need to obtain an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) from OEH prior to development disturbance. Should Marys Mount IF1 not be able to be avoided by the works, MaxiWealth would need to obtain an AHIP from OEH in order to impact the Aboriginal object. This would require undertaking an ACHA for the project.

16-059 Draft i Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the results of this Due Diligence assessment and an appraisal of the potential for Aboriginal artefacts and sites to occur within the proposed residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 on Marys Mount Road, Goulburn. 1. The proposed development of areas outside the PADs and the site Marys Mount IF1 identified within this report can proceed with caution. A minimum 10m buffer should be placed around the PADs and Aboriginal object on all plans and maps to prevent inadvertent disturbance. 2. For works to proceed in the PAD areas identified MaxiWealth should undertake a program of limited subsurface testing to establish the true archaeological potential and extent of archaeological sites by undertaking an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA). The aims of the testing would be to clarify the presence and extent of any Aboriginal sites within the PADs. If Aboriginal objects were recovered during the testing an AHIP must be obtained from OEH. 3. If Marys Mount IF1 cannot be avoided by the works, MaxiWealth will need to obtain an AHIP from OEH to impact the artefact. 4. To obtain an AHIP, MaxiWealth must undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, under the Guides and Codes of practice provided by OEH, including Aboriginal community consultation. 5. If MaxiWealth redesign the project to avoid the potential for impact to Aboriginal objects by excluding the PADs and Marys Mount IF1, this would avoid the need for further investigation or approval. 6. Any activity proposed outside of the current assessment area should also be subject to an Aboriginal heritage assessment 7. If any items suspected of being Aboriginal in origin are discovered during the work, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and OEH notified. The find will need to be assessed and if found to be an Aboriginal object an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) may be required.

16-059 Draft ii Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

1 INTRODUCTION NGH Environmental was commissioned by MaxiWealth to undertake a Due Diligence level assessment for Aboriginal heritage sites within Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161, on Marys Mount Road, Goulburn, NSW that are proposed for residential development (Figure 1). The area of investigation comprises approximately 41 ha and is situated at 129 Mary Mounts Road, on the northern outskirts of the city of Goulburn (Figure 2). The aim of the assessment is to address concerns raised by OEH prior to finalising the concept design for the residential development of the Lots.

1.1 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS The Due Diligence assessment was carried out by qualified archaeologist Kirsten Bradley of NGH Environmental. This included background research, field inspection and the completion of this report. The Due Diligence process does not formally require consultation with Aboriginal community groups. No Aboriginal groups were contacted for this due diligence level assessment. The area is within the boundaries of the Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council.

1.2 FORMAT OF THIS REPORT This report has been drafted in keeping with the sequence of steps identified in the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s (OEH) Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (OEH 2010). The Code of Practice provides a five step approach to determine if an activity is likely to cause harm to an Aboriginal object, as defined by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974). The steps follow a logical sequence of questions, the answer to each question determines the need for the next step in the process. The progress through the steps in the Code of Practice is aimed at providing an assessment of the potential for an activity to impact either a known Aboriginal object, or whether it is likely that unrecorded Aboriginal objects are present that may be impacted. The result of the process is aimed at providing the proponent with information about the likelihood that their activity will impact an Aboriginal object and whether an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit may be required. Each section below follows the relevant step outlined in the Code of Practice.

16-059 Draft 1 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

Figure 1. General project location.

16-059 Draft 2 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

Figure 2. Project location.

16-059 Draft 3 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

2 GROUND DISTURBANCE Step 1. Will the activity disturb the ground surface or any culturally modified trees? The proposed residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 would involve the following elements:

• Construction of housing; and • Service infrastructure such as roads, power, water and sewerage. It is also likely that landscaping work would be undertaken, each involving use of heavy earthwork machinery. The affirmation that ground disturbance will occur requires the next step in the Due Diligence process.

3 REGISTER SEARCH AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

Step 2a. Search the AHIMS Database and other information sources A search of relevant heritage registers for Aboriginal sites and places provides an indication of the presence of previously recorded sites. A register search is not conclusive however, as it requires that an area has been inspected and any site locations are provided to the relevant body to add to the register. However, as a starting point, the search will indicate whether any sites are known within or adjacent to the investigation area. The Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) is maintained by OEH and provides a database of previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites. A search provides basic information about any sites previously identified within a search area. The results of the search are able to relied upon for 12 months for the purposes of a due diligence level assessment. A search of the AHIMS database of an area approximately 5km east-west by 5km north-south, centred on the area being assessed, was undertaken on the 5th of August 2016. The coordinates for the search area were Lat. Long. from: -34.7435, 149.6954 – Lat. Long to: -34.7046, 149.757 with a buffer of 50 meters. The AHIMS Client Service Number was: 226576. There were 29 Aboriginal sites recorded within this search area and no declared Aboriginal Places. A single site (#51-6-0421) was listed as restricted however OEH confirmed via email correspondence on the 5th of August 2016 to NGH Environmental that the site was mistakenly marked as restricted and have since provided the site card location. Table 1 shows the breakdown of site types and Figure 3 show the location of the AHIMS sites to the project area.

