Cultural Heritage Assessment R1

Home , Goodradigbee River, Gudgenby River, Gundaroo, James Larmer, Molonglo River, Parish of Queanbeyan

Appendix Cultural R1 Heritage Assessment Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Block 27 and 2087, Queanbeyan, Jerrabomberra District

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Report to Arup

Level 4, 10 Moore Street Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia

July 2020

Page i

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type 1 26.05.2020 JVB, SW SW 26.05.2020 Internal review 2 27.05.2020 JS, AC JS 27.05.2020 Client review 3 05.06.2020 JS JS 05.06.2020 Client review 4 05.06.2020 JVB JVB 05.06.2020 RAO and community review 5 06.07.2020 SW SW 03.07.2020 Final review

Last saved: 06/07/2020 10:11 File name: Queanbeyan STP Upgrade CHA (Restricted) July2020 Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District: Project name: Cultural Heritage Assessment Author: Sophie Barbera, Jayden van Beek, Iain Stuart, Sandra Wallace Project Manager: Jayden van Beek Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, Name of document: ACT: Cultural Heritage Assessment Name of organisation: Artefact Heritage Document version: Final

This document is and shall remain the property of Artefact Heritage Services. This document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Disclaimer: Artefact Heritage Services has completed this document in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the document content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

Page i

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Queanbeyan Palerang Regional Council (QPRC) is seeking to build and operate a new sewage treatment plant (STP) at 7 Mountain Road, Jerrabomberra, Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Although the existing STP has been upgraded several times and maintenance works are regularly undertaken, it has been determined that a significant works program is required to upgrade the STP to ensure a continued level of service that conforms to industry practice for the protection of public health and the environment, and to cater to the increasing population of the Queanbeyan-Palerang catchment area and Oaks Estate within the ACT. As a result, the Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant (QSTP) is proposed to be upgraded, including the construction of a new STP within the study area. The QSTP Upgrade project would provide an appropriate level of treatment for wastewater, helping to protect public health and the environment, while also remaining affordable to the community and improving the capacity of the STP to secure the future needs of the Queanbeyan-Palerang catchment area and Oaks Estate

A scoping study was submitted on the 30 July 2019 under Division 8.2.2 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (201900029). Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd (Artefact Heritage) have been engaged by Arup to prepare a Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) for the proposed QSTP Upgrade project. The CHA would support an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the QSTP Upgrade project.

Artefact Heritage have prepared this CHA in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Reporting Policy prepared by the Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT Government and the ACT Heritage Act 2004 (Heritage Act). As the ACT consultation guidelines are still in preparation at the time of the writing of this report, community consultation for the QSTP Upgrade project was conducted in accordance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 (the Consultation Requirements) prepared by the NSW Department of Climate Change & Water (DECCW). The QSTP Upgrade project is also seeking an Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia’s (ISCA) rating under Version 1.2 of the IS rating tool, therefore this CHA has also been informed by the ISCA (2018) IS Technical Manual Version 1.2.

Findings and recommendation

It was found that:

Page i

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

o ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’, a listed item on the ACTHR which consists of a large cultural area identified as having moderate archaeological potential and which includes several artefact scatters • There are no registered items on the World Heritage List (WHL), National Heritage List (NHL), Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL), National Trust of Australia Register (NTAR) or Register of the National Estate (RNE) within the study area • ‘Oaks Estate 1’ has been disturbed by previous activities associated with the STP. No evidence of the artefact scatter was observed during the site inspection. The area of higher archaeological potential to the west which is described as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ remains relatively undisturbed however • The site inspection identified an area of high archaeological potential and moderate significance, ‘QSTP PAD’, in the southwest corner of the study area in the undeveloped portion of Blocks 2087 and 1036. This area includes part of ‘MOL PAD’ and the area of higher archaeological potential described as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ • The literature review was not able to confirm that Jimmy Clements’ residence (‘King Billy’s Cottage site) was ever present in the study area. If Clements’ residence was within the study area, then it has likely been substantially impacted and/or removed as a result of previous ground disturbances associated with the construction, operation and expansion of the STP • Only one of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century residences remain in the study area, which is associated with ‘Mountain Road Cottage and stable’. However, this building has not been assessed as being of heritage significance. No other intact remnant remains were identified during the site inspection • Works associated with the construction, operation, and expansion of the STP have resulted in substantial ground disturbance across most of the study area • The study area has Aboriginal cultural heritage value for its location along the Molonglo River, which was an important pathway and meeting place • Landscape elements and the existing Mountain Road alignment was noted by the Molonglo Conservation Group as being important to the history and legibility of the site • The study area generally has nil to low non-Aboriginal archaeological potential and low Aboriginal archaeological potential (with the exception of ‘QSTP PAD’) • The proposed works would not impact ‘QSTP PAD’ or the five Aboriginal sites identified above • Overall, it is not expected that the proposed works would result in impacts to intact and significant Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeological remains • Further investigation is required of ’QSTP PAD’ if works would be undertaken within this area of archaeological potential. As no works would be undertaken within ’QSTP PAD’ for the QSTP Upgrade project however, no further investigation is currently required as part of this project.

Page ii

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

It is recommended that:

• A copy of this report must be submitted to ACT Heritage Council for review and comment • No further investigation of ’QSTP PAD’ needs to be undertaken as part of the QSTP Upgrade project as it would not be impacted. Should works be proposed at a later stage which would potentially impact ‘QSTP PAD’ then further investigation would be required • This CHA makes no recommendations for any new sites to be nominated for inclusion on the ACTHR. It is assessed that the area of ‘QSTP PAD’ is already sufficiently covered by ‘MOL PAD’ and ‘Oaks Estate 1’ • Although it has not been assessed as being of heritage significance, the brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable should be maintained where practicable to conserve its association with the historical development of the study area • Maintain the Mountain Road alignment where practicable to conserve its association with the historical development of the study area during the late nineteenth century • Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing works the locations of ’QSTP PAD’ and the ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ should be marked on construction and environmental site plans to ensure that no works are undertaken within these areas. An exclusion zone should also be established around the outer perimeter of Area 4 to prevent inadvertent impacts • Excavations on the southwest side of Maturation Pond 3 within Area 3, and adjacent to ‘QSTP PAD’, should be avoided so as to ensure that there are no inadvertent impacts within ‘QSTP PAD’ • A heritage induction should be prepared and provided as part of the site induction • An unexpected finds protocol should be developed for the project which outlines the requirements for when further archaeological management is required • The RAOs and community stakeholders should be provided with progress updates for the project • As part of the requirements for the ISCA rating under Version 1.2 of the IS rating tool, the project should consider opportunities where available to enhance the heritage values of the study area. An interpretation strategy should be developed as part of the EIS.

Page iii

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project description ...... 1 1.2 Study area location and description ...... 1 1.3 Project works ...... 2 1.4 Objectives of this report ...... 3 1.5 Report structure...... 7 1.6 Restricted information ...... 7 1.7 Limitations ...... 8 1.8 Authorship and acknowledgement ...... 8 2.0 Research design and study methodology ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Literature and database review ...... 9 Heritage databases ...... 9 Literature review ...... 10 2.3 Survey and heritage assessment methodology ...... 10 Site inspection ...... 10 Aboriginal sites ...... 11 2.4 Archaeological potential and heritage significance ...... 12 Grades of archaeological potential...... 12 Basis for the assessment ...... 13 3.0 Statutory and policy context ...... 14 3.1 Introduction ...... 14 3.2 Legislative context and policies...... 14 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 14 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 ...... 14 Native Title Act 1993 ...... 15 ACT Heritage Act 2004 ...... 15 Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia Rating Scheme ...... 15 3.3 Review of heritage registers ...... 17 Australian Heritage Database ...... 17 ACT Heritage Register ...... 17 The National Trusts of Australia Register ...... 18 4.0 Aboriginal and community consultation ...... 21 4.1 Introduction ...... 21 4.2 Identification of stakeholders and registrations of interest ...... 21 Representative Aboriginal Organisations ...... 21

Page iv

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Community stakeholders ...... 22 Registrations of interest ...... 22 4.3 Involvement with site inspection and preliminary findings ...... 23 4.4 Additional information ...... 24 4.5 Review of draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment ...... 24 5.0 Environmental and historical context ...... 26 5.1 Introduction ...... 26 5.2 Landform and hydrology ...... 26 5.3 Geology ...... 27 Geology and soils ...... 27 Geotechnical investigations ...... 27 5.4 Vegetation ...... 30 5.5 Ethnohistorical context ...... 30 5.6 Historical context ...... 32 European settlement of Canberra and Queanbeyan ...... 32 Study area ...... 36 Sewage treatment plant (1935 – present) ...... 44 6.0 Archaeological context ...... 47 6.1 Introduction ...... 47 6.2 Previous cultural heritage and archaeological assessments ...... 47 6.3 Registered sites ...... 50 6.4 Historical land use and previous disturbances ...... 57 6.5 Predictive archaeological model ...... 57 7.0 Results of site inspection ...... 59 7.1 Introduction ...... 59 7.2 Site visit participation and consultation ...... 59 7.3 Constraints ...... 59 7.4 Methodology ...... 59 7.5 Results of the site inspection ...... 60 Area 1 ...... 60 Area 2 ...... 64 Area 3 ...... 65 Area 4 ...... 68 8.0 Analysis of archaeological potentail ...... 69 8.1 Introduction ...... 69 8.2 Aboriginal archaeological potential ...... 69 King Billy’s Cottage site ...... 70 8.3 Non-Aboriginal archaeological potential ...... 70

Page v

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

9.0 Assessment of heritage significance ...... 72 9.1 Introduction ...... 72 9.2 Aboriginal cultural heritage and significance ...... 72 Cultural landscape...... 72 Identified Aboriginal cultural heritage values ...... 72 Aboriginal significance assessment ...... 73 Statement of significance ...... 76 9.3 Non-Aboriginal heritage and significance ...... 77 Identified non-Aboriginal heritage values ...... 77 Non-Aboriginal significance assessment ...... 78 Statement of significance ...... 80 9.4 Recommendations for further investigation ...... 80 10.0 Statement of Heritage Effect ...... 81 10.1 Introduction ...... 81 10.2 Proposed development ...... 81 10.3 Assessment of heritage impacts ...... 81 Potential Aboriginal heritage impacts ...... 81 Potential non-Aboriginal heritage impacts ...... 82 10.4 Consideration of alternatives...... 83 11.0 Management and mitigation measures ...... 85 11.1 Introduction ...... 85 11.2 Options to avoid and reduce impact ...... 85 11.3 Detailed design mitigations ...... 85 11.4 Site conservation ...... 86 11.5 Recommendations for further investigation ...... 86 11.6 Nominations to the heritage register ...... 86 11.7 Archaeological management...... 87 11.8 Specific requirements ...... 87 11.9 Changes to the proposed works ...... 89 11.10 Ongoing RAO and community consultation ...... 89 11.11 Interpretation strategies and thematic history ...... 89 12.0 Conculsions and Recommendations ...... 90 13.0 References ...... 93 14.0 Appendices ...... 98 14.1 Appendix 1: ACT Heritage Council approvals ...... 98 14.2 Appendix 2: RAO and community stakeholder consultation log ...... 99 14.3 Appendix 3: RAO and community consultation ...... 107 Invitation to register ...... 107

Page vi

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Registration of interest responses, site inspection organisation and additional correspondence ...... 108 Preliminary assessment and additional correspondence...... 109 Draft CHA review...... 110

Page vii

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location and layout of the study area ...... 4 Figure 2: Location of the study area within the wider region ...... 5 Figure 3: Concept design for the QSTP Upgrade, provided by Hunter H2O and Arup (Source: Hunter H2O Concept Design Report, 2020) ...... 6 Figure 4: Heritage items in the vicinity of the study area ...... 20 Figure 5: Soil profile observed during the excavation of Trial Pit 15 towards the south end of the proposed site amenities and laydown area (Source: Arup 2019) ...... 28 Figure 6: Location of geotechnical investigations undertaken in 2019 (Source: Arup 2019) ...... 29 Figure 7: Location of geotechnical investigations undertaken in 2020 (Source: Douglas Partners 2020) ...... 29 Figure 8: Map of the Limestone Plains, dated to 1834, showing the location of the huts on Beard's land. The indicative location of the study area is circled in red. Source: National Library of Australia, G8918.G46 ...... 33 Figure 9: Historical photograph of Queanbeyan from Pound Hill, dated c.1890 ...... 35 Figure 10: Historical photograph of Queanbeyan, dated c.1899 ...... 35 Figure 11: Historical photograph of Queanbeyan, dated c.1939 ...... 36 Figure 12: Part of plan of the road from Queanbeyan via Canberra, dated. 1866, indicating the study area within land owned by Campbell. Source: National Library of Australia, MAP G8971.G46 ...... 37 Figure 13: Certificate of title showing Oaks Estate, part of portion 35, which was appointed to Charles Campbell in 1840 and sold to Bull in 1877. The adjacent study area is indicated in red. Source: NSW Land Titles Office ...... 38 Figure 14: Federal map of the study area (outlined in red), dated 1915, showing development within the allotments north of Mountain Road. Source: ACT Heritage...... 39 Figure 15: Map of the development within the study area, dated 1916. Source: Trove ...... 40 Figure 16: Federal territory map, dated 1918, showing the development within the study area. Source: National Library of Australia ...... 40 Figure 17: Riverview house prior to demolition ...... 42 Figure 18: Inside River View dwelling prior to demolition ...... 43 Figure 19: Protest to the demolition of River View house. Note landscape in background ...... 43 Figure 20: 1955 aerial image of the study area. River View house outlined in red; Mountain Road Cottage and stable in blue, and sewage treatment plant in yellow. Source: ACT Heritage ...... 45 Figure 21: Locations of former structures and land use ...... 46 Figure 22: Location of Aboriginal sites in the vicinity of the study area ...... 52 Figure 23: Location of the site inspection areas ...... 61 Figure 24: North view of the entrance road into the STP ...... 62 Figure 25: Northeast view of the sludge lagoons ...... 62 Figure 26: Southeast view of the biosolids stockpile area ...... 62 Figure 27: Northeast view of the vegetation within the stockpile area ...... 62

Page viii

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 28: Southwest view of the substantial embankments around the stockpile area ...... 62 Figure 29: Northeast view of additional stockpile area ...... 62 Figure 30: East view of Mountain Road heading towards the location of the former River View residence ...... 63 Figure 31: North view towards the STP from Mountain Road ...... 63 Figure 32: View of the former area of the River View residence ...... 63 Figure 33: View of the grass cover and below ground tank near the area of the former River View residence ...... 63 Figure 34: View of rubble and rubbish material in the location of the former River View residence ... 63 Figure 35: View of the Peppercorn Trees in the vicinity of the former River View residence ...... 63 Figure 36 :Southeast view of the proposed site amenities and laydown area ...... 64 Figure 37: South view of the mounds of stockpiled soil ...... 64 Figure 38: East view of Area 2 (provided by Arup) ...... 64 Figure 39: South view of Area 2 towards Oaks Estate Road (provided by Arup) ...... 64 Figure 40: View of the disturbed ground and protruding rocks within Area 2 (provided by Arup) ...... 65 Figure 41: View of the ground surface in Area 2 along the river (provided by Arup) ...... 65 Figure 42: North view of the shallow bedrock at the south end of Area 2 (sourced from Google Street View 2019) ...... 65 Figure 43: South view from STP towards structures ...... 66 Figure 44: South view towards ponds and STP ...... 66 Figure 45: West view towards STP buildings ...... 66 Figure 46: East view towards STP structures ...... 66 Figure 47: North view towards the ponds ...... 66 Figure 48: South view within Area 3. Note shrubbery and twentieth century trees ...... 66 Figure 49: North view towards existing pipeline and road, which has been cut into the slope ...... 67 Figure 50: East view from of stockpiled material and dump sites ...... 67 Figure 51: Northwest view of the remnant historical structure in the old nursery area (provided by Arup) ...... 67 Figure 52: West view of the unsealed Mountain Road from Nimrod Road ...... 67 Figure 53: Northwest view of the western portion of Area 3, showing the stockpiled compost ...... 67 Figure 54: Northeast view of the western portion of Area 3, showing the stockpiled compost in the recorded location of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ ...... 67 Figure 55: Northeast view of the cleared ground in the western portion of Area 3 ...... 68 Figure 56: West view of the exposed bedrock in Area 3 ...... 68 Figure 57: Southwest view towards Area 4...... 68 Figure 58: Areas of assessed Aboriginal archaeological potential ...... 71

