QR National Hexham Train Support Facility
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ADW Johnson Pty Ltd QR National Hexham Train Support Facility LGA: Newcastle Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment August 2012 McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd P.O. Box 166, Adamstown, NSW, 2289 Ph: 0412 702 396 Fax: 02 4952 5501 Email: [email protected] Report No: J12034 Approved by: Penny McCardle Position: Project Manager Signed: Date: August 2012 This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH), ACN: 104 590 141, ABN: 89 104 590 141, and ADW Johnson Pty Ltd. The report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and specific times and conditions specified herein. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn ADW Johnson Pty Ltd. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by ADW Johnson Pty Ltd and MCH accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties. CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 PROPONENT DETAILS 1 1.3 STUDY AREA & HOW IT IS DEFINED 1 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 1.5 DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT 2 1.6 LEGISLATIVE PROJECT FRAMEWORK 2 1.7 PURPOSE OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT 3 1.9 PROJECT BRIEF/SCOPE OF WORKS 3 1.10 STATUTORY CONTROLS 3 1.11 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATOR 5 1.12 REPORT STRUCTURE 5 2 CONSULTATION 2.1 STAGE 1: NOTIFICATION OF PROJECT PROPOSAL & REGISTRATION OF INTEREST 6 2.2 STAGE 2: PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT 8 2.3 STAGE 3: GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 9 2.4 SURVEY 10 2.5 STAGE 4: REVIEW OF DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 10 2.6 SITE MEETING 11 2.7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE ADEQUACY REVIEW 11 3 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT 3.1 INTRODUCTION 12 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY 12 3.3 GEOLOGY 13 3.4 GEOMORPHOLOGY 13 3.4.1 HEXHAM SWAMP GEOMORPHOLOGY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR OCCUPATION 17 3.5 SOILS 18 3.6 CLIMATE 18 3.7 WATERWAYS 19 3.8 FLORA AND FAUNA 19 3.9 PAST LAND USES AND DISTURBANCES 20 3.10 NATURAL DISTURBANCES 21 3.11 DISCUSSION 23 CONTENTS 4 ETHNO-HISTORIC & CULTURAL BACKGROUND 4.1 USING ETHNO-HISTORIC DATA 24 4.2 AWABAKAL ETHNO-HISTORIC ACCOUNTS 24 4.3 THE PEOPLE OF HEXHAM SWAMP 26 4.4 AWABAKAL CONTEMPORARY CULTURAL ACCOUNTS 27 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 5.1 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 28 5.1.1 DISCUSSION 30 5.2 OEH ABORIGINAL HERITAGE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 31 5.3 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 31 5.4 LOCAL & REGIONAL CHARACTER OF ABORIGINAL LAND USE & ITS MATERIAL TRACES 67 5.5 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR THE STUDY AREA 73 5.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL IN THE STUDY AREA 74 5.7 HERITAGE REGISTER LISTINGS 74 5.8 MODELS OF PAST ABORIGINAL LAND USE 74 5.9 MODEL OF OCCUPATION FOR THE HUNTER VALLEY 75 6 RESULTS 6.1 METHODOLOGY 78 6.2 LANDFORMS 78 6.3 SURVEY UNITS 78 6.4 EFFECTIVE COVERAGE 79 6.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 80 6.5.1 DEFINITION OF A SITE 81 6.5.2 DEFINITION OF SITE COMPLEX 81 6.5.3 MAPPING IDENTIFIED SITES 81 6.5.4 SITES IDENTIFIED 81 6.6 POTENTIAL CULTURAL DEPOSIT (PCD) 82 6.7 POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSIT (PAD) 83 6.8 DISCUSSION 83 6.8.1 INTEGRITY 83 6.8.2 REGIONAL & LOCAL CONTEXT 84 6.8.3 INTERPRETATION & OCCUPATION MODEL 84 6.8.4 REASSESSMENT OF THE PREDICTIVE MODEL 85 6.9 CONCLUSION 86 7 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE CONTENTS 7.1 THE SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS 87 7.2 BASIS FOR EVALUATION 87 7.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL (SCIENTIFIC) SIGNIFICANCE 87 7.3.1 RESEARCH POTENTIAL 88 7.3.2 REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RARITY 89 7.3.3 NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE 89 7.3.4 INTEGRITY 89 7.4 EVALUATION 90 7.5 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 90 8 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 8.1 IMPACTS 91 8.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 91 9 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 9.1 CONSERVATION/PROTECTION 93 9.2 FURTHER INVESTIGATION 94 9.3 AHIP 94 9.4 MONITORING 95 9.5 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 95 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 GENERAL 97 10.2 PCD, PAD & SITE 97 10.3 COHS/1 97 REFERENCES ANNEX A CONSULTATION ANNEX B AHIMS SEARCH LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1 LOTS AND DPS 1 TABLE 2.1 SOURCES CONTACTED 6 TABLE 2.2 LIST OF PEOPLE/GROUPS TO CONTACT 7 TABLE 2.3 LIST OF REGISTERED PARTIES 8 TABLE 5.1 SUMMARY OF SITES (KUSKIE 1997) 33 TABLE 5.2 SUMMARY OF SITES (RESOURCE PLANNING 19912) 35 TABLE 5.3 SUMMARY OF SITES (MILLS & WILKINSON 1984) 36 TABLE 5.4 SUMMARY OF SITES (HLA 1995) 38 TABLE 5.5 SUMMARY OF SITES (MILLS 1998) 39 TABLE 5.6 SUMMARY OF SITES (UMWELT 2001) 42 TABLE 5.7 SUMMARY OF TRENCHES (UMWELT 2001) 42 TABLE 5.8 SUMMARY OF SITES (KUSKIE 2002) 45 TABLE 5.9 SUMMARY OF SITES (UMWELT 2002) 46 TABLE 5.10 SUMMARY OF EXCAVATION (UMWELT 2002) 46 TABLE 5.11 SUMMARY OF SITES (UMWELTS 2003) 49 TABLE 5.12 SUMMARY OF SITES (MILLS 2003) 51 TABLE 5.13 SUMMARY OF SITES (KUSKIE 2004) 52 TABLE 5.14 SUMMARY OF PAD (MCH 2004) 54 TABLE 5.15 SUMMARY OF SITES (AUSTRAL 2006) 56 TABLE 5.16 SUMMARY OF SITES (AHMS 2007) 58 TABLE 5.17 SUMMARY OF PAD (INSITE 2007) 60 TABLE 5.18 SUMMARY OF SITES (ERM 2010) 62 TABLE 5.19 SUMMARY OF SITES (AMBS 2012) 67 TABLE 5.20 SITE SIZE IN RELATION TO LANDFORMS AND PROXIMITY TO WATER 70 TABLE 5.21 SITE SIZE IN RELATION TO PROXIMITY TO WATER 71 TABLE 5.22 SITE LOCATION IN RELATION TO LANDFORMS AND PROXIMITY TO WATER 71 TABLE 5.23 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 76 TABLE 6.1 GROUND SURFACE VISIBILITY RATING 78 TABLE 6.2 EFFECTIVE COVERAGE 79 TABLE 7.1 SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE 89 TABLE 8.1 IMPACT SUMMERY 90 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 REGIONAL LOCALITY OF THE STUDY AREA 1 FIGURE 1.2 LOCAL LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 1 FIGURE 1.3 AERIAL LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 1 FIGURE 1.4 DEVELOPMENTPLANS (NORTH SECTION) 2 FIGURE 1.5 DEVELOPMENTPLANS (MIDDLE SECTION) 2 FIGURE 1.6 DEVELOPMENTPLANS (SOUTH SECTION) 2 FIGURE 3.1 LANDFORMS AND STREAM ORDERS 13 FIGURE 3.2 REGIONAL GEOMORPHOLOGY 14 FIGURE 5.1 KNOWN SITES 31 FIGURE 5.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES 31 FIGURE 5.3 SITES & PADS IN THE STUDY AREA 66 FIGURE 5.4 FOLEYS MODEL 75 FIGURE 6.1 SURVEY UNITS 77 FIGURE 6.2 DISTURBANCES 78 FIGURE 6.3 VEGETATION ACROSS THE STUDY AREA NORTHERN PORTION 78 FIGURE 6.4 VEGETATION ACROSS THE STUDY AREA SOUTHERN PORTION 78 FIGURE 6.5 PCD, PAD & SITES 81 Executive Summary McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) was commissioned by QR National Coal to prepare an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment (AHIA) for the proposed Hexham Train Support Facility (TSF) along the Pacific Highway, Hexham. The assessment was undertaken to meet the Director General Requirements March 22 2010, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (2010) and the Brief. Following this assessment in 2011, AMBS (2012) undertook an AHIA to address potential impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage arising from the Hexham Relief Roads Project proposed by Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). The results from the AMBS assessment have been included in this report. The study area is located on the western side of the Pacific Highway at Hexham and includes 255 hectares of land currently zoned for industrial, special uses and environmental. The site is bounded by the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway to the north and east and by rural and environmental lands to the south and west, including Hexham Swamp Nature Reserve. The study area consists of low lying flats (part of the Hunter River floodplain) that are constantly water logged in the north and a highly disturbed landscape in the south. A search of the OEH AHIMS register has shown that 93 known Aboriginal sites are currently recorded within a ten kilometre radius of the study area including 51 open camps, 25 artefact sites, 6 isolated finds, 3 grinding grooves, 3 artefact/PADs, 3 PADs, one scarred tree and one artefact/PAD/grinding groove site. Within the local area, previous assessments within a similar environmental context indicate that, within a well-watered context, there is high potential for archaeological material to be present on level, typically well-elevated landforms that provide ready access to low- lying waterlogged areas and the associated resources. The majority of sites within the area appear to contain low-moderate artefact densities situated on elevated landforms. No sites have been identified within Hexham swamp itself. The geomorphological evolution of the Hexham Swamp area is complex and the period of interest is the past 20,000 years. During this time there are two major periods that significantly changed the landscape for past Aboriginal people of the area. At 18,000 to 10,000 BP sea level was rapidly rising and marine sands and temporary coastal barriers were rapidly moving inland and at the end of this period the Hexham area was an open bay. At 10,000 to 2,000BP the fluvial deposition of floodplain sediments dominated the estuary. The area was an open estuarine bay/lake from 600ya to the last 2,000 ya and the change to fresh water habitats accelerated in the last 200 years. In addition to this, the present water table is significantly lower than what it was prior to the Ironbark creek flood gates being installed and as such the current water logging throughout the area would have been significantly higher prior to the flood gates being installed.