Table 1 Breakdown of previously recorded Aboriginal sites in the region.

Site Type Number Artefacts (1 or more) 26 Modified tree 1 Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) 1 Artefacts (1 or more) and PAD 1 TOTAL 29

16-059 Draft 4 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

It is clear from these search results that the dominant site type in the area is occurrences of stone artefacts. An isolated stone artefact and a low density artefact scatter are within 200m of the project area with the closest site 50m south-west of the current assessment area.

Figure 3. AHIMS sites.

3.1 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES No specific archaeological assessments or surveys have previously occurred within the project area. However, a number of archaeological surveys have occurred within the wider Goulburn area in general proximity to the current assessment area including the survey and test excavation of Lot A/DP 912692 and Lot 11/ DP 912247 south of Mary Mount Road by Ironbark Heritage and Environment (IHE) and Biosis. In 2010 IHE surveyed approximately 18.1 hectares of Lot A/DP 912692 and Lot 11/ DP 912247 south of Mary Mount Road for the development of the Monastery Gardens estate. While the area had been subject to agricultural and grazing practices the close proximity of Wollondilly River and terrain suggested that the area would have been ideal for camping and IHE predicted that the area was likely to contain archaeological material in the form of stone artefacts either as clusters or isolated finds. Two isolated finds (MG5/IF1 and MG5/IF2) and a low density artefact scatter (MG5/1) were recorded during the survey. The artefact scatter (MG5/1) was recorded approximately 50m south-west of the current assessment area that extends south for 115m along a boundary fence. A quartz core and two possible glass scrappers were recorded. The two isolated finds initially identified in 2005 were unable to be relocated during the IHE 2010 survey. IHE recommended that a subsurface testing program be undertaken to establish the archaeological potential and extent of sites in the areas. Following the recommendations of the IHE report (2010) Biosis undertook an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA) for Lot A/DP 912692 and Lot 11/ DP 912247 which included survey and a subsurface

16-059 Draft 5 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road test excavation program in 2013. Two field surveys and test pit excavation programs were conducted. The second program of field work was conducted after the area had been slashed and the ground surface visibility higher, however none of the artefact at the three previously recorded sites (MG5/1, MG5/IF1 and MG5/IF2) were able to be relocated during either survey. A total of 34 test pits were excavated across the valley flats and lower slope landforms. No sub-surface or surface artefacts were recovered. Biosis concluded that the findings indicated that low potential exists across the study area for archaeological cultural sites or deposits. This conforms with the local site model that predicts that the further an area from water the lower the potential for sites. Biosis (2013) concluded that based on the previous identification of surface objects and the absence of any subsurface material from Lot A/DP 912692 and Lot 11/ DP 912247 that it was likely that the general area would consist of small surface scatters without any sub surface deposits. Within the broader Goulburn area, a number of surveys have been undertaken that have resulted in the establishment of a predictive model and Aboriginal site being recorded. The major relevant studies are summarised below. In 1983 Koettig surveyed a 11km corridor for the Goulburn by-pass identifying 22 artefact scatters and 17 isolated artefacts. The sited were all located within 200m of a watercourse and were predominantly located on slopes and creek flats with less numbers on ridges or crest saddles (as cited in IHE 2010 and Biosis 2013). In 1986 Koettig and Lance compiled an Aboriginal resource planning study for Goulburn City Council to identify known or potential areas of archaeological sensitivity and significance in the region. The study identified a number of sensitive landforms in the area with stone artefact scatters on undulating hills and plains on basal slopes adjusted to water the most common site type in the area. The sensitive landscapes identified by Koettig and Lance were later tested and refined by Fuller in 1989 as shown below in Table 2. During the testing of Koettig and Lance’s model Fuller identified 17 artefact scatters, five isolated find and noted that chert and quartz were the dominate raw materials in the area.

Table 2 Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity of landforms in Goulburn (AMBS 2010:25).