Page ix

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

TABLES

Table 1: Site identification, location and setting of the study area ...... 2 Table 2: Significance assessment criteria ...... 13 Table 3: IS Rating Scheme Her-1 Heritage assessment and management criteria (Version 1.2) ...... 16 Table 4: IS Rating Scheme Her-2 Monitoring of heritage criteria (Version 1.2) ...... 17 Table 5: Heritage items within 500m of the study area ...... 19 Table 6: Representative Aboriginal Organisations ...... 21 Table 7: Identified potential Community Groups and Organisations ...... 22 Table 8: Registrations of interest as Aboriginal and community stakeholders ...... 23 Table 9: Summary of comments ...... 23 Table 10: Frequency of Aboriginal site types ...... 50 Table 11: Summary of sites located within or directly adjacent to the study area ...... 53 Table 12: Previously identified Aboriginal cultural heritage values within the local area ...... 73 Table 13: Aboriginal heritage significance assessment ...... 74 Table 14: Previously identified non-Aboriginal heritage values within the local area ...... 78 Table 15: Non-Aboriginal heritage significance assessment ...... 78 Table 16: QSTP Upgrade options ...... 83 Table 17: Relevant conservation policies for ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ (Heritage ID 1166) ...... 87

Page x

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

ABBREVIATIONS

CHA Cultural Heritage Assessment

ACT Australian Capital Territory

ACTHR ACT Heritage Register

Artefact Heritage Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd

ATSIHP Act Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

CHL Commonwealth Heritage List

EIA Environment Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EP Equivalent persons

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Diversity Conservation Act 1999

ESDD Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate

DCP Dynamic cone penetrometer

DECCW NSW Department of Climate Change & Water

Heritage Act ACT Heritage Act 2004

ISCA Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia

LGA Local Government Area mm Millimetres m Metres

NHL National Heritage List

NOHC Navin Office Heritage Consultants

PAD Potential Archaeological Deposit

RAO Representative Aboriginal Organisation

Consultation Requirements Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010

RNE Register of the National Estate

Page xi

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

RNTA Register of the National Trust of Australia

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

QPRC Queanbeyan Palerang Regional Council

QSTP Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

WHL World Heritage List

Page xii

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project description

Queanbeyan Palerang Regional Council (QPRC) is seeking to upgrade and operate a sewage treatment plant (STP) at 7 Mountain Road, Jerrabomberra, Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The current STP, which was constructed in the mid-1930s, treats sewage from the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council Local Government Area (LGA) prior to discharge into the Molonglo River. Although the plant has been upgraded several times and maintenance works are regularly undertaken, it has been determined that a significant works program is required to upgrade the Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant (QSTP) to ensure a continued level of service that conforms to industry practice for the protection of public health and the environment, and to cater to the increasing population of the Queanbeyan-Palerang catchment area and Oaks Estate within the ACT. To achieve this outcome a new STP would be constructed within the study area as part of the QSTP Upgrade project.

The upgrades are aimed towards securing the future needs of the Queanbeyan-Palerang catchment area and Oaks Estate. The upgrades to the QSTP would increase its current capacity of 34,500 equivalent persons (EP), which is currently serving about 52,000 EP, to cater for a future EP of 75,000 EP. The proposed plant would provide an appropriate level of treatment for wastewater, helping to protect public health and the environment while remaining affordable to the community. In addition to the improved capacity the upgrades would also provide a range of additional benefits, including:

• Improved ability to control discharge water quality • Reduced impacts on the environment and public health • Improved water quality in the Molonglo River and Lake Burley Griffin • Improved odour and noise emissions • Providing capability for water reuse • Improved treatment and disposal of bio-solids.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping study for the QSTP Upgrade was prepared by Arup in July 2019 under Division 8.2.2 of the Planning and Development Act 2007 (201900029). Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd (Artefact Heritage) have been engaged by Arup to prepare a Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) which would support an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the QSTP Upgrade. The QSTP Upgrade project is also seeking an Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia’s (ISCA) rating under Version 1.2 of the IS rating tool. This report has been undertaken with consideration of the ISCA requirements (refer to Section 3.2.5).

1.2 Study area location and description

The study area is located at 7 Mountain Road, Jerrabomberra ACT, 2619. It is located on the northern outskirts of Queanbeyan, immediately west of Oaks Estate. Queanbeyan is located in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales (NSW) on the Queanbeyan River and close to the confluence of the Molonglo River. The study area is comprised of Block 27 of Jerrabomberra on Deposited Plan 184 (Registered Rural) and Block 2087 of Jerrabomberra (Proposed Rural). It measures about 46.8 hectares (Block 27) and 46.9 hectares (Block 2087) in size, within land zoned as TSZ2 (Services). The study area also includes the Jerrabomberra and Morisset sewage trunk mains within these blocks.

The study area is currently utilised for the existing STP and the main access roads to the study area are Mountain Road and Nimrod Road. It is bound by the Molonglo River to the north and east, and the suburb of Beard to the west. It is located within the ACT, the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council

Page 1

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

LGA, the County of Murray and the Parish of Queanbeyan. The state border between NSW and the ACT is located directly south (about 585m) from the study area.

The study area is broadly divided into the proposed build zone, the proposed construction compound, and the remaining portion of the study area which includes the majority of the Jerrabomberra and Morisset trunk mains.

The location and setting details of the study area are presented in Table 1. The location of the study area and its location with the region is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Table 1: Site identification, location and setting of the study area

Item Details

Street address 7 Mountain Road, Jerrabomberra ACT, 2619

467, 960 m2 (Block 27) Approximate area 479, 136m² (Block 2087)

Current land use Sewage Treatment Plant

Block 27 of Jerrabomberra on Deposited Plan 184 (Registered Rural) Legal property description Block 2087 of Jerrabomberra (Proposed Rural)

Approximate geographic coordinates -35.33480, 149.21731

District Jerrabomberra

TSZ2: Services Territory Plan land use zoning NUZ4: River Corridor

1.3 Project works

The QSTP Upgrade is aimed towards upgrading the site infrastructure in order to serve the needs of the population of the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council LGA. The project works associated with the QSTP Upgrade would include (but not be limited to) the following tasks:

• Construction of a new STP and associated infrastructure • Decommissioning of the current maturation ponds • Establishment of a temporary construction site amenities, carparking and laydown area • Establishment of an outfall area • Re-diversion of the Jerrabomberra and Morisset Sewage trunk mains within the study area • Upgrading Mountain Road.

The project works would involve a combination of modifications to existing infrastructure, construction of new infrastructure, and bulk excavation, underdrilling or underboring, and landscaping works. It is expected that excavations up to ten metres may be required for deep structures such as the bioreactors, storm ponds and circular clarifiers. It is expected that excavations for the re-diversions of the Jerrabomberra and Morisset trunk mains would require excavations up to about three metres deep. The re-diversion of the Morisset trunk main would include a combination of trench excavation for the northern section and then underboring/underdrilling to the south within the Golden Sun Moth exclusion

Page 2

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment zone. Project works for the establishment of the temporary construction site amenities, carparking and laydown area and upgrading Mountain Road are expected to be limited to surface works.

The establishment of the new STP would largely be located within the proposed build zone. The establishment of the temporary construction site amenities, carparking and laydown area would be limited to the proposed site amenities and laydown area. The other project works, including decommissioning the maturation ponds and upgrading Mountain Road, would primarily be located in the remainder of the study area. The re-diversion of the Jerrabomberra and Morisset trunk mains within the study area would primarily be located within the proposed build zone and the site amenities and laydown area.

The Hunter H2O concept design for the QSTP Upgrade is illustrated in Figure 3.1

1.4 Objectives of this report

The objectives of this report are to:

• Assess the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the study area, including archaeological and community cultural values, and the significance of identified values • Identify Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage values that may be impacted by the works, including consideration of cumulative impacts, and measures to avoid significant impacts • Ensure appropriate Aboriginal community consultation in the assessment process • Identify any recommended further investigations, mitigation and management measures required, should the project proceed • Demonstrate that the CHA has been prepared in accordance with the IS rating tool.

This CHA includes:

• A description of the scope of the project and the extent of the study area • A description of Aboriginal community involvement and consultation with the Registered Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) and other relevant stakeholders • A significance assessment of the study area, including a description of identified cultural and archaeological values • A description of the statutory requirements for the protection of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage and the current heritage status of the study area • An impact assessment for recorded Aboriginal sites, non-Aboriginal heritage items and areas of archaeological potential • Provision of measures to avoid, minimise, and if necessary, offset the predicted impacts on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage values to be included in the EIS • Recommendations to ensure that the QSTP Upgrade project is consistent with the requirements of the IS rating tool.

1 Hunter H2O, 2020. Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade Project Concept Design. Report prepared for Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council.

Page 3

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 1: Location and layout of the study area

Page 4

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 2: Location of the study area within the wider region

Page 5

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 3: Concept design for the QSTP Upgrade, provided by Hunter H2O and Arup (Source: Hunter H2O Concept Design Report, 2020)

Page 6

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

1.5 Report structure

The purpose of this report is to document the results of an investigation of the cultural heritage values of the study area. The following sections are discussed in the CHA:

• Section 1.0 – Introduction: Outlines the project description, study area location, proposed project works, the objectives of the CHA and a summary of the research design and methodology that informed the CHA

• Section 2.0 – Research design and study methodology: Provides a summary of the research design and study methodology that was used to prepare this CHA.

• Section 3.0 – Statutory and policy context: Outlines the legislative context of the project and the statutory context of the study area, including the listed heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area

• Section 4.0 – Aboriginal and community consultation: Provides information on the consultation process and results, including the participating stakeholders and comments provided

• Section 5.0 – Environmental and historical context: Provides an overview of the environmental, ethnographic, and historical context for the study area

• Section 6.0 – Archaeological context: Presents the results of the literature review of previous archaeological assessments and recorded heritage sites in the area. This section also presents a predictive model as background to the site inspection

• Section 7.0 – Results of site inspection: Presents the methodology and results of the site inspection undertaken for the study area

• Section 8.0 – Analysis of archaeological potential: Presents the assessment of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeological potential within the study area

• Section 9.0 – Assessment of heritage significance: Presents the assessment of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage values and assessments of heritage significance

• Section 10.0 – Statement of Heritage Effect: Presents and impact assessment of the proposed works on the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal remains within the study area. Also provides a summary of the alternative proposal options which were considered for the project

• Section 11.0 – Management and mitigation measures: Outlines the proposed method of mitigating against loss of cultural value

• Section 12.0 – Conclusions and recommendations: Provides a summary of the findings of the project and recommendations for further investigations and mitigation against loss of heritage values

• Section 13.0 – References • Section 14.0 – Appendices: Includes the RAO and community consultation log and letters.

1.6 Restricted information

The locations and details of Aboriginal sites are considered culturally sensitive information. It is recommended that restricted information, such as GIS imagery showing the exact location of Aboriginal sites, is removed from this report if it is to enter the public domain.

Page 7

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

No information provided by the RAOs in this report has been specifically identified as requiring access restrictions due to its cultural sensitivity.

1.7 Limitations

Only the identified study area was surveyed for Aboriginal objects and sites. Areas outside the study area were not assessed for Aboriginal objects or archaeological potential.

This report has been informed by a literature review of heritage databases, historical sources, and relevant (and available) heritage and archaeological studies. The literature review, although comprehensive, was not exhaustive and it is possible that further investigation of historical sources may yield additional information regarding the historical development of the site, particularly in relation to possible presence of King Billy’s Cottage site.

1.8 Authorship and acknowledgement

This CHA was prepared by Sophie Barbera (Heritage Consultant, Artefact Heritage), Jayden van Beek (Senior Heritage Consultant, Artefact Heritage), and Ryan Taddeucci (Senior Heritage Consultant, Artefact Heritage), with project direction and review from Iain Stuart (Principal, Artefact Heritage) and Sandra Wallace (Director, Artefact Heritage).

This report acknowledges the assistance of the Arup and Hunter H2O project teams in preparing this assessment and the RAOs and community stakeholders for their input.

Page 8

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction

This section provides a summary of the research design and study methodology that was used to prepare this CHA.

This CHA has been prepared in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Reporting Policy prepared by the Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT Government.2 The document provides an outline of the ACT CHA and reporting process and the requirements for information submission. The policy was endorsed by ACT Heritage Council in April 2015 and was implemented in July 2015.

The CHA has also been informed by the ISCA (2018) IS Technical Manual Version 1.2.3 The technical manual outlines the heritage requirements under the IS Rating Scheme which the QSTP Upgrade is aiming to aiming to meet. Version 2.0 of the Rating Scheme was released on 1 July 2018, however at the time of the preparation of this CHA Version 2.0 was still in beta testing. As a result, this CHA has been informed by Version 1.2 of the IS Rating Scheme. The heritage conditions for the IS Rating Scheme are outlined in Section 3.2.5.

2.2 Literature and database review

A range of historical and archaeological data sources were reviewed to inform the findings of this CHA. Previous studies and data sources relevant to the study area and the surrounding area were reviewed to identify the current heritage status of the site, to determine if known aboriginal and historical sites are present within the study area, to identify the historical, environmental and archaeological context of the study area, and to inform the predictive model for the study area based on the known local and regional site patterns.

The sources reviewed for this CHA included heritage registers such as the ACT Heritage Register (ACTHR), local and regional histories, theses, newspaper articles, gazettes, parish maps and other historical plans, and previous heritage and archaeological reports.

Heritage databases

Searches were undertaken of the following statutory heritage registers and schedules:

• World Heritage list (WH) • National Heritage List (NHL) • Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) • ACTHR

Searches were also undertaken of the following non-statutory registers and schedules:

• The (former) Register of the National Estate (RNE)

2 Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT Government, 2015. Cultural Heritage Reporting Policy. Endorsed by ACT Heritage Council April 2015. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/publications-and-resources (8 November 2019). 3 ISCA, 2018. IS Technical Manual Version 1.2. Accessed online at: https://www.isca.org.au/is_ratings (8 November 2019).

Page 9

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

• Register of the National Trust of Australia (RNTA).

The results of the heritage register searches are presented in Section 3.3.