Potential Archaeological Sensitivity Landform Koettig and Fuller 1989 Lance 1986

Alluvial flats adjacent to Major Watercourse High High

Undulating hills Lower slopes adjacent to watercourse High High and plains Gently undulating land or plains Not assessed Low

Hills- low (<700m above sea level) Low Medium

Hills-moderate (700-750m above sea level) Low Low

Hills- high (>700m above sea level) Low Low

Hill tops Low Low

Built up area Moderate Moderate

16-059 Draft 6 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

In 1987 Koettig surveyed and conducted test excavations on Lot 2 DP 702730 that comprised of a low ridge crest and upper slopes 750m north of the Mulwarree River. The survey identified 15 isolated finds and an artefact scatter. During subsequent test excavation program of the area 80 additional artefacts were recovered from 20 of the 72 test pits excavated. A concentration of artefacts was noted on the low knoll along the ridge crest with silcrete and quartz artefacts recorded (as cited in IHE 2010). In 1994 EnviroSciences surveyed a sample of the 93ha area proposed for the Goulburn racecourses approximately 2km north-east of the current assessment area. The area comprised undulating plains, flood plains and creek lines. Two isolated finds were identified. In 1995 Silcox surveyed a 2.7km proposed power line route for a radio base at ‘Sunnyside’, approximately 14km southwest of Goulburn. Two artefact scatters and an isolated find were recorded. Site 1 (S1) was an extensive low density artefact scatter on the crest of a low broad spur ridge about 2km west of the Mulwarree River and 100m from a tributary creek line. The majority of the artefacts were quartz with less numbers of silcrete, chert and mudstone (as cited in IHE 2010). In 2003 Navin Officer surveyed 17ha for the proposed Pictura Tourist Complex at Goulburn, approximately 5km south-west of the current assessment area. The area was comprised of a broad spur line, ridge and mid to upper slopes with a creek line bisecting the northern corner of the property. A single low density surface scatter was located over 700m from the water on the upper slopes of a spur (as cited in Biosis 2013). In 2004 Dibden surveyed Greenwich Park proposed subdivision area, northeast of Goulburn. The area comprised of spur crests and side slopes, slope/drainage depression interfaces, ridge crests, ridge side slopes and drainage depressions. A total of 19 sites were recorded consisting of isolated finds and artefact scatters. The dominate lithology recorded was silcrete with lesser numbers of quartz, chert, quartzite and volcanic material. The highest density of artefacts was recorded on spur crests and side slopes (as cited in IHE 2010). In 2005 Archaeo Analysis surveyed approximately 2,800 hectares of Tarlo Station approximately 15km north-east of Goulburn recording 21 artefact scatters, two isolated artefacts and six historic sites. A total of 1100 artefacts were noted in the 23 artefact sites recorded with the dominant lithology in the area quartz with lesser amounts of silcrete, chert, volcanic and quartzite. Archaeo Analysis recorded 372 artefacts in detail with flakes, broken flakes and cores the most common typologies recorded. The largest and most diverse site recorded by Archaeo Analysis was located on a sandy rise on a river flat however other larger sites were also found some distance from water that tend to be associated with crests, spurs and ridges. A diverse array of artefact types was also recorded during the survey including seven backed artefacts, 15 retouched artefacts, an edge ground axe and a large anvil stone (Archaeo Analysis 2005). In 2012 Australian Museum Business Services (AMBS) conducted an Aboriginal Heritage Study for the entire Goulburn Mulwaree LGA to aid in the future management of sites. The study continued on from those undertaken by Koettig and Lance (1986) and Fuller (1989) and supported the predictive model refined by Fuller with sites noted to generally occur in close proximity to water, in elevated areas and with suitable underlying geology or mature vegetation. The current assessment area was mapped by AMBS as having potential for Aboriginal artefacts as show on Figure 4 below.

16-059 Draft 7 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

Figure 4. Areas of Aboriginal heritage sensitivity near Goulburn mapped by AMBS (2012:33). Based on a review of the results of archaeological surveys, assessments and landscape modelling of the Goulburn area, it is reasonable to predict that sites in the project area would likely share similar attributes and characteristics with those previously identified in the surrounding area. Based on the reviewed reports and predictive modelling, the key attribute taken into consideration to develop the predictive model was that areas of archaeological sensitivity will occur in association with water sources and along crests, spurs and ridges. Step 2b. Are there undisturbed landscape features likely to contain Aboriginal objects? As outlined above, Aboriginal heritage sites have been recorded in close proximity to the current assessment area. The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales also outlines a range of landscape features that have higher potential to contain Aboriginal objects. It is necessary to consider whether there are landscape features of undisturbed land that may contain Aboriginal objects. These include land that is:

• within 200m of water,

• located within a sand dune system,

• located on a ridge top, ridge line or headland,

• located within 200m below or above a cliff face, or

• within 20m of a cave, rock shelter or cave mouth. The north-eastern portion of the proposed residential development is situated on a hill crest that is a sensitive landscape as defined by OEH and likely to have the highest archaeological sensitivity in the project area. The general Goulburn area has been shown to contain stone artefacts as isolated finds or clusters

16-059 Draft 8 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road and there is also potential that modified trees may occur in the Box Gum woodland in the south-eastern portion of the project area. Using the predictive model for the Goulburn region as refined by Fuller in 1989 the study area has landforms present which are predicted to have low to moderate archaeological sensitivity. Therefore, the desktop and landscape assessment of the proposed residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 indicate that there are landscapes present that have the potential to contain Aboriginal sites. The next step in the OEH due diligence process, a field inspection, is therefore required.

4 IMPACT AVOIDANCE Step 3. Can any AHIMS listed objects, or landscape features be avoided? The area proposed for residential development is unlikely to be able to be revised to avoid such low to moderate archaeological sensitive landscapes as described by Fuller. The desktop assessment alone is not sufficient to conclusively appraise the archaeological potential of the landscape or the location of any sites, the next step in the process, a visual inspection, must be conducted to properly appraise the presence and potential for Aboriginal sites to occur.

5 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT AND VISUAL INSPECTION Step 4. Does the desktop assessment and visual inspection confirm that there are likely to be Aboriginal objects present or below the ground surface? The assessment process is primarily a desktop exercise, using available information such as the AHIMS search results and relevant archaeological reports that have been previously completed in the area. Visual inspection is also required where undisturbed landscape features are present that may contain sites. A visual inspection of the project area was undertaken on the 10th of November 2016. The inspection was carried out by qualified archaeologist, Kirsten Bradley. The following provides a summary of the landscape and project area in relation to the archaeological potential for Aboriginal objects to occur. The project area is located on the rural-urban interface on the north side of Goulburn approximately 1.3km north of the Wollondilly River. The project area consists primarily of a grazing property on low hills with low to moderate slopes at around 680 metres elevation. The property is largely cleared, with a patch of woodland on the slope of a low ridge in the southeast of the block. Existing developments in the project area include an access track, dams, fences, sheds and a residential dwelling. The visibility within the project area was generally poor with dense grass cover however, a number of exposures were present throughout that were visually inspected. The soil across the project area was a reddish brown fine sandy loam. Several backfilled pits, possibly geotechnical test pits, were located across the project area. These pits were inspected with no evidence of cultural material identified. The project area can largely be divided into three sections, north-eastern hill top and slopes, south-eastern woodland and western low slopes and valley flats. These areas are described below and shown in Figure 5.

North-eastern hill top and slopes The north-eastern portion of the project area consists primarily of a hill crest and slopes. Most of the hill crest has been extensively disturbed by the construction of the house and its associated infrastructure. The house dwelling appears to have been built up from the crest on fill material. A number of sheds, cuttings

16-059 Draft 9 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road and a remnant brick structure were also identified across the slope to the north of the house with piles of bricks and metal also observed. The cuts, exposing a shale bedrock, were examined for any evidence of sub-surface cultural deposits but none were found. The north-eastern portion of the project area was examined and criss-crossed by pedestrian transects during the survey and any exposures examined during the survey for evidence of Aboriginal objects. Ground cover and visibility varied with an average visibility of less than 5%. The ridge crest landform was noted to have higher archaeological potential but no Aboriginal objects were identified during the survey. This may have been the result of low visibility which may have prevented the detection of any surface stone artefacts. An area of potential archaeological deposit (PAD), recorded as PAD 1, was identified on an undisturbed portion of the hill crest as it would have been a desirable area were Aboriginal people may have camped due to the flat topography. PAD 1 measures 100m in length by 30 m in width and was identified on the level surface of the hill crest that appears to be undisturbed. Visibility within the area of PAD 1 was less than 5% with a dense thick grass cover. PAD 1 would require subsurface testing to establish the archaeological potential and extent of sites along this landform. The remaining area of the hill crest, outside the PAD area, was deemed to have negligible potential to contain Aboriginal objects due to the level of disturbance and the presence of the house structure over the majority of the crest. The steep slopes (ranging from 20-35 degrees) in the project area were not conducive for Aboriginal camping and were deemed to have negligible potential to contain Aboriginal objects.

Plate 1. View north-west up slope to house. Plate 2. View south of cut near the house and shed.

Plate 3. View east from slope up to house. Plate 4. View north across PAD 1 towards the house.

16-059 Draft 10 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

South-eastern woodland The south-eastern woodland portion of the project area consists primarily of Box Gum woodlands on a slope, with an access track that runs from Marys Mount Rd to the house. General visibility in this portion of the project area varied. Visibility along the access track was estimated to be 70% and a number of exposures were scattered consistently throughout the woodlands, offering areas of up to 80% visibility. Overall, the survey averaged 25% visibility. This portion of the project area was examined and criss-crossed by pedestrian transects during the survey and any areas of exposures and mature tress examined. The trees were predominantly native species of Eucalypts. For a tree to have been a mature specimen suitable for bark extraction at the time Aboriginal people were last practicing tradition ways, the tree would have to be a native species and over 100 years old. A number of the trees were deemed to be too young for Aboriginal modification. While it was evident that there were scars present on a number of the native trees present, the scarring on those trees was considered to be natural as they did not to conform in any way to the standard scarring morphology accepted for Aboriginal modification and therefore were deemed not to be cultural (cf. Long 2005). A single artefact, designated Marys Mount IF1, consisting of a chert flake was located along the edge of the access track on an upper slope adjacent to a hill crest. The artefact measured 45mm in length, 32mm in width and 13mm in thickness and was noted as having possible retouch. The hill crest adjacent to the artefact is located outside the current assessment area and has a shed built on it. Seams of exposed shale bedrock were observed approximately 10m west of the artefact down the slope in a cutting. Visibility within the area of the artefact was 70% but no other Aboriginal objects were identified within the area. A broad flat saddle between two ridge crests was recorded in the south-eastern corner of the project as PAD 2. Saddles in the area have been identified to have potential for archaeological deposits as they would have been a desirable transitional pathway across the area were Aboriginal people may have camped. Visibility in the saddle was less the 5% and no surface artefacts were identified. This area of PAD measures 90m in length by 50m in width. PAD 2 would require subsurface testing to establish the archaeological potential and extent of any sites along this landform. Another broad flat area was recorded on a low basal slope as PAD 3. Elevated flat areas have potential for archaeological deposit as they would have been a desirable camping area for Aboriginal people. The topographic feature had less than 5% visibility and no surface artefacts were identified. The area of PAD measures 100m in length by 40m in width and was identified on the level surface of a low basal slope in an otherwise undulating landscape with a slope (25 degrees) rising to the east. PAD 3 would require subsurface testing to establish the archaeological potential and extent of any sites along this landform. The remaining south-eastern woodland area, outside the areas of PAD and site Marys Mount IF1, were deemed to have negligible potential to contain Aboriginal objects as the steep slopes (25-40 degrees) were not conducive for Aboriginal camping.

16-059 Draft 11 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

Plate 5. View west with Marys Mount IF1 at range Plate 6. Marys Mount IF1. pole looking down the slope

Plate 7. View north with Marys Mount IF1 at range Plate 8. View south-west across PAD 2. pole looking up to the hill crest at the shed.

Plate 9. View south from the centre of PAD 3. Plate 10. View south in woodland area along access track.

16-059 Draft 12 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

Western low slopes and valley flats The western portion of the project area consists of low slopes and valley flats. Three farm dams and associated drainage channels have been constructed/excavated in the area. The western portion of the project area was examined and criss-crossed by pedestrian transects during the survey and any exposures examined. Ground cover and visibility varied with an average visibility of less than 5% with a dense grass cover. Any exposed areas around the fence lines, gates, tracks and the dams, including cuts and spoil heaps, were inspected for cultural material. No Aboriginal objects were identified. A granite outcrop was noted in the north that extended over to a hill crest beyond the northern project boundary. The outcrops in the project area were visually inspected with no evidence of quarrying or Aboriginal objects identified. Given the recent results of Biosis (2013) testing of similar landscapes on the southern side of Marys Mount Road the low slopes and valley flats of the project area was deemed to have negligible potential to contain Aboriginal objects.

Plate 11. View of east of outcropping in north-west of Plate 12. View south from the north-western the project area towards dam. boundary.

Plate 13. View south of exposure near fence line and Plate 14. View east from the south-western gate. boundary adjacent to Marys Mount Rd.