Literature review

The following reports were identified and discussed as part of the literature review for the study area:

• Biosis Research, 2008. Archaeological Re-assessment: Block 182, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development on the former Canberra Abattoir site. Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff • Biosis Research, 2009. Archaeological Excavation: Block 2223, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development of the former Canberra Abattoir site. Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff • Moffitt, K., 1997. A Cultural Resource Survey of Blocks 597, 598 and 599 Majura, ACT. Report prepared for Department of Urban Services • Navin Officer Heritage Consultants (NOHC), 1999a. Majura Valley Transport Corridor, Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for GHD • NOHC, 1999b. Survey and Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Resource of Part of the Majura Valley, Woolshed Creek, ACT – Volume 1. Report prepared for Heritage Unit, Environment ACT, ACT Dept of Urban Services • NOHC, 2001. Sutton Road Preliminary Assessment Cultural Heritage Component. Report prepared for RD Gossip • NOHC, 2005. Majura Field Firing Range Services Upgrade, Majura Valley, ACT – Archaeological Monitoring and Salvage within Site MV121. Report prepared for GHD • NOHC, 2012. Sutton Road Upgrade, ACT: Archaeological Salvage (Collection) Program. Report prepared for Roads ACT • Saunders, 2003. Investigation of Aboriginal Places to be Impacted by the Sutton Road (ACT) Upgrade – Stage 1.

An archaeological summary of the literature review is presented Section 6.2.

2.3 Survey and heritage assessment methodology

Site inspection

A site inspection of the study area was conducted on 16 December 2019 by Artefact Heritage to document the current use and condition of the site to inform the predictive archaeological model. The site inspection was primarily undertaken on foot, with a vehicular survey of areas with limited access, such as the around the existing STP infrastructure. The site inspection was undertaken prior to the development of the current concept design (Figure 3) and therefore was based on the preliminary concept design that was illustrated in the EIA scoping report.4 The RAOs and community stakeholders identified during the consultation process were invited to participate in the site inspection.

4 Arup, 2019. Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade: EIA Scoping Report. Report prepared for Queanbeyan Palerang Regional Council: 30.

Page 10

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

The site inspection aimed at identifying material evidence of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal occupation as revealed by structural remains, surface artefacts and areas of archaeological potential associated with surface artefacts. Potential recordings fall into two broad categories: sites and potential archaeological deposits (PADs). The main focus of the site inspection was the proposed build zone, the indicative stockpile area, the location of the listed Aboriginal site ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and the location of former historical structures in the vicinity of the project works.

As part of the development of the current concept design, additional site inspections were undertaken by Arup and Hunter H2O. Photos from the additional site inspections were provided to Artefact Heritage to inform the assessment of the study area.

Aboriginal sites

Material traces of Aboriginal occupation and activity exist throughout the landscape and are known as Aboriginal sites. The ACT includes a diverse range of Aboriginal heritage and thousands of sites have been recorded across the ACT, with many of these being included on the ACTHR. The most frequently identified Aboriginal site in the ACT are stone artefacts (lithics), either in the form of isolated finds or open artefact scatters. In addition to isolated artefacts and artefact scatters, other Aboriginal site types which are commonly found in the ACT include:

• Scarred trees • Rock art sites • Burials • Grinding groves • Stone quarries • Ochre quarries • Wooden artefacts • Sacred landscapes.

A summary of the most relevant site types to the local region, including the existing site type located in the study area, are provided below.

2.3.2.1 Stone artefacts (isolated finds and artefact scatters)

Flaked and ground stone artefacts are the most common trace of Aboriginal occupation in ACT and represent an enduring record of Aboriginal technology and settlement patterns. Aboriginal people used particular techniques to flake stone and these changed over time. The approximate age of a tool can often be diagnosed by the way that it was made. Stone artefact sites may consist of single artefacts (isolated finds), or as a distribution of artefacts in a location (artefact scatter). While isolated artefacts are typically not found in association with surface evidence of Aboriginal occupation and could be a result of random loss or deliberate discard, they could potentially indicate the presence of subsurface artefact distribution. Aboriginal campsites were most frequently located in proximity to a reliable source of freshwater, such as the Molonglo River. As a result, artefact scatters are often found near rivers or streams. The individual artefacts at the sites have scientific and educational potential for the study of Aboriginal lithic technology.

2.3.2.2 Scarred trees

Aboriginal people practiced tree marking or scarring for a variety of reasons. Large scars are often the result of a tree being debarked for a canoe blank and smaller scars may have been the result of making shields or coolamons (storage vessels). Tree marking may have been the result of ritual practices, or

Page 11

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment associated with burial. Scarred trees that remain today would be over 150 years old and the scar would retain certain characteristics that enable its identification as cultural. Culturally scarred trees are considered to be significant for their potential to demonstrate ways of life that are no longer practised and for their ability to contribute to a wider understanding of cultural history.

2.3.2.3 Potential archaeological deposits

Areas are classified as PADs if there is a higher likelihood of archaeological material existing below the ground surface compared to the surrounding study area landscape, or on the ground surface but obscured from view. An Aboriginal object does not need to be recorded for an area of PAD to be specified. PADs are typically identified through field surveys or predictive archaeological assessments. Areas that have been identified as having the potential to contain archaeological deposits may require further investigation prior to or during development.

2.4 Archaeological potential and heritage significance

Grades of archaeological potential

The archaeological potential of the study area is presented in terms of the likelihood of the presence of archaeological remains considering its location, land use history, landform, and previous impacts at the site. Certain landforms, such as gentle slopes, are conducive to Aboriginal occupation while others, such as steep slopes, are not. The location of appropriate landforms in relation to natural resources, in particular their proximity to a permanent water source, increases levels of potential. Correlations between site location and proximity to a water source have been proven in previous archaeological investigations where the number of sites and their densities is highest in close proximity to a water source. This is presented using the grades of archaeological potential presented below.

2.4.1.1 Aboriginal archaeological potential

• Low: It is unlikely that intact archaeological material will be found in this area • Moderate: Intact archaeological material may be found in this area • High: Intact archaeological material is likely to be found in this area.

2.4.1.2 Non-Aboriginal archaeological potential

• Nil: No evidence of historical development or use, or where previous impacts would have removed all archaeological potential • Nil-Low: Low intensity historical activity, such as grazing, with little to no archaeological ‘signature’ expected, or where previous impacts were extensive, such as considerable bulk excavation and other earthwork activities such as grading • Low: Research indicates little historical development, or where there have been substantial previous impacts, disturbance and truncation in locations where some archaeological remains such as deep subsurface features may survive • Moderate: Analysis demonstrates known historical development and some previous impacts, but it is likely that archaeological remains survive with some localised truncation and disturbance; and • High: Evidence of multiple phases of historical development and structures with minimal or localised twentieth century development impacts, and it is likely the archaeological resource would be largely intact.

Page 12

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Basis for the assessment

The Heritage Assessment Policy, published by the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) (2015), sets out a detailed process for conducting assessments of heritage significance. The Heritage Assessment Policy provide a set of specific criteria for assessing the significance of an item, levels of significance, including guidelines for inclusion and exclusion.

ACT Heritage Council has adopted the eight criteria for significance assessment (Table 2). These are described in Section 10 of the Heritage Act, and the process for assessing significance using these criteria is explained in ESDD’s (2015) Heritage Assessment Policy. The Heritage Assessment Policy also outlines the varying levels of significance.

Table 2: Significance assessment criteria

Criterion ID Criterion Name Description

Criterion A Historical significance Importance to the course or pattern of the ACT's cultural or natural history.

Criterion B Rarity Has uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the ACT's cultural or natural history.

Criterion C Research potential Potential to yield important information that will contribute to an understanding of the ACT's cultural or natural history.

Criterion D Representativeness Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or objects.

Criterion E Aesthetic significance Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by the ACT community or a cultural group in the ACT.

Criterion F Technical significance Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement for a particular period.

Criterion G Social significance Has a strong or special association with the ACT community, or a cultural group in the ACT for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Criterion H Associative significance Has a special association with the life or work of a person, or people, important to the history of the ACT.

Page 13

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

3.0 STATUTORY AND POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Introduction

The following section provides a summary of ACT and Commonwealth legislation relevant to the protection and management of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage, as well as the relevant ISCA requirements. Also identified are the listed heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area.

3.2 Legislative context and policies

Together with best practice principles outlined in documents such as The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013), the following legislative and regulatory context forms basis of the framework within which heritage is managed in the ACT.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides a legislative framework for the protection and management of matters of national environmental significance, that is, flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places of national and international importance, primarily on Commonwealth land. Heritage items are protected through their inscription on the WHL, CHL, or the NHL.

The EPBC Act stipulates that a person who has proposed an action that will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on a World, National or Commonwealth Heritage site must refer the action to the Minister for the Environment (the ‘Minister’). The Minister will then determine if the action requires approval under the EPBC Act. If approval is required, an environmental assessment would need to be prepared. The Minister would approve or decline the action based on this assessment.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

The Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHP Act), deals with Aboriginal cultural property (intangible heritage) in a wider sense. Such intangible heritage includes any places, objects and folklore that ‘are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition’.

There is no cut-off date and the ATSIHP Act may apply to contemporary Aboriginal cultural property as well as ancient sites. The ATSIHP Act takes precedence over state cultural heritage legislation where there is conflict. The Commonwealth Minister who is responsible for administering the ATSIHP Act can make declarations to protect these areas and objects from specific threats of injury or desecration. The responsible Minister may make a declaration under Section 10 of the Commonwealth Act in situations where state or territory laws do not provide adequate protection of intangible heritage.

Where an Aboriginal individual or organisation is concerned that intangible values within the project are not being adequately protected, they can apply to the Minister for a declaration over a place. No intangible places have been identified during the consultation and assessment undertaken for the preparation of this CHA.

Page 14

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Native Title Act 1993

The main purpose of the Native Title Act 1993 is to recognise and protect native title. Native title is the rights and interests in land and waters that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have under their traditional laws and customs.

The following list is indicative of the type of land, which might be subject to native title:

• Vacant Crown land and any other public or Crown lands including oceans and inland waterways, beaches and foreshores, State forests, national parks and public reserves • Pastoral leases • Land held by government agencies • Land held in trust for Aboriginal communities.

Under the amended Native Title Act 1993, native title is extinguished by the following

• Private freehold land, valid grants of private freehold land or waters • Residential, commercial or exclusive possession leases • Mining dissection leases • Community purpose leases (e.g. religious, sporting or charitable purposes) • Scheduled interests that give exclusive possession • Public works (e.g. schools, public amenities, hospitals etc.).

Section 24KA of the Native Title Act 1993, requires that native title claimants are notified of any ‘future act’ which may result in a change in land use for Crown lands affected by claims. ‘Future act’ is defined in Section 233 of the Act as a proposed activity or development on land and/or waters that may affect native title, by extinguishing (removing) it or creating interests that are inconsistent with the existence or exercise of native title. If after one month there has been no response, then the proponent will be deemed to have fulfilled their obligations under the Act.

A search of the National Native Title Tribunal database was completed on 6 December 2019. It was found that there are no Native Title claims registered in the ACT.

ACT Heritage Act 2004

The Heritage Act, administered by the ACT Heritage Council, is the primary piece of legislation affording protection to items of environmental heritage (natural and cultural) in the ACT. The Heritage Act affords protection to natural, Aboriginal, and historic heritage sites through protection provisions and the establishment of the ACTHR.

Under s74 of the Heritage Act, it is an offence to engage in conduct that diminishes the heritage significance of a place or object. Under s75 of the Heritage Act, it is an offence to engage in conduct that causes damage to an Aboriginal place or object. The Act prescribes penalty units (fines) applicable to each offence.

Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia Rating Scheme

The ISCA is a not-for-profit body operating in Australia and New Zealand with the purpose of enabling sustainability outcomes in infrastructure. ISCA, in collaboration with the industry, has developed a rating scheme to drive and measure sustainability within infrastructure projects and assets. In addition to built

Page 15

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment infrastructure the tool can also be applied to the planning, design and operation of infrastructure. The IS Rating Scheme is Australia and New Zealand's only comprehensive rating system for evaluating sustainability across design, construction and operation of infrastructure.5 Although it is not a statutory requirement, the QSTP Upgrade project is seeking an ISCA rating under Version 1.2 of the IS rating tool. The QSTP Upgrade project is aiming to achieve a rating of ‘Excellent’ or ‘Leading’, which is the equivalent of meeting the criteria for Level 2 or Level 3 as outlined in the technical manual.

The ISCA (2018) IS Technical Manual Version 1.2 outlines the heritage requirements under the IS Rating Scheme which the QSTP Upgrade is aiming to aiming to meet.6 The relevant heritage criteria for Her-1 Heritage assessment and management and how they have been addressed in this report are outlined in Table 3 below. The relevant heritage criteria for Her-2 Monitoring of heritage are outlined in Table 4.

Table 3: IS Rating Scheme Her-1 Heritage assessment and management criteria (Version 1.2)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Addressed in CHA

Community heritage values Community stakeholders have have been identified The requirements for The requirements for been consulted with as part of through consultation and Level 1 are achieved Level 2 are achieved this CHA to identify community integrated into studies heritage values

Measures to minimise adverse impacts to Recommendations for heritage during minimising adverse impacts construction have been are outlined in Section 11.0 identified and implemented

Community and key RAOs and key community stakeholders have stakeholders have been invited

k participated in the to participate and provide heritage studies information for the CHA

The CHA has considered the

Heritage values beyond heritage values of ‘King Billy’s Benchmar those listed in Cottage site’, which is not yet government registers registered on the ACTHR. The

have been identified, CHA has also sought input on considered and the heritage values of the site addressed from the community stakeholders

Little to no opportunities have been identified at this stage to Heritage has been promote the local heritage interpreted to promote values. This is to be local heritage values considered at a later stage of the project if applicable

5 ISCA, 2020. Who We Are: Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA). ISCA. Accessed online at: https://www.isca.org.au/Who-We-Are (12 November 2019). 6 ISCA 2018.

Page 16

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Little to no opportunities have Opportunities have been identified at this stage to been identified and enhance heritage values. This implemented to is to be considered at a later enhance heritage stage of the project if values applicable

Table 4: IS Rating Scheme Her-2 Monitoring of heritage criteria (Version 1.2)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Addressed in CHA

It has been assessed in this CHA that archaeological Monitoring of heritage is monitoring is not currently The requirements for The requirements for undertaken at appropriate recommended (Section 11.6). intervals during Level 1 are achieved Level 2 are achieved construction As a result, this criterion is not currently applicable to the

project k

Monitoring and modelling As above, this criterion is not Demonstrates currently applicable to the

Benchmar maintenance of project heritage values.

Monitoring and modelling As above, this criterion is not demonstrates currently applicable to the enhancements to project heritage values.

3.3 Review of heritage registers

Items considered being of heritage significance in Australia and ACT may be included on registers at the National or Territory level. These registers are not static, with sites recorded and removed as deemed necessary.

Australian Heritage Database

Archaeological sites and heritage items in Australia may be registered as significant at the National or International level and appear in the National Heritage Database, a searchable heritage list of all heritage items within Australia. The NHL and the RNE before it, is the lead statutory document for the protection of heritage places considered to be of national significance. Although the RNE no longer has statutory status, the Minister is still required to consider this Register when making decisions under the EPBC Act, so searches of the RNE archive must still be conducted.

Searches of the Australian Heritage Database with reference to the WHL, NHL, CHL, and RNE archive were undertaken on 19 November 2019. The searches revealed that there are no registered items on the WHL, NHL, CHL or RNE within the study area.

ACT Heritage Register

The ACTHR is the complete inventory of heritage items with statutory protection in the ACT. The register includes items of environmental, Aboriginal, and non-Aboriginal heritage significance.

Page 17

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Heritage items on the ACTHR are generally separated into three categories, based on how far through the registration process the item is. Nominated places have been nominated for inclusion on the ACTHR, but which have not been formally assessed by Council. An item is not protected by the Heritage Act until the nomination has been accepted. Provisional Registration occurs once the Heritage Council has undertaken a more formal assessment, however its registration has not been endorsed by Council. Registration of a heritage item occurs once Council is satisfied that a provisionally registered item meets the heritage significance criteria. This report only considers impacts to items for which a nomination has been accepted and are therefore protected by the Heritage Act.

A search of the ACTHR were undertaken on 19 November 2019. The search of the ACTHR confirmed that the study area contains two registered items, ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ (Heritage ID 1166) and ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ (Heritage ID unavailable), as well as one item nominated for provisional registration, ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ (Heritage ID 280). In addition to the items within the study area, the searches also identified several items in the immediate vicinity of the study area.

The National Trusts of Australia Register

The National Trusts of Australia are community-based, non-government organisations, committed to promoting and conserving Australia's indigenous, natural and historic heritage through advocacy work and custodianship of heritage places and objects. The Trust acts as custodian and manages over 300 heritage places. A search of the NTAR confirmed that the study area contains no registered items that have been classified by the National Trusts of Australia and that are listed on the non-statutory NTAR.

A list of the heritage items within and in the vicinity of the study area is provided in Table 5 below. The location of the heritage items is illustrated in Figure 4.

Page 18

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Table 5: Heritage items within 500m of the study area

Distance from Listing Name District Block Register Status Significance study area

B182, B1036, B2031, B2061, Aboriginal Places in the District Jerrabomberra B2081, B2087, B2082, B2099, ACTHR (ID 1166) Registered Territory Within of Jerrabomberra B2100, B2110, B2117, B2118

King Billy’s Cottage site Jerrabomberra B2087 ACTHR (ID 280) Nominated N/a Within

B1, B4, B6, B5, B13, B15, B17, Corroboree Ground and B19, B20, B21, B22, B662, B663, Aboriginal Cultural Area, Majura ACTHR Registered Territory Within B699, B680, B701, B702, B703, Queanbeyan River B704, B2002, B2091, B2117

Tim Beard’s Station Site Jerrabomberra B2008 ACTHR (ID 334) Registered Territory 370m west

ACTHR (ID 175) The Oaks Jerrabomberra B16, B19 Registered Territory 250m east RNE (ID 13311)

Hazelbrook Industrial Estate Jerrabomberra B5, B6 ACTHR (ID 191) Nominated N/a 375m southeast

B48, B51, B171, B554, B556, B559, B560, B570, B574, B611, B614, B619, B666, B670, B671, Aboriginal Places in the District ACTHR (ID 307 & Adjacent to study Majura B673, B679, B680, B682, B688, Registered Territory of Majura 1243) area B53, B63, B65, B92, B102, B151, B191, B192, B548, B560, B574, B585, B622, B660, B682, B636

Aboriginal scarred trees Majura B596, B597, B598, B599 ACTHR (ID 2027) Registered Territory 75m east

Page 19

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 4: Heritage items in the vicinity of the study area

Page 20

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

4.0 ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

4.1 Introduction

This section outlines the Aboriginal and community consultation that was undertaken for the preparation of this report and to assist with identifying the cultural heritage values of the study area. As the ACT consultation guidelines are still in preparation at the time of the writing of this report, community consultation for the QSTP Upgrade project was conducted in accordance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 (the Consultation Requirements) prepared by the NSW Department of Climate Change & Water (DECCW).7

The Consultation Requirements apply to all activities (in NSW) that have potential to harm Aboriginal objects or places. The requirements specify four stages of consultation:

• Stage 1: Notification of project proposal and registration of interest • Stage 2: Presentation of information about the proposed project • Stage 3: Gathering information about cultural significance • Stage 4: Review of draft CHA.

A consultation log has been maintained which details all correspondence with the RAOs and community stakeholders.

4.2 Identification of stakeholders and registrations of interest

Representative Aboriginal Organisations

The ACT Government and ACT Heritage Council identify four local Aboriginal organisations who express interest in representing the traditional Aboriginal cultural values and interests within the ACT. These groups have been recognised by the Minister as RAOs as defined under the Heritage Act. The recognised RAOs are identified in Table 6.

Table 6: Representative Aboriginal Organisations

Organisation

Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation

King Brown Tribal Group

Little Gudgenby River Tribal Council

Ngarigu Currawong Clan

7 Department of Climate Change & Water, 2010. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010. Research and Publications. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research- and-publications/publications-search/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-consultation-requirements-for-proponents-2010 (26 November 2019).

Page 21

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

A fifth RAO, Consultative Body Aboriginal Corporation on Indigenous Land and Artefacts in the Ngunnawal Area, is identified in Notifiable Instrument NI2006-298, dated 18 August 2006.8 However, it is Artefact Heritage’s understanding that this group has been replaced by the King Brown Tribal Group.

In accordance with the Heritage Act and ACT Heritage Council policy, RAOs should be consulted with regard to the management of Aboriginal cultural values and places within the ACT when a proposal would potentially impact Aboriginal sites.

Community stakeholders

In accordance with IS Rating Scheme heritage criteria wider community consultation was undertaken in order to inform the assessment of community heritage values of the study area. An additional nine potential community stakeholders were identified prior to the commencement of the consultation process. The potential stakeholders were identified based on a number of factors, including their presence and activity in the local area, their association with historical or heritage groups, potential special interest groups, and recommendations from other groups. Of particular note, one of the potential stakeholders identified was a descendant of King Billy who as a result may have had a personal connection with the history of the study area.

The community stakeholders identified for potential involvement in the consultation process are identified in Table 7.

Table 7: Identified potential Community Groups and Organisations

Organisation

Canberra and District Historical Society

Queanbeyan Museum

National Trust

Jerrabomberra Residents’ Association

The Oaks Estate Progress Association

Inner South Canberra Community Council

Institution of Engineers Australia

Molonglo Catchment Group

Relative of King Billy (name withheld)

Registrations of interest

In accordance with the Consultation Requirements, letters and emails were sent to the RAOs and potential community stakeholders in November and December 2019, inviting them to register their interest in being consulted with regarding the heritage aspects of the study area. The registration of

8 ACT Government, 2006. Heritage (Representative Aboriginal Organisations) Declaration 2006 (No 1). ACT Legislation Register. Accessed online at: https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2006-298/default.asp (26 November 2019).

Page 22

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment interest letters provided details about the location and nature of the proposal, as well as an invitation to attend a site inspection in December 2019 to inspect the study area and to discuss the cultural heritage values of the study area.

The groups who expressed interesting in registering as Aboriginal and community stakeholders are identified in Table 8.

Table 8: Registrations of interest as Aboriginal and community stakeholders

Organisation Contact Date of registration

King Brown Tribal Group Tina Brown 26 November 2019

Molonglo Catchment Group Dr Karen Williams 2 December 2019

Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation Wally Bell 9 December 2019

Canberra and District Historical Society Council Peter Dowling 18 December 2019

ACT National Trust Council Peter Dowling 18 December 2019

4.3 Involvement with site inspection and preliminary findings

A site inspection of the study area was undertaken on 16 December 2019. The site inspection was aimed at assessing the current condition of the study area and the potential for archaeological remains to be present. As part of the registration of interest the RAOs and potential community stakeholders were invited to participate in the site inspection and to discuss the cultural heritage values of the study area. The RAOs and community stakeholders were asked to confirm their participation in the site inspection by 10 December 2019.

Of the identified RAOs and community stakeholders, only Dr Karen Williams (Molonglo Catchment Group) was in attendance during the site inspection. The King Brown Tribal Group and Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation expressed interest in participating in the site inspection, however representatives from these RAOs were not able to attend on the day.

Following the site inspection, a preliminary summary of findings was provided to the RAOs and community stakeholders on 19 December 2019. The preliminary summary outlined what areas were inspected, observations of the condition of the propose build zone and the overall site, and some preliminary comments and recommendations that were made during the site inspection.

A summary of the comments made during the site inspection and responses to the preliminary summary of findings are documented in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Summary of comments

Organisation Contact Comments

Molonglo Catchment Group Dr Karen Williams Suggested that the study area has high community value. Recommended that the project design should respect the existing landscape and retain the alignment of Mountain Road and existing landscape/gardenscape, in particular the peppercorn and pine trees

Page 23

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Organisation Contact Comments

Oaks Estate Progress Hugh Griffin Noted the site had not featured in previous discussions at Association planning and community meetings that the OEPA had records of covering the last decade. OEPA deferred to the expert views of indigenous organisations and Dr Karen Williams as the expert on heritage and history. (Note: OEPA referred Artefact to Dr Williams when consultation commenced in 2019)

Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Wally Bell Identified that the study area holds high Aboriginal cultural Corporation significance as a major pathway, and that there are many cultural objects and features along the Molonglo River

Canberra and District Historical Peter Dowling Agreed that the area has high Aboriginal cultural heritage Society Council and ACT values National Trust Council

4.4 Additional information

During the preparation of the CHA the RAOs and community stakeholders were invited to share their information and views regarding the heritage significance and cultural heritage values of the study area. In particular, the RAOs and community stakeholders were invited to share information relating to the following topics:

• Views on the cultural heritage significance of the area • Views on the aesthetical significance of the landscape • Information regarding the site’s association with Jimmy Clements (‘King Billy’) and the potential site of his cottage • Information regarding the historical development of the study area and surrounding area • Views on the possible historical significance and heritage values of the current STP, and whether a heritage nomination should be considered.

During the preparation of the CHA no detailed assessment of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the study area were made by the RAOs or community stakeholders. However, comments were received (refer to Table 9) which confirmed that the area is viewed as being culturally significant. No comments were provided regarding the possible aesthetical significance of the landscape and whether the proposed STP would negatively impact the cultural landscape. No comments were received in support of the potential heritage nomination of the current STP.

Historical information regarding the development of Queanbeyan and the study area, including information relating to Jimmy Clements (‘King Billy’), was provided by the following community stakeholders:

• Peter Dowling (Canberra and District Historical Society Council, ACT National Trust Council) • Dr Karen Williams (Molonglo Catchment Group).

4.5 Review of draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

The draft CHA was issued to the RAOs and community stakeholders for review on 5 June 2020 with comments requested by 22 June 2020.

Page 24

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

No comments regarding the findings of the CHA were received from the RAOs or community stakeholders within the review period. An assessment of the cultural and social significance of the site and potential archaeological resources was not provided by any of the RAOs or community stakeholders during the review period.

Page 25

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

5.1 Introduction

This section outlines the environmental context of the study area and provides an overview of the historical development of the study area. The historical background of the study area has been informed by a range of sources, including local and regional histories, theses, newspaper articles, gazettes, parish maps and other historical plans.

The environmental context of the study area is to assist in the prediction of:

• The potential of the landscape over time to have accumulated and preserved Aboriginal objects • The ways Aboriginal people have used the landscape in the past with reference to the presence of resource areas, surfaces for art, other focal points for activities and settlement • The likely distribution of the material traces of Aboriginal land use based on the above.

5.2 Landform and hydrology

Queanbeyan is part of the undulating plains system which marks the evolution from the Great Divide to the inland Riverine Plains to the west. The study area is part of the Winnunga soil landscape which typically features gently rolling slopes to rolling rises, with slopes between 3-10%, local relief of 9-30m, and elevation ranging between 590-645m.9 The study area is situated on a crest and slope landform, which rises from the south and towards the southwest, and then dropping down towards the Molonglo River to the north and east. On the north side of the Molonglo River the landscape climbs to the north.

The study area is bounded by the Molonglo River to the north and south and is situated on the convex bank of a meander in the river. The Molonglo River is a perennial river that is part of the Murrumbidgee catchment within the Murray–Darling basin. The river commences near Mount Bollard about 40km to the southeast of Queanbeyan, flows through Lake Burley Griffin, and then flows into the Murrumbidgee River to the northwest. The Molonglo River is fed by several tributaries and drainage lines, with many drainage channels flowing into the river to the north of the study area, and one flowing through the study area.

The Molonglo River is joined by the Queanbeyan River on the north side of Oaks Estate about 850m southeast of the study area. The Queanbeyan River commences about 70km east-southeast of Queanbeyan and follows the fragments of an ancient fault line, with some evidence of the early river terraces modified by human occupation of the land.

Three large bodies of water are present along the north side of the study area. However, these are not natural ponds and were established as maturation ponds for the current STP in the second half of the twentieth century. Due to the close proximity of the Molonglo River and Queanbeyan River, Queanbeyan and the study area are located within flood prone areas and have been subjected to numerous flood events since the mid nineteenth century. The ponds are situated below the 1 in 100-year flood level and in 2010 the 1 in 20-year floods damaged and led to the failure of Pond 2.

9 NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE - formerly NSW Office of Environment and Heritage), 2016. Winnunga. eSPADE – ACT Soil Landscape Mapping Project. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/land-and-soil/information/espade (7 May 2020).

Page 26

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

5.3 Geology

Geology and soils

The underlying geology of the Canberra region primarily consists of quartz-rich turbidites of Ordovician age, which represent the oldest rocks exposed in the ACT. In particular, the Geology of Canberra 1:100,000 sheet identifies that the local geology of the Queanbeyan region primarily consists of Pittman Formation from the late Ordovician. The lithology of the Pittman Formation consists of Lithologies include quartz-rich and interbedded sandstone, siltstone, shale with minor black shale, chert and impure calcareous sandstone (distal quartz turbidites). Queanbeyan is located within the Cullarin Tableland and is situated between the Queanbeyan Fault, located about 2.5km east of the study area, and the Sullivan’s Fault, located about 400m to the west of the study. The geomorphology of the Cullarin Tableland is primarily classified as uplands (tablelands) which is characterised by broad, meridionally orientated ranges and valleys. These are assumed to be dissected remnants of an original Mesozaic upland. To the west of the study area and the Sullivan’s Fault the local geology shifts to early Silurian Canberra Formation and volcanics as the geomorphology transitions to the Canberra Plain.

The study area is within the Winnunga soil landscape which consists of alluvial/transportational slopes and alluvial fans on Ordovician metasediments. To the north and east of the study area the Winnunga soil landscape transitions to the Queanbeyan soil landscape, and to the west the landscape transitions to the Williamsdale soil landscape. The soils of the Winnunga landscape are reported to consist of:

Shallow (<50 cm), well to moderately well-drained Leptic Tenosols and Rudosols (Lithosols) and moderately deep (50 - 100 cm) Red and Yellow Chromosols (Red and Yellow Podzolic Soils, Non-Calcic Brown Soils) and deep to very deep (>100 cm), moderately well to imperfectly drained, Bleached Red and Yellow Chromosols (Solodic Soils) and Brown and Yellow Sodosols (Solodic Soils).10

Geotechnical investigations

Geotechnical investigations were undertaken for the QSTP Upgrade project by Arup on 17 and 18 June 2019 to determine the general conditions of the study area. The investigations were located within the proposed build zone and the proposed site amenities and laydown area. Biosolid stockpiles were present along the western and southern areas of the investigation locations at the time of the investigation and the trial pits were placed around these. In addition, unknown services were identified on the western side of the site and the trajectory and direction of these could not be confirmed. This required the planned locations of some of the trial pits to be relocated or abandoned. 20 trial pits were originally planned to be excavated however only 15 were excavated due to the presence of the services. The trial pits were excavated by a 30t excavator utilising a 1500mm wide toothed bucket, as well as three dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests.11

Eight of the trial pits were excavated to a depth of between 2000-2700mm, four trial pits were excavated to a depth of 1000-1700mm, and three trial pits were terminated at a depth of less than 1000mm. The results of the geotechnical excavations identified that the top 300-600mm of the ground surface was primarily comprised of fill material consisting of sand and gravelly sand, and typically included large rock fragments. The underlying soil largely consisted of either residual or alluvial sand or clayey sand down to the sandstone/siltstone bedrock. Disturbed samples were retrieved within natural ground stratum at

10 DPIE 2016. Winnunga. 11 Arup, 2019. Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant (QSTP) Factual geotechnical investigation. Report prepared for Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (QPRC), p. 3.

Page 27

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment depths of up to 1500mm from the surface during the excavation. Nearly all of the trial pits which terminated within 1000mm of the ground surface, consisting of TP6, TP 10, TP 12, TP 14A, TP 15 and TP 16 (Figure 5), were located further away from the current STP, either on the eastern boundary of the investigation area or to the south of build zone. These areas also had a higher percentage of trial pits which featured sand underlying the surface layer of fill, with the sand deposit typically measuring 300- 500mm deep. No evidence of aboriginal objects, shell deposits, or historical archaeological remains were identified during the geotechnical investigations.

Additional geotechnical investigations were undertaken between 21 January and 7 February 2020 as a result of the revised project design. A total of 31 boreholes were drilled by Douglas Partners and DCP tests were carried out within the boreholes from subgrade level to depths of up to 10m below ground surface. The boreholes were located within the proposed build zone and site amenities and laydown area, as well as along Mountain Road. The results of the geotechnical investigation were that in general, the bores encountered generally minor thickness of soil fill over alluvial soils, followed by bedrock at variable depths though typically increasing closer to the river. The alluvium typically comprised clayey and sandy soils, grading with depth to gravelly soils.12

No evidence of Aboriginal objects, shell deposits, or historical archaeological remains were identified during the geotechnical investigations.

The locations of the geotechnical technical investigations is illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 5: Soil profile observed during the excavation of Trial Pit 15 towards the south end of the proposed site amenities and laydown area (Source: Arup 2019)

12 Douglas Partners, 2020. Factual Report on Geotechnical Investigation: Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade. Report prepared for Hunter H2O, p. 11.

Page 28

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 6: Location of geotechnical investigations undertaken in 2019 (Source: Arup 2019)

Figure 7: Location of geotechnical investigations undertaken in 2020 (Source: Douglas Partners 2020)

Page 29

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

5.4 Vegetation

Prior to European settlement in the area the region around Queanbeyan would likely have largely consisted of Eucalypt woodlands, including brittle gum, snow gum, ironbark and stringybark trees. These woodlands have been extensively cleared over time however and little remnant woodland survives in the immediate area today. None of the present Eucalypts in the study area appear to be more than 100 years old and most appear to have been planted in the second half of the twentieth century. The Federal Territory feature map of the area, dated to c.1915, describes the area as being ‘Devoid of Timber’ indicating that by that time it had largely been cleared. The study area includes introduced species such as Peppercorn and Pine trees which are associated with the historical residences and development within the study area. No Registered Trees are located in the study area.

Although the native woodland has been cleared from the study area, native grasslands are still present. Remnant native grassland is present to the south and west of the STP, including within the proposed site amenities and laydown area. An area of Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana), a native species listed on the EPBC Act, is also present between Nimrod Road and Railway Street. An exclusion zone has been established around the area of Golden Sun Moth.

5.5 Ethnohistorical context

The ACT has a long history stretching back well before the arrival of European settlers in NSW in 1788. Archaeological investigations undertaken at Birrigai Rock Shelter, a Pleistocene site, has provided evidence of occupation in the region dating back 21,000-25,000 years.13 In 1974 linguist Norman Tindale mapped the local language groups in region around the ACT at the time of the first European arrival in Australia as consisting of the Ngunawal, Ngarigo, Walgalu, and the Walbanga. The boundaries of these groups are not fixed however and would have been dynamic during the prehistoric and early historical periods.14 As a result, reconstructions of the boundaries of groups are approximations only and differing boundary maps have been produced over time. In 2001 historian Anne Jackson-Nakano mapped the local area of the Molonglo River as being shared country between the Walgalu speaking Kamberri and the Ngarigo speaking Moolinggoolah.15

Land boundaries were often delineated by physical boundaries within the landscape, such as rivers. The land boundaries of the Ngunawal have been described as encompassing an area from Goulburn to the north, Gundagai to the west, Cooma to the south and Braidwood to the east, while the boundaries of the Ngarigo have been described as being ‘loosely formed by the Goodradigbee River in the hills to the west, the Murrumbidgee River to the south, the Murray River and the Yass River’.16 The ACT Government currently recognises the Ngunnawal as the traditional custodians of the Canberra region, including the study area which marks the southern boundary of Ngunnawal land. This is bordered by the Ngarigo land immediately to the south, Walgalu land to the southwest and Walbanga to the southeast. Although the ACT Government recognises the Ngunnawal as the traditional custodians of

13 Flood, J, et al., 1987. Birrigai: A Pleistocene site in the south-eastern highlands. Archaeology in Oceania, Vol. (22), pp. 9-26; Flood, J., 1995. Archaeology of the Dreamtime: the Story of Prehistoric Australia and its People. J.B. Publishing, Marleston, South Australia, p. 116; Theden-Ringl, F., 2016. Aboriginal presence in the high country: new dates from Namadji Ranges in the Australian Capital Territory. Australian Archaeology. Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 25–42. 14 Tindale, N. B. (Norman Barnett) & Jones, Rhys, 1941- (1974). Aboriginal tribes of Australia: their terrain, environmental controls, distribution, limits, and proper names. Australian National University Press, Canberra. 15 Anne Jackson-Nakano, 2001. The Kamberri: A History of Aboriginal Families in the ACT and Surrounds. Aboriginal History, Canberra. 16 Tegan Osborne, 2016. What is the Aboriginal History of Canberra? ABC News. Quote from Shane Mortimer, a Ngambri-Guumaal elder. Accessed online at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/curious-canberra/2016-04- 04/curious-canberra-what-is-the-aboriginal-history-of-canberra/7286124 (7 May 2020).

Page 30

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment the Canberra region, they also recognise that other groups have claimed ancestral connections to the land.17

For thousands of years the local Aboriginal groups have occupied the land, utilising the available natural resources. Food sources would likely have consisted of larger game hunted by the men, such as kangaroos and emus, along with smaller game, fish, seeds, berries, yams, and bird’s eggs collected by women and children (Australians Together 2016).18 As food sources changed with seasonal availability, the groups would have travelled across their lands. One unique food source were the Bogong moths in the high country such as the Namadgi and Tinderry Range. The moths were plentiful and easy to harvest, as well as being rich in stored fats and oils, and as result were an important food source in the Summer.19 This saw groups travel great distances to exploit this seasonal food source. Evidence of the interaction between the Aboriginal groups and the land still survive today, with many Aboriginal sites such rock shelters, quarry sites, and artefact scatters being listed on the ACTHR. The ethnographic record and abundance of Aboriginal artefacts found in the Canberra also suggest that was an important meeting place.20 In particular, the Molonglo and Queanbeyan Rivers were important pathways through the land and their confluence was an important meeting place. European accounts from 1862 describe how groups from Braidwood, Yass and Bland Plains met for a corroboree on the bank of the Queanbeyan River near the Oaks.21

There are limited sources of documentary evidence detailing the lives of the traditional Aboriginal inhabitants in the Canberra region. Early settlers recounted in diaries and letters their interactions with the local groups, resulting in an intangible glimpse into the lives of the first people. The early historical accounts describe groups travelling great distances during certain seasons and on particular occasions, typically moving in small family groups but also with an eventful social life and intergroup contacts that saw gatherings of a thousand or more people.22 Queanbeyan’s local Aboriginal population was recorded by Surveyor Dixon in 1829 and was noted as comprising of several small tribal groups.23 Cultural materials noted in these reports are also represented in the archaeological record of the region, where spears, spear throwers, shields, boomerangs, stone axes, tools, bark huts and vessels, canoes and skin clothing are observed.24

The Aboriginal groups in the Canberra region would have shared a comparable lifestyle with other regions of southern NSW, which were severely impacted with the arrival of European settlers in the 1820s.25 This resulted in a rapid change and loss of traditional lifeways in a period of about half a century from contact in the region, especially from the introduction of European diseases such as a smallpox epidemic in 1830 and severe outbreak of measles by the 1860s.26 The rapid decline in traditional ways of life is evident by reports that local groups were relying on Government handouts and rations as early as the 1840s.27 In 1850, reports estimated the population of the Southern Highlands to be no more than

17 ACT Government, Community Services Directorate, 2012. Our kin our country: ACT Government genealogy project. Community Services Directorate, Canberra. 18 Flood, J. 1980. The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal Prehistory of Australian Alps. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 92-116. 19 Flood 1980. 20 Flood 1980: 13. 21 ‘Shocking Murder of a Blackfellow’. Queanbeyan Age, 5 April 1862. Cited in ACT Heritage Council, 2017. Background Information: Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/1130462/Background-Information.pdf (12 May 2020). 22 Flood 1980: 118; Biosis, 2008. Archaeological Re-assessment: Block 182, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development on the former Canberra Abattoir site. Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff, p. 11. 23 Peter Freeman & Partners, 1988. Queanbeyan heritage study: report. Peter Freeman & Partners, Canberra. 24 Flood 1980; NOHC 2003. Tralee Local Environmental Study Cultural Heritage Component. Report prepared for URS Group Australia. 25 Flood 1980: 49-60. 26 Flood 1980: 32. 27 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988.

Page 31

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

500, with ‘little contact’ between the Aboriginal groups and early Europeans, and it was reported that by the 1870s only a ‘handful of full-blood Aborigines remained’.28

Well-known local figures included Nellie Hamilton, or ‘Queen Nellie’, and Jimmy Clements, or ‘King Billy’. In 1888 Hamilton was recognised by the ‘Aboriginal Protection Board’, at the recommendation of Harold Mapletoft Davis and the Queanbeyan Council, for her leadership as a Ngunnawal elder and was awarded a brass plate by Mayor John Bull of Queanbeyan.29 Clements, who was a member of the Wiradjuri group, was a local resident in the late nineteenth century and also the fourth husband of Hamilton. He was particularly known for presenting the first recorded Aboriginal protest at Old Parliament House during its opening on 9 May 1917. He is reported to have had a cottage within the vicinity of the study area at the time of his death.30

5.6 Historical context

European settlement of Canberra and Queanbeyan

5.6.1.1 Initial settlement

Queanbeyan is located in a compact valley to the eastern end of the Limestone Plains.31 European occupation of the Canberra region dates to the start of the 1820s, with the first explorers visiting the area by the end of 1820. On 8 December 1820 an exploration party comprised of Joseph Wild, James Vaughan and Charles Throsby Smith discovered the waterway junction of the Molonglo and Queanbeyan Rivers, located roughly 1.6km away from the town centre.32 Although the explorers were searching for the Murrumbidgee River, they found vast, fertile lands that would soon be occupied by stockowners who sought relief from drought and inability to obtain enough land in settled areas.33 By October 1824 Joshua John Moore was granted the first land in the area, with a ticket-of-occupation of for 2000 acres in what is now Civic.34 Following this several other farms were established in the area. Although there was some development in Canberra over the years, the majority of the region was characterised by farms during the nineteenth century. This resulted in the clearing of large areas of vegetation.

Competition soon followed to acquire land in the area, with many large estates and reserved Government land evident before 1830.35 Timothy Beard is considered the first European land occupant in the Queanbeyan area where he set up a run on the banks of the Queanbeyan River near its junction with the Molonglo River. Beard named the land ‘Quinbean’, a name purported to be the Aboriginal word for ‘clear waters’.36 In the 1828 census, Beard was recorded to have 200 acres on the Limestone Plains and his herdsman would have likely lived in bark huts (Figure 8).37 This land however was not legally

28 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988: 3-4. 29 ‘Presentation to Queen Nellie’. Queanbeyan Age, Saturday 15 September 1888, p. 2. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/30920522 (7 May 2020). 30 ‘King Billy Dead’. The Port Macquarie News and Hastings River Advocate, Saturday 10 September 1927, p. 5. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/112534982 (7 May 2020). 31 Lea-Scarlett, E. J. and T. Robinson, 1986. First light on the Limestone Plains: historic photographs of Canberra & Queanbeyan. Hale & Iremonger for Canberra & District Historical Society, Sydney. 32 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 33 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 34 Fitzhardinge, L. F. Moore, Joshua John (1790–1864). Australian Dictionary of Biography. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 1967. Accessed online at: http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/moore-joshua-john-2475 (7 May 2020). 35 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 36 ‘Queanbeyan Named from clear water’. The Canberra Times, Sunday 18 March 1990, p. 29. Accessed online at: from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article120885921 (16 March 2020). 37 Tregear, G. A., 2018. No Time for Toys. Xlibris Corporation, Bloomington, Indianna.

Page 32

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment granted and Beard was in fact squatting on the land, and as a result he was forced to give it up.38 Other early estates in the area included ‘Duntroon’ which was granted to Robert Campbell, a Sydney merchant, and the Jerrabomberra estate, owned by John Palmer, Campbell’s brother in law. Campbell and Palmer were both granted additional allotments over time.

Figure 8: Map of the Limestone Plains, dated to 1834, showing the location of the huts on Beard's land. The indicative location of the study area is circled in red. Source: National Library of Australia, G8918.G4639

38 ‘Drought and land hunger led to old 'Quinbean'’. The Canberra Times, Sunday 14 November 1982, p. 13. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article130829104 (16 March 2020). 39 Phillip Leeson Architects, 2013. Heritage Assessment Oaks Estate, ACT. Report prepared for ACT Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate, p. 13.

Page 33

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

5.6.1.2 Development and growth of Queanbeyan

As the area was located at a meeting of roads from Cooma, Goulburn, Bateman’s Bay and Gundaroo it was an important location for mail routes and as a result a post office was established in 1836.40 In 1837 a courthouse was opened in Queanbeyan, and in November of that year Captain Alured Tasker Faunce was appointed as the resident police magistrate for the area by the Colonial Secretary.41 Although Queanbeyan’s town centre had not yet been surveyed, the area was already populated with a small selection of stores for local dwellers. In April 1838, the area was surveyed by James Larmer and the future town was planned in a grid pattern established by the regulation set in 1829 by Governor Darling.42 The township of Queanbeyan was officially gazetted later that year on 28 September 1838 with Monaro Street laid out as the main thoroughfare. The main road was lined with newly established buildings including a new courthouse, three large stores and two hotels.43 At the time of the founding of the town the population of the area was around 50 people.44 By 1841 Queanbeyan consisted of three brick buildings and seven wooden buildings, and a decade later the population of the Queanbeyan area had grown to about 372 people. By the early 1860s the population had increased to about 526 people, in part due to the discovery of gold in the area. The early 1860s also saw the founding of Queanbeyan’s first newspaper, ‘The Golden Age’, which has operated as the ‘Queanbeyan Age’ since 1864.45

Pressured by the growth of the area and the lack of administrative departments, Queanbeyan was officially proclaimed a Municipality in February 1885, and contained an area measuring about 5,700 acres (Figure 9 and Figure 10).46 When the railway was extended past Goulburn, strong campaigning by locals resulted in the extension of the line to travel to Cooma via Queanbeyan. Although the line experienced complications, the official opening of the line occurred on the 8 September 1887.47

On 1 January 1911, the separation of the ACT (which included the study area) and the establishment of the national capital altered the lives of many of those living in and around Queanbeyan. In particular, some residents of the adjacent Oaks Estate who, faced by the newly set boundaries of the capital, ‘found themselves in the curious position of travelling interstate when they walked into town to do their shopping’.48 The later gold boom of the 1920s in the surrounding area is not represented in the population of Queanbeyan, which appears to have declined over the decade into the 1930s and the onset of the Great Depression.49

The town received its first piped water supply in the mid-1920s, while sewage works were established in the town in the early 1930s.50 The outbreak of the Second World War resulted in an influx of new residents to the area, who voluntarily evacuated Sydney, in addition to public servants and servicemen who were seeking accommodation near the new capital (Figure 11).51 Following the end of the war

40 ‘Queanbeyan’s First 100 Years. From Struggling Village to Thriving Town’. The Canberra Times, Monday 3 October 1938, p. 2. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2502214 (16 March 2020). 41 ‘General Post Office’. The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, Tuesday 22 March 1836, p. 4. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2203354?searchTerm=queanbeyan (16 March 2020). 42 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 43 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 44 Tregear 2018. 45 ‘Queanbeyan Age 96’. The Canberra Times, Thursday 20 September 1956, p. 2. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91223485 (16 March 2020). 46 'Government Gazette Proclamations and Legislation'. New South Wales Government Gazette, Tuesday 3 February 1985, p. 911. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article221624183 (16 Mar 2020). 47 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 48 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988: 33. 49 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 50 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 51 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988.

Page 34

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment development resumed and by 1963 the population of Queanbeyan had passed ten thousand people. By 7 July 1972 Queanbeyan was officially proclaimed as a city.52

Figure 9: Historical photograph of Queanbeyan from Pound Hill, dated c.189053

Figure 10: Historical photograph of Queanbeyan, dated c.189954

52 ‘180 items mark 180 years’. The Queanbeyan Age, 13 September 2018. Accessed online at: https://www.queanbeyanagechronicle.com.au/story/5638917/180-items-mark-180-years/ (8 May 2020). 53 Lea-Scarlett and Robinson 1958. 54 A. M. Fallick & Sons, 1938. The Story of Queanbeyan 1838-1938: published on the occasion of the town's centenary. A.M. Fallick & Sons, Queanbeyan.

Page 35

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 11: Historical photograph of Queanbeyan, dated c.193955

Study area

5.6.2.1 Early settlement (1820 – 1877)

The study area is located to the north of the city of Queanbeyan, to the northwest of Oaks Estate and to the east of the suburb of Jerrabomberra, the former estate of John Palmer. The land was surveyed by the Government surveyor, Robert Hoddle in 1832 as part of the NSW government’s plan on developing the Limestone Plains area. The land was subsequently divided up and purchased (or used by squatters) who were within the surrounding area. The 1834 map of the development on the Limestone Plains indicates that the study area was situated about 400m to the east of the huts on Beard’s run, and no development is shown within the study area.

By the mid to late 1830s Robert Campbell’s Duntroon Estate was being managed by his third son, Charles Campbell, and sheep were being grazed on both sides of the Molonglo River.56 In 1837 Campbell’s estate was expanded with the purchase of additional land to the east, around Queanbeyan. In 1840 this land was described as being ‘bounded on the east by the Village Reserve and Queanbeyan River, on the north by the Molonglo River and on the south and west by survey lines’.57 This land included the study area and the nearby Oaks Estate (Figure 12). The area of Oaks Estate had been purchased with the plan to build a house for Campbell’s relatives when they arrived from England, although the c.1837-38 stone building (‘The Oaks’) was instead leased as the Elmsall Inn when they did not arrive. The Campbell family used their estate for sheep grazing, rearing cattle and cropping. During this time the study area was likely cleared of vegetation to provide more space, although the extent of this is unknown as the area to the south and north, on the other side of the river, where noted in 1866 as being open forest land’ (Figure 12). There appears to have been little to no substantial development during this time however, with the main development in the area being within the township of Queanbeyan and in Oaks Estate.

55 A. M. Fallick & Sons 1938. 56 Phillip Leeson Architects 2013: 17. 57 Williams, K., 1997. Oaks Estate: No Man’s Land. Karen Williams, Oaks Estate, ACT, p. 5.

Page 36

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 12: Part of plan of the road from Queanbeyan via Canberra, dated. 1866, indicating the study area within land owned by Campbell. Source: National Library of Australia, MAP G8971.G46

5.6.2.2 Subdivision and development (1877 – 1935)

During the late nineteenth century land use around Queanbeyan started to transition from agriculture and grazing to residential and industrial development. This was aided by the extension of the rail line in the late 1880s. In 1887 Charles Campbell sold off The Oaks and surrounding portion of land to John Bull (Figure 13), who in turn sold off much of the property to Queanbeyan storekeeper George Tompsitt. By 1885 much Campbell’s former portion 35 was owned by a group of businessmen comprised pf Tompsitt, Bull, and William Price. To take advantage of the soon to be extended rail line, the group started subdividing the area, including the land around Mountain Road in 1886, which consisted of farming area at the time.58 Despite the subdivisions the area to the north of the rail line within the study area remained rural in nature.

58 Williams, K. 2000. Draft Citation of the Oaks Estate Cultural Landscape to the ACT Interim Heritage Places Register. National Trust of Australia (ACT), p. 16.

Page 37

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 13: Certificate of title showing Oaks Estate, part of portion 35, which was appointed to Charles Campbell in 1840 and sold to Bull in 1877. The adjacent study area is indicated in red. Source: NSW Land Titles Office59

A Federal territory map dated to c.1915 shows that by that time Mountain Road and Nimrod Road had been laid out to the north of the rail line (Figure 14). The map indicates that five allotments had been built on to the north of Mountain Road, with developments consisting of what appeared to be residences and stock yards. Some of these properties had likely been established by 1895.60 On the eastern side of the study area was the ‘River View’ (or ‘Riverview’) residence, which was demolished in the 1990s. Local records show the dwelling was occupied by Sydney Clarence and Eleanor Harman from 1923- 1959. Another residence was the Alabama homestead, which was built in 1912 by Richard Blundell Junior.61 The Queanbeyan Heritage Study notes the exclusion of the ‘Mountain Road stables and outbuildings in Mountain Road’.62 It is assumed the report is referring to the remnant fabric of the buildings noted along Mountain Road to the western portion of the study area in the 1916 map (Figure 15). Further details of these residences are discussed below.

59 Phillip Leeson Architects 2013: 21. Referenced from Williams 1997. 60 Williams, 2000: 18 61 Williams 2000: 8. 62 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988: 42.

Page 38

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 14: Federal map of the study area (outlined in red), dated 1915, showing development within the allotments north of Mountain Road. Source: ACT Heritage

Present along the northwest side of the study area were Chinese gardens. Previous newspaper articles and historical reports of the area have suggested that land along the narrow bands of the Queanbeyan and Molonglo Rivers were predominately utilised for the development of market gardens, with the earliest example established on the flats of the Queanbeyan River from Queen Elizabeth Park and at Chinaman’s Crossing.63 However, it is unclear when the practice started in the area and it has been noted that the earliest mapped example of them dates to 1914.64 The maps depict a building in the area of the gardens. It has been speculated by Williams that the house or hut may have been swept away by the 1925 floods and may have been used either by the market gardeners, or by Campbell as a Shepard’s hut.65

The land south of Mountain Road and east of Nimrod Road was reportedly associated with Bull’s second wool-scouring and tanning business from 1888.66 However, floods in 1891 were noted to have washed the buildings away. It has been reported that Bull replaced the buildings with a slaughterhouse that operated from 1895 to at least 1906 however it is not depicted on the 1915 map, suggesting that it had been demolished by that time.67 Another Federal territory map of the blocks and their occupants, dated to 1918, indicates that a hut had been built on that land by that time (Figure 16). Williams reports this to have been a brick hut that was initially a pigsty associated with the River View residence, before being converted into a two roomed hut for the homeless.68 This was present until at least the 1920s until it burnt down.

63 Peter Freeman & Partners 1988. 64 ACT Heritage Council, 2017. Background Information, Oaks Estate Subdivision and Environs: All Blocks Within Section 2, 3, 5-8 and Oaks Estate. Accessed online at: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-499725745/view (11 May 2020). 65 Williams 1997: 210. 66 Williams 1997: 197. 67 Williams 1997: 198. 68 William 2000: 25.

Page 39

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 15: Map of the development within the study area, dated 1916. Source: Trove

Figure 16: Federal territory map, dated 1918, showing the development within the study area. Source: National Library of Australia

Page 40

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Residences

The Harman family leased River View and its surrounding property from 1923 until Queanbeyan Council obtained the lease in 1938. Historical research conducted by Williams notes that the family utilised the landscape to the north of the house to grow potatoes.69 Additionally, Williams documents the location of a weatherboard house, which was once sited between the house and the shearing shed. These structures were torn down in the 1930s or 1940s.70

The family would remain in the house until the 1950s, when the property was sub leased to Laurence F. Fitzhardinge and his wife, Dr. Verity Hewitt.71 They occupied the house until Fitzhardinge’s passing in 1993. The house was demolished soon after his death, although some pictorial evidence shows the house in a dilapidated state prior to demolition (Figure 17 and Figure 18).

Block 4 of Section 7 was transferred to Thomas Edmund Bambridge of Queanbeyan in 1891.72 The Block was described in rate books as an enclosed land in 1894 and 1895, with a house developed upon the Block shortly afterwards.73 By 1927, the property and adjacent ones within the study area were obtained by the Commonwealth for Federal Capital purposes.74 At this time, the house was known as ‘Bambridge’s old home’.75 As the house became derelict, the Department condemned it for demolition.76

After several tenants, Blocks 5 and 6 of Section 7 were transferred to Richard Blundell Junior in 1918.77 Blundell was also the owner of Block 7, Section 7, where his house was located.78 A few years later, Blundell built a shed at the corner of Block 5 to house his large truck. A tennis court and hayshed were also located on Block 6.79 A shearing shed was located on the property and was used by Blundell and others during the later years of ownership.

Bundell’s Block 7 was transferred to his wife Mary in 1910. The block was occupied by the family home and the property ‘Alabama’ was run as a small farm.80 The property was later transferred to Hobart and Gertrude Miles, until the 1927 acquisition of the land. Miles was subsequently able to sublease the property back from the Commonwealth, as well as Blocks 5, 7, 8 and 10.81 The family would live in the former Blundell property and rename it ‘Cooee’.82

At the time of the Commonwealth acquisition of the land, the property was recorded as consisting of ‘…lightly sandy soil, timbered fair with a few bay trees with a small patch of alluvial deposit, rather sandy near river, very much cut up by deep storm gully’.83 The house was listed as a ‘brick walls on stone, iron roof, steel ceilings, wood floors, 2 brick chimneys.. good condition’.84 Additional built structures included a brick and concrete closet located at the house; a brick and a wooden floor wash house; a shearer’s hut of weatherboard walls and wooden floor; a bailing shed of boards; a straw toped rail shed; a

69 Williams 1997: 203. 70 Williams 1997: 203. 71 Williams 1997: 203. 72 Williams 1997: 203. 73 Williams 1997: 204. 74 Williams 1997: 204. 75 Williams 1997: 204. 76 Williams 1997: 204. 77 Williams 1997: 204. 78 Williams 1997: 204. 79 Williams 1997: 204. 80 Williams 1997: 206. 81 Williams 1997: 207. 82 Williams 1997: 207. 83 Williams 1997: 207. 84 Williams 1997: 207.

Page 41

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment blacksmiths shop of stone and brick; and an iron granary.85 Land use included a tennis court, orchard and plantations. Horse, milk and poultry yards were also located within the property.86

Blocks 8, 9 and 10 were to William Henry O’Malley Wood in 1890.87 Wood was a well-known local who served as an alderman on Queanbeyan’s Borough Council in 1885.88 Wood transferred the property soon after to Ernest George Dornbusch. At this time, the property featured a house and land.89 The land was part of the 1927 Commonwealth acquisition; however, the house would still be occupied by James Davis and his family until 1938.90

Figure 17: Riverview house prior to demolition91

85 Williams 1997: 209. 86 Williams 1997: 209. 87 Williams 1997: 209. 88 Williams 1997: 209. 89 Williams 1997: 209. 90 Williams 1997: 210. 91 'Home destined to fade into history'. The Canberra Times, 5 June 1995, p. 3.

Page 42

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 18: Inside River View dwelling prior to demolition92

Figure 19: Protest to the demolition of River View house. Note landscape in background93

92 'Home destined to fade into history'. The Canberra Times, 5 June 1995, p. 3. 93 'Derelict house has backers'. The Canberra Times, Monday 3 July 1995, p. 5. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article128285134 (5 May 2020).

Page 43

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

5.6.2.3 King Billy’s cottage

At the time of his death, Clements was a well-known figure in the local community and in Canberra due to his participation in the opening of the new Parliament House on 9 May 1927.94 Often confused in contemporary newspaper accounts as one person, Clements was at the official ceremony with another elder, John ‘Marvellous’ Noble. Both men would have their photo taken together some time after the event, although it would take decades for the correction to be publicly acknowledged.95 Due to the publicity he received from his participation at Parliament House his passing was widely publicised, with even papers in Melbourne paying their respects.96

It has been reported that Clements had a cottage within the study area and as a result Block 2087 has been included as the heritage nomination for ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ (Heritage ID 280). However, it is unclear from the historical record if his residence was in fact located within the study area. Newspaper articles from the time provide differing accounts of this information, with some contemporary reports stating that he was living at a camp on Moore’s subdivision, which is located in the town of Queanbeyan and not in the location of the study area, or was ‘on his old camping ground’.97 Later outcounts report that he lived in a ‘mud hovel outside Queanbeyan’, and that the ruins of his cottage were near The Oaks.98 There is also no positive indication that his cottage was one of those depicted in the historical maps of the area from that time (Figure 14 to Figure 16). In addition, although the site has been nominated to the ACTHR, unfortunately no information on its history, location or physical composition were recorded. As a result, historical sources have been unable to confirm if Clements did have a cottage within the study area or if it was located elsewhere.

Sewage treatment plant (1935 – present)

By 1923 requests were being made for a scheme of sewage for Queanbeyan, in part to help avoid possible pollution of the Molonglo River.99 The blocks within the study area were aquired by the Commonwealth in 1927 for Federal Capital purposes, however the sewage scheme was not approved until January 1935 largely in part due to the expected costs of the scheme.100 One of the main reasons that the scheme was finally approved was that it would help to provide work relief during the depression and would help to limit the increasing unemployment rate of the area.101 Works for the sewage scheme

94 ‘Nothing Wrong With Canberra Opening, Says "King Billy"’. The Daily Telegraph, Friday 13 May 1927, p. 2. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article245750627 (1 May 2020); (1910). N/a, c.1910-1927. Portrait of Jimmy Clements, known as King Billy, and John Noble, known as Marvellous. National Library of Australia, PIC/6121 LOC Box PIC/6121. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-137325062 (1 May 2020). 95 Daly, P. 2017. ‘Sovereignty never ceded: how two Indigenous elders changed Canberra's big day’. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial- blog/2017/may/07/sovereignty-never-ceded-how-two-indigenous-elders-changed-canberras-big-day 96 ‘King Billy Dead’. The Herald (Melbourne), Monday 29 August 1927, p. 1. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/244189442? (1 May 2020). 97 ‘Death of “King Billy”’. The Burrowa News, Friday 9 September 1927, p. 9. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article102488965 (1 May 2020); ‘Old King Billy’. Delegate Argus, Thursday 29 September 1927, p. 2. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article121216108 (1 May 2020). 98 ‘The masked man was King Billy, but was he alone?’ The Canberra Times, Sunday 27 December 1987, p. 7. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122418256 (14 May 2020). 99 ‘Library, But No Rostrum’. The Sun, Friday 10 August 1923, p. 8. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/224113746 (14 May 2020); ‘Pollution in Queanbeyan River: Breach of Agreement’. The Canberra Times, Wednesday 13 April 1927, p. 1. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1212405 (14 May 2020). 100 ‘Sewerage Scheme: Probable Cost £60,000’. The Canberra Times, Thursday 11 November 1926, p.4. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1208531 (14 May 2020); ‘Sewerage Scheme Approved’. The Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 7 January 1935, p. 8. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17121849 (14 May 2020). 101 ‘Queanbeyan Sewerage Scheme on State List of Proposed Works For Unemployed’. The Canberra Times, Monday 17 December 1934, p. 1. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2381518 (14 May 2020).

Page 44

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment were planned to commence in July of that year and by 1936 about 100 people were employed for the works.102 Works included large quantities of ‘sand, gravel and crushed metal’ being deposited at the site, and the system started to become operational in 1938.103

Aerial photographs from 1955 show the initial area of the STP as being limited to the north of Nimrod Road. By that time the maturation ponds had not been established and most of the surrounding blocks still featured the rural residences described in the previous section (Figure 20). The aerial photographs indicate that the rural blocks were likely still being used for agricultural purposes during this time and were being ploughed. The STP has since been expanded with the inclusion of the maturation ponds, additional infrastructure, and stockpile locations. As a result, the STP and associated operations encompass most of the land to the north of Mountain Road and part of the area to the east of Nimrod Road. Nearly all of the former residences have also been demolished, with the exception of a brick building/cottage associated with ‘Mountain Road Cottage and stable’ that is currently located in the old nursery area of the STP site.

Figure 20: 1955 aerial image of the study area. River View house outlined in red; Mountain Road Cottage and stable in blue, and sewage treatment plant in yellow. Source: ACT Heritage

102 ‘Here and There: Queanbeyan Sewerage’. Yass Tribune-Courier, Thursday 4 July 1935, p. 7. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/249535815 (15 May 2020); ‘Queanbeyan Sewerage Works Resumed’. The Canberra Times, Saturday 4 January 1936, p. 2. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2404388 (15 May 2020). 103 ‘Queanbeyan Sewerage Works’. The Canberra Times, Saturday 24 August 1935, p. 4. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2397133 (15 Mary 2020); ‘Queanbeyan Sewerage System in Operation’. The Canberra Times, Tuesday 6 September 1938, p. 3. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2495757 (15 May 2020).

Page 45

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 21: Locations of former structures and land use

Page 46

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

6.1 Introduction

This section provides an overview of the archaeological context of the study area, a summary of the historical land use of the study area and likely impacts associated with each phase, and the Aboriginal predictive model for the study area. These overviews and assessments have been informed by the literature review undertaken for the project and by the listed heritage sites in the area. Summaries of the previous heritage reports which were reviewed as part of the literature review and listed sites are described below.

6.2 Previous cultural heritage and archaeological assessments

This section provides a summary of a selection of previous cultural heritage and archaeological assessments have that have been undertaken in the vicinity of the study area. It is noted that numerous archaeological surveys have been undertaken in the surrounding region of Jerrabomberra and Majura and not all of the previous archaeological assessments and results are readily accessible. The literature review below represents a selection of previous works which were available at the time of the preparation of this report and does not provide a summary of all works undertaken to date.

No previous CHAs or archaeological investigations have been undertaken within the current study area, however several investigations have been undertaken for nearby blocks.

Kyle Moffitt, 1997. A Cultural Resource Survey of Blocks 597, 598 and 599 Majura, ACT104

In 1997 Moffitt undertook an archaeological survey of Blocks 597, 598 and 599 within Majura, in order to provide detailed options for site management. The investigation areas were located to the northeast and east of the current study area, with the closest block located about 60m to the east of the study area. The survey identified four scarred trees (T1, T2, T3 and T4), two artefact scatters (S1 and S2), and one isolated find (I1). The survey also identified sites associated with European land use, including one scarred tree (T5) and three stone caches (S3). It was noted that all of the Aboriginal scarred trees were rare examples.

NOHC, 1999a. Majura Valley Transport Corridor, Cultural Heritage Assessment105

In 1999 NOHC prepared a CHA to inform the alignment for the future construction of the Majura Parkway, located 5.2km to the northwest of the study area. The assessment found three Aboriginal artefact sites (57, 59 and 157) and identified four historic sites (Majura School, Joseph House, ‘Oak View’ and ‘The Pines’) as being within or in the vicinity of the proposed works. Generally, it was found that the density of artefact scatters can vary considerably in open sites and that the majority of scatter sites, particularly larger ones, are located 100-150m from major and relatively permanent drainage lines.106 The three artefact scatters which were identified were assessed as having low archaeological significance. Majura School and Joseph House were assessed as having limited heritage value. No further archaeological actions were required regarding the aboriginal sites.

104 Moffitt, K., 1997. Kyle Moffitt, 1997. A Cultural Resource Survey of Blocks 597, 598 and 599 Majura, ACT. Report prepared for Department of Urban Services. 105 NOHC, 1999a. Majura Valley Transport Corridor, Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for GHD. 106 NOHC 1999: 19.

Page 47

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

NOHC, 1999b. Survey and Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Resource of Part of the Majura Valley, Woolshed Creek, ACT – Volume 1107

As stage two of the heritage assessment for the Majura Valley Transport Corridor, located 5.2km to the northwest of the study area, Navin Officer conducted a field survey over 30 days and over 14% of the investigation area. The site inventory for the Majura Valley study area contained 145 recordings, 64 historic sites or features and 81 Aboriginal recordings, of which only 32 sites had been recorded previously. Previously record sites included artefact scatters, one scarred tree, and isolated finds. Prior to the assessment, only 23 historic sites had been identified and recorded. Additional recordings included homesteads, farms and shearing sheds, wells, roads and bridge remain. The assessment concluded that the results of the present survey were likely to be an under representation of Aboriginal sites by approximately half due to the difficulty in detecting sites in aggrading and sedimentary contexts.

NOHC, 2001. Sutton Road Preliminary Assessment Cultural Heritage Component108

As part of the proposed upgrade of a section of Sutton Road between Pialligo Avenue and the ACT/NSW border by ACT Department of Urban Services, NOHC undertook an archaeological survey and CHA in 2001. The south end of the assessment area was located 1.4km to the east of the study area. It was noted that no previous sites had been recorded within the investigation area, however it was acknowledged that sites occurred in adjacent areas and considerable potential was deemed to exist within the area. A section of historical tree plantings was also identified as being threatened by the works. The preliminary archaeological survey and assessment resulted in the recording of five sites within the investigation area, consisting of four open artefact scatters and one isolated find. The artefact scatters typically consisted of a relatively low number of artefacts, though one, SR3, contained over 100 artefacts. The observed artefacts included flakes, flaked pieces, and cores, with raw materials including quartz, silcrete, volcanic, chert, and indurated mudstone.109 The survey also identified two non- Aboriginal sites, the tree plantings of ‘Warrawalong’ homestead (SRH1) and an old easement road (SRH2). The CHA determined that most of the Aboriginal sites had low archaeological significance, while SR3 was assessed as having high significance. The non-Aboriginal sites were assessed as generally having low to moderate significance.

Saunders, 2003. Investigation of Aboriginal Places to be Impacted by the Sutton Road (ACT) Upgrade – Stage 1110

The study found that the proposed upgrade to Sutton Road, located 1.4km to the east of the study area, would impact on three previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites: SR3 (extensive artefact scatter with PAD), SR4 (small artefact scatter) and SR5 (isolated find). Two additional sites would not be impacted by the proposed stage 1 works. SR3 was entered to an ACT Interim Heritage Places Register as a site of medium conservation value, while SR4 and SR5 were of low conservation value. Due to the imminent commencement of the proposed works, a program of investigative and mitigative heritage works was undertaken and confirmed the existing conservation value ratings of all three sites. Recommendations included subsurface testing followed by artefact salvage and site monitoring to SR3.

107 NOHC, 1999b. Survey and Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Resource of Part of the Majura Valley, Woolshed Creek, ACT – Volume 1. Report prepared for Heritage Unit, Environment ACT, ACT Dept of Urban Services. 108 NOHC, 2001. Sutton Road Preliminary Assessment Cultural Heritage Component. Report prepared for RD Gossip. 109 NOHC 2001: 16. 110 Saunders, 2003. Investigation of Aboriginal Places to be Impacted by the Sutton Road (ACT) Upgrade – Stage 1.

Page 48

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

NOHC, 2005. Majura Field Firing Range Services Upgrade, Majura Valley, ACT – Archaeological Monitoring and Salvage within Site MV121111

In 2005 NOHC undertook a program of archaeological monitoring as part of service upgrades to the Majura Field Firing Range, located about 9km to the north of the study area. The works were being undertaken within the listed site MV121 (Heritage ID 1243), which had been recorded as an artefact scatter of more than 50 artefacts. During the initial surface survey, a single isolated find, consisting of a crystalline volcanic flake, was observed outside of the proposed impact area. No artefacts were observed during the monitoring of the trench excavation.

Biosis Research, 2008. Archaeological Re-assessment: Block 182, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development on the former Canberra Abattoir site112

In 2008 Biosis Research re-assessed the heritage values of the former Canberra Abattoir site, located 100m to the southwest of the study area. The heritage values of the site had previously been assessed by Saunders in 2004 and 2006 by Patricia Saunders, however a re-assessment was needed due to changes the proposed development of the site.113 Adjacent surveys had also been undertaken by NOHC in 1994.114 The site is located about 130m to the southeast of the study area on the south side of the rail line. The survey undertaken by Biosis Research managed to re-identify four of the nine sites which had previously been identified by NOHC and Saunders, as well as seven new isolated artefacts. The survey also re-identified one of the two non-Aboriginal sites and no new sites. The majority of the artefacts observed were flakes comprised of quartz and chert, along with a possible hammerstone and split volcanic pebble.

The results of the survey suggested that the site likely contained a low-density background scatter of Aboriginal artefacts, though recent commercial activities would have likely removed a large degree of the archaeological potential in certain areas. It was assessed that overall, the finds suggested that the site generally had low significance, although they are of cultural significance to the Ngunnawal people and individual sites may be of greater significance.115 It was assessed that the historical development likely had not resulted in substantial non-Aboriginal archaeological deposits, and that overall, the archaeological significance was low.

The archaeological assessment recommended test excavations of three sites, A6, A7 and A9, and the salvage of one large site, A5.

Biosis Research, 2009. Archaeological Excavation: Block 2223, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development of the former Canberra Abattoir site116

Following the recommendations of the 2008 archaeological assessment, Biosis Research undertook an excavation program at the former Canberra Abattoir site, located 100m to the southwest of the study area. The program included excavating 110 test pits over five areas of the site. In total, 2,785 Indigenous stone artefacts were found, with the salvage of site A5 retrieving the largest percentage of artefacts (n=93.46%) of the total artefact assemblage. The assessment found that sites A5 and A6 showed a localised and intensive use of the development area. Based on the results it was suggested that

111 NOHC, 2005. Majura Field Firing Range Services Upgrade, Majura Valley, ACT – Archaeological Monitoring and Salvage within Site MV121. Report prepared for GHD. 112 Biosis Research 2008. 113 Saunders, P. 2004. ‘Griffin Green’ Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for Capital Planners, Pty. Ltd; Saunders, P. 2006. 'Griffin Green' Cultural Heritage Assessment (amended). Report prepared for Capital Planners, Pty. Ltd. 114 NOHC, 1994. Preliminary Archaeological Assessment - Canberra Abattoir Site, ACT. Report prepared for CMPS&F. 115 Biosis Research 2008: 25-28. 116 Biosis Research, 2009. Archaeological Excavation: Block 2223, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development of the former Canberra Abattoir site. Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Page 49

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

‘Aboriginal people of the Molonglo and Queanbeyan areas were undertaking very specific tasks at very discrete locations’.117 Sites A7 and A9 indicated low artefact densities. It was assessed that site A5 was of high significance while sites A6 and A7 were of moderate significance. No further site-specific archaeological works were recommended, and RAOs requested that the site be monitored during initial earthworks.

NOHC, 2012. Sutton Road Upgrade, ACT: Archaeological Salvage (Collection) Program118

In 2012 NOHC undertook a program of salvage excavation prior to road works associated with the Sutton Road Upgrade, located 1.4km to the east of the study area. The investigation area had been previously assessed by AECOM in 2011, and was recorded as containing six Aboriginal sites, of which two would be impacted (SUT-IF2-11 and SUT-AS1-11). During the excavations five stone artefacts were recovered from SUT-AS1-11, consisting of four lithic fragments and one flake with the raw material consisting of quartz (n=4) and mudstone (n=1). Only one artefact was recovered from SUT-IF2-11, consisting of a tuff core.

6.3 Registered sites

The location of Aboriginal sites is considered culturally sensitive information and as a result information regarding the location of Aboriginal sites are restricted. It is advised that the heritage map of the nearby Aboriginal sites be removed from this report if it is to enter the public domain.

An extensive search of the ACTHR was undertaken for the preparation of this CHA to identify the number, location, and nature of the previously identified sites in the vicinity of the study area. A search area of 2km around the study area was conducted. As part of this search a section 57 Request for Limited Access to Restricted Information for Aboriginal sites in and around the Jerrabomberra District was submitted to ACT Heritage Council on 19 November 2019. The authorisation for the request was approved on 18 November 2019 and was confirmed on 12 December 2019.

The data provided by ACT Heritage Council identifies about 33 Aboriginal sites within a 2km radius of the study area. Of these sites, artefact bearing sites (isolated finds and artefact scatters) are the most common, representing 69.8% of the sites (n=23). The second most common site types are scarred trees at 21.2% (n=7). The frequency of the recorded site features are summarised in Table 10 and the distribution of the sites is illustrated in Figure 22. These sites are located within the wider heritage items of the Aboriginal Places in the Districts of Jerrabomberra, Majra, and Majura and Kowen.

The search also included two non-standard site types, ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ (Heritage ID 280) and ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area – Queanbeyan River – Majura and Jerrabomberra’.

Table 10: Frequency of Aboriginal site types

Site feature Frequency Percentage (%)

Artefact 23 69.8

Scarred tree 7 21.2

Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) 1 3

117 Biosis Research 2009: 42. 118 NOHC, 2012. Sutton Road Upgrade, ACT: Archaeological Salvage (Collection) Program. Report prepared for Roads ACT.

Page 50

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Dwelling site 1 3

Cultural area 1 3

Total 33 100

To date several archaeological assessments, surveys, and investigations have been undertaken in the Canberra and Queanbeyan region, including within the Jerrabomberra and Majura Districts. This is reflected by the number of sites which have been identified in the vicinity of the study area. Sites in the Queanbeyan area which have been listed on the ACTHR include rock shelters, scarred or carved trees, grinding grooves, stone arrangements, burials, artefact scattering, historic camping sites and places of contemporary Aboriginal significance. The spatial patterning of archaeological sites found in the Queanbeyan region indicates that the surrounding landscape was heavily visited and occupied by Aboriginal people in the time prior to European occupation.

Figure 22 illustrates that the majority of the identified sites in the area are located in the water sources, particularly along Molonglo River. This distribution is consistent with previous archaeological investigations, both within the surrounding region and in NSW, as well as with ethnographic records which identify the Molonglo River as being a significant pathway through the land. The importance of the Queanbeyan area as a meeting place is reflected by the Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, which the historical accounts say was located near the confluence of the Molonglo and Queanbeyan Rivers and within sight of Oaks Estate. The high proportion of artefact sites is also expected and is consistent with previous findings. Stone artefacts are the most durable evidence of the previous Aboriginal occupation and the most likely to have survived subsequent phases of historical development. It is likely that more scarred trees would also have been present in the area prior to European settlement but were removed during land clearing. Scarred trees which have been identified in the vicinity of the study area are concentrated in the Majura blocks to the east of the study area.

There are several sites located within and directly adjacent to the study area, with the most relevant ones being ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and ‘MOL PAD’ which are located near the southwest corner of the study area. Both of these sites are part of a larger heritage item, ‘Aboriginal Places of the District of Jerrabomberra (Heritage ID 1166). It is noted that although the ACT Heritage maps identify ‘MOL PAD’ as being within Block 1036 and therefore outside of the study area, the description for ‘MOL PAD’ included on the ACTHR listing for ‘Aboriginal Places of the District of Jerrabomberra (Heritage ID 1166) states that it is also located within the undeveloped part of Block 2087.119 As a result, it is assumed in this CHA that the area of archaeological potential associated with ‘MOL PAD’ extends into the study area. It is noted that the spatial data available for ‘Oaks Estate 1’ identifies it as being located adjacent to the northwest corner of Mountain Road, however, the description for ‘Oaks Estate 1’ included on the ACTHR listing for ‘Aboriginal Places of the District of Jerrabomberra (Heritage ID 1166) describes the area to the west as having high archaeological potential.

The listed site ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ also partially extends into the southern end of the study area. A summary of the Aboriginal sites is provided in Table 11 below, where this information is available from the ACTHR or from restricted data provided by ACT Heritage Council.

119 ACT Heritage Council, 2000. Aboriginal Places – Jerrabomberra. Entry to the ACT Heritage Register. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/148599/1166.pdf (28 May 2020).

Page 51

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 22: Location of Aboriginal sites in the vicinity of the study area

Page 52

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Table 11: Summary of sites located within or directly adjacent to the study area

Page 53

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Page 54

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Page 55

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Page 56

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

6.4 Historical land use and previous disturbances

How the area has been utilised during the time since European settlement can have major implications for the archaeological potential for the study area. It is likely that new developments during each historical phase impacted archaeological remains associated with the previous phase of development, and most phases of European occupation would impact the likelihood of evidence of Aboriginal occupation surviving within the study area. Understanding the historical land use and previous disturbances helps to inform the predictive model for the site.

The study area has undergone three main phases of European development. A summary of the impacts associated with these phases are outlined below.

Early settlement (1820 – 1877)

During this phase the use of the study area was primarily associated with farmland as part of Campbell’s estate. The land would have been used for sheep grazing, rearing cattle and cropping. The study area likely also would have been cleared of vegetation during this period and potentially ploughed. These activities would have disturbed the topsoil, though it is unlikely that they would have involved deep excavations as no specific developments or dams are noted to have been established within the study area during this period.

Subdivision and development (1877 – 1930s)

During this phase the study area was subdivided, and several rural residences were established. Developments included the construction of houses and associated outbuildings such as tables and pigsties, industry sites for wool-scouring and tanning and a slaughterhouse, yards and fencing, and the establishment of Chinese market gardens and house gardens. These developments occurred across most the study area and would have involved excavations that would have likely disturbed evidence of previous occupation.

Sewage treatment plant (1935 – present)

During this period the current STP was established and has been utilised as such for the last 85 years. Although this was limited to one area initially, the STP was expanded during the second half of the twentieth century to include new infrastructure and maturation ponds. The connection of the sewage scheme also required trenching for the installation of pipes to connect the town to the plant. These works would have required substantial developments within the study area and modifications to the landscape. Other areas have also been used for stockpiling biosolids and other material which would have required frequent vehicular movement through the area and levelling of the ground surface to move the material. This phase of development would have likely caused substantial impacts to any archaeological remains within the study area.

6.5 Predictive archaeological model

As documented above the study area contains listed Aboriginal sites and many sites have been identified by previous assessments in the area. In addition, the ethnographic accounts indicate that the region was an important meeting place and the Molonglo River was an important pathway. Previous assessments and investigations have indicated that there is a correlation between site location and proximity to permanent water sources, and that a larger number of sites and/or artefacts would be present along a major river terrace whereas sites away from major water sources would likely be limited

Page 57

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment to low density scatters of artefacts with less than ten visible surface artefacts.120 The study area is located along an important water source, however, it has also been subject to substantial development during the phases of historical occupation. This would have likely resulted in substantial impacts to any potential archaeological resources within the study area, and therefore reduce the level of archaeological potential within the site. This is supported by the fact that the Aboriginal site ‘Oaks Estate 1’, which is reported to have been located within the western half of Block 2087, was found within a disturbed context. This site appears to have been further impacted since its initial identification as ACT Heritage data indicates that during a later inspection of the site none of the previously recorded artefacts were identified. Therefore, despite the proximity of the study area to the Molonglo River it is not predicted that large scatters would survive within the majority of the study area and the overall potential through most of the study area would be low.

The only area that is predicted to have a higher level of potential is the southwestern corner of the study area, in the undeveloped portion of Block 2087. This area has not been heavily developed as part of the STP, with the exception of the installation of the Jerrabomberra trunk main and a drainage trench along the northern edge, and therefore would likely be more intact. The description for ‘Oaks Estate 1’ notes that there is high potential for Aboriginal cultural material in that area of Block 2087 and the previously recorded ‘MOL PAD’ is noted as including that area.

From the above information it is suggested that:

• The study area generally has low potential within the area associated with the STP • Evidence of occupation sites within the grounds of the STP would likely be limited to be either low density artefact scatters or isolated finds due to the level of ground disturbance • Ceremonial sites such as earth mounds and stone arrangements are unlikely to have survived the continued agricultural use of the land and the introduction of the STP • There is unlikely to be any archaeological evidence associated with the ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ within the study area, as the section of the heritage item within the study area is primarily limited to the road corridor of Oaks Estate Road which has cut into the ground surface • No artefacts associated with ‘Oaks Estate 1’ are likely be present within the study area due to previous impacts associated with the operation of the STP • There is unlikely to be any remnant evidence of ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ within the study area as it is unclear if it ever existed within the study area, and if it was it has likely been substantially impacted and/or removed by previous ground disturbing works associated with the STP • There is high potential for artefact sites in the undeveloped southwest portion of Block 2087, as suggested by the description for the recorded sites ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and ‘MOL PAD’.

120 Officer, K., 1997. Inventory of Known and Reported Cultural Heritage Places, Majura Valley ACT. Desktop Review for Proposed Majura Valley Transport Corridor, NOHC. Report prepared for Gutteridge Haskins & Davey, p. 18; NOHC, 2013. Oaks Estate Master Plan: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, p. 14.

Page 58

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

7.0 RESULTS OF SITE INSPECTION

7.1 Introduction

This section presents the results of the site inspection undertaken for the study area. The site inspection was conducted prior to the development of the current concept design and as a result was primarily focussed on the areas identified in the previous concept design. The aim of the site inspection was to assess the current condition of the study area and the potential for archaeological remains to be present.

7.2 Site visit participation and consultation

On 26 November 2019, a member from each RAO and community stakeholder group was invited to participate in a site visit to assess the study area and provide further information regarding the possible cultural heritage significance of the study area. Invitations to participate were undertaken in accordance with the consultation guidelines and the IS ratings. The community involvement was to aid in the identification of Aboriginal sites, to provide cultural knowledge of the area and to provide advice on the future management of any sites likely to be impacted by the proposed development of the STP upgrade.

The site visit was undertaken on 16 December 2019 and involved a representative from the following registered groups and project representatives:

• Jayden van Beek (Senior Heritage Consultant, Artefact, project group) • Sophie Barbera (Heritage Consultant, Artefact, project group) • Ali Carrera (Environmental Scientist, Arup, project group) • Dr Therese Flapper (Associate Director, TSA, project group) • Dr Karen Williams (Stakeholder, Molonglo Catchment Group, registered group).

The King Brown Tribal Group and Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation expressed interest in participating in the site inspection, however representatives from these RAOs were not able to attend on the day.

7.3 Constraints

Due to the active use of the site, the frequent movements of trucks, and the presence of biosolids, access to several areas of the study area were restricted. As a result, some areas could only be observed from the boundary, such as Area 2, some areas could not be properly inspected, such as the perimeters of the study area and Area 4, and areas around the STP infrastructure could not be inspected on foot.

7.4 Methodology

The survey methodology and nature of the development proposal were discussed before the visit commenced. Community representatives were invited to express any concerns and highlight any areas of high cultural significance in the area that required specific inspection.

The site inspection of the study area was separated into four zones. Area 1 was focussed on the location of the proposed build zone to the north of Mountain Road on the east side of the study area. Area 2 was focussed on the proposed site amenities and laydown area to the south of Mountain Road and east of Nimrod Road. Area 3 consisted of the majority of the remainder of the STP land that was accessible.

Page 59

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Area 4 consisted of the undeveloped portion of Block 2087 in the southwest corner of the study area and was bounded by Maturation Pond 3 to the north.

The inspection of Area 1 and Area 2, where most of the project works are proposed, was undertaken on foot by all parties listed above. Following this, Area 3 was inspected by Sophie Barbera, Jayden van Beek and Ali Carrera on foot and by vehicle. The location of the listed ‘Oaks Estate 1’ site was identified by Artefact Heritage prior to the site inspection and was inspected as part of the Area 3. Area 4 was not accessible at the time of the site inspection and therefore was not inspected in detail.

The team inspected the ground while walking and took digital photographs of the landscape and ground surfaces within the stud area. The majority of the accessible bare ground within the study area was inspected. In areas of limited access, an assessment was made of the archaeological potential for that area. Information gathered during the site inspection was recorded using a digital camera and notebook.

Following the release of the updated concept design a secondary site inspection was not undertaken by Artefact Heritage. Additional site inspections were instead undertaken by Arup and Hunter H2O, and photos from the additional site inspections were provided to Artefact Heritage to inform the assessment of the study area.

The locations of the inspection areas are illustrated in Figure 23 below.

7.5 Results of the site inspection

Area 1

Area 1 largely consists of sludge lagoons and biosolid stockpile locations to the south and east of the main STP infrastructure. The area is accessed from the main gate from Mountain Road and the entrance avenue is lined with Eucalypts that have been planted in the second half of the twentieth century (Figure 24). Several roads with gravel and aggregate surfaces pass through the area. The sludge pools sit at ground level and therefore the area has been substantially excavated (Figure 25). The biosolid stockpile area is located along Mountain Road and is relatively flat (Figure 26 and Figure 27). It is surrounded on all sides by substantial earth embankments, which are between 2-3m tall (Figure 28). At the time of the inspection the ground within the stockpile area was heavily vegetated except for the roads, with the exposed ground surface consisting of yellow-brown sand. The occasional fragment of whiteware ceramic was visible on the ground surface.

Area 1 is separated from Area 2 by the dirt surface of Mountain Road, which would have led towards the former River View residence on the eastern side of the study area (Figure 30). The roadway consists of a compacted dirt surface bedrock layer and trees have been planted along the inside of the STP fence line. The trees and the substantial earth embankments help to obscure views of the STP from the south (Figure 31). The ground surface was partially obscured by dead grass however it was still sufficiently visible at the time of the inspection.

On the eastern side of Area 1 is the location of the former River View residence. No intact structural remains of the building or associated outbuildings are present in the area (Figure 32), with the exception of a below ground tank (Figure 33). However, rubble material has been dumped in the area, including bricks, concrete, a metal chimney, and other rubbish (Figure 34). Two Peppercorn Trees are located in the area of the former residence (Figure 35).

No Aboriginal objects or intact remnant non-Aboriginal structures were observed within this area during the site inspection.

Page 60

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 23: Location of the site inspection areas

Page 61

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 24: North view of the entrance road into Figure 25: Northeast view of the sludge the STP lagoons

Figure 26: Southeast view of the biosolids Figure 27: Northeast view of the vegetation stockpile area within the stockpile area

Figure 28: Southwest view of the substantial Figure 29: Northeast view of additional embankments around the stockpile area stockpile area

Page 62

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 30: East view of Mountain Road Figure 31: North view towards the STP from heading towards the location of the former Mountain Road River View residence

Figure 32: View of the former area of the River Figure 33: View of the grass cover and below View residence ground tank near the area of the former River View residence

Figure 34: View of rubble and rubbish material Figure 35: View of the Peppercorn Trees in in the location of the former River View the vicinity of the former River View residence residence

Page 63

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Area 2

Area 2 is bounded by Mountain Road to the north, Nimrod Road to the west, the Molonglo River to the east, and Oaks Estate Road to the south. The landscape is predominantly comprised of gently undulating grassland which slopes down to the east and south towards the river and Oaks Estate Road (Figure 36). At the time of the site inspection the northern half of the area was being used as a biosolids stockpile location and the area featured large undulating mounds of soil (Figure 37). Photos of the area in 2020 indicate that the ground surface is predominantly compacted earth with several exposed patches of gravel (Figure 38 and Figure 39). In some areas there are also exposed clusters of deposited rocks protruding from the ground (Figure 40 and Figure 41). Several tracks are present along with power lines, and there are relatively few bushes except for along the river. Aerial photographs show the sewage trunk line cutting through the area from north to south, and street views from Oaks Estate Road indicate that at the south end the bedrock is very shallow (Figure 42).

No Aboriginal objects or intact remnant non-Aboriginal structures were observed within this area during the site inspection.

Figure 36 :Southeast view of the proposed site Figure 37: South view of the mounds of amenities and laydown area stockpiled soil

Figure 38: East view of Area 2 (provided by Figure 39: South view of Area 2 towards Oaks Arup) Estate Road (provided by Arup)

Page 64

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 40: View of the disturbed ground and Figure 41: View of the ground surface in Area protruding rocks within Area 2 (provided by 2 along the river (provided by Arup) Arup)

Figure 42: North view of the shallow bedrock at the south end of Area 2 (sourced from Google Street View 2019)

Area 3

Area 3 contains the majority of the STP infrastructure. The main structures consist of low-level treatment buildings, sheds, facilities and storage tanks (Figure 43 to Figure 47). These structures are mostly constructed of brick and concrete and their introduction has disturbed the landscape, although view lines are predominately maintained due to the low-level development. New roadways have been constructed within this area, with some cut into the slope, and landscaping works (grass and plantings) are located sporadically around the buildings (Figure 48 and Figure 49). The main areas of vegetation are primarily along the riverbank to the north and in the centre of the study area along Mountain Road. However, these trees also appear to have been largely planted in the second half of the twentieth century. Stockpiled material such as timber, metal and rubbish is present around the site sheds in the middle of the area around the old nursery (Figure 50). Located amongst the old nursery sheds is a small brick building with a corrugated iron gable roof and concrete verandah (Figure 51). This appears to be a remnant building from Mountain