16-059 Draft 13 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

Figure 5. Field survey results, sites and PADs.

16-059 Draft 14 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

6 FURTHER ASSESSMENT Step 5. Is further investigation or impact assessment required? The Due Diligence Code of Practice states that if, after the desktop research and visual inspection is completed, it is evident that harm will occur to Aboriginal objects or heritage places then further and more detailed assessment is required. However, if the research and inspection conclude that there are no, or unlikely to be any objects impacted by the proposed activity, then the activity can proceed with caution. The field assessment identified the presence of a single Aboriginal artefact Marys Mount IF1 and three areas of PAD. The residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 outside the areas of PAD and Marys Mount IF1 are unlikely to impact Aboriginal heritage objects and does not require further assessment for Aboriginal sites and objects. It may be possible for to MaxiWealth to redesign the proposed development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 and avoid the site Marys Mount IF1 and the PADs, thus negating the need to conduct further archaeological assessments. To ensure that no Aboriginal objects are impacted during the proposed works and so that the project could proceed with caution without further archaeological assessment a minimum buffer of 10 meters will need to be placed around the identified Aboriginal object and the PAD areas. If it is not possible to avoid the PADs, subsurface investigations by test pitting will need to be undertaken to accurately determine the presence, nature and extent of Aboriginal sites and an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA) will be required. Should the subsurface investigation of the PADs identify the presence of Aboriginal sites MaxiWealth will need to obtain an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) from OEH. Should Marys Mount IF1 not be able to be avoided by the works, MaxiWealth would need to obtain an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit from OEH in order to impact the Aboriginal object. This would require undertaking an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA) for the project.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the results of this Due Diligence assessment and an appraisal of the potential for Aboriginal artefacts and sites to occur within the proposed residential development of Lot 26/ DP650291 and Lot 1/DP920161 on Marys Mount Road, Goulburn. 1. The proposed development of areas outside the PADs and the site Marys Mount IF1 identified within this report can proceed with caution. A minimum 10m buffer should be placed around the PADs and Aboriginal object on all plans and maps to prevent inadvertent disturbance. 2. For works to proceed in the PAD areas identified MaxiWealth should undertake a program of limited subsurface testing to establish the true archaeological potential and extent of archaeological sites by undertaking an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA). The aims of the testing would be to clarify the presence and extent of any Aboriginal sites within the PADs. If Aboriginal objects were recovered during the testing an AHIP must be obtained from OEH. 3. If Marys Mount IF1 cannot be avoided by the works, MaxiWealth will need to obtain an AHIP from OEH to impact the artefact.

16-059 Draft 15 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

4. To obtain an AHIP, MaxiWealth must undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, under the Guides and Codes of practice provided by OEH, including Aboriginal community consultation. 5. If MaxiWealth redesign the project to avoid the potential for impact to Aboriginal objects by excluding the PADs and Marys Mount IF1, this would avoid the need for further investigation or approval. 6. Any activity proposed outside of the current assessment area should also be subject to an Aboriginal heritage assessment 7. If any items suspected of being Aboriginal in origin are discovered during the work, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and OEH notified. The find will need to be assessed and if found to be an Aboriginal object an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) may be required.

16-059 Draft 16 Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence 129 Marys Mount Road

8 REFERENCES Australian Museum Business Services (AMBS) 2012 Goulburn Mulwaree LGA Aboriginal Heritage Study. Report prepared for the Goulburn Mulwaree Council Archaeo Analysis 2005 A Cultural Heritage Survey of a Proposed Subdivision of “Tarlo” Lot 2 DP212922 and Pt Lot 193 DP 750048, near Goulburn, NSW. Report prepared for J. MacPhillamy and Laterals Planning Pty Ltd. Biosis 2013 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Marys Mount Road Residential Development, Goulburn, NSW. Report prepared for MHL Pty Ltd. Envirosciences Pty Ltd 1994 Archaeological Survey Proposed Goulburn Racecourse Kenmore. Report prepared for Public Works. Fuller, N. 1989. Goulburn City – An Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Site Location. Report prepared for the Goulburn City Council. Ironbark Heritage and Environment 2010 Archaeological Investigation of Lot A DP912692 and Lot 11 DP912247, Mary’s Mount Road Goulburn. Report prepared for Binda Group Pty Ltd and Laterals Planning Pty Ltd. Koettig, M. and Lance, A. 1986 An Aboriginal Resources Planning Study for the city of Goulburn, NSW. Report prepared for the Goulburn City Council. OEH 2010 Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales.

16-059 Draft 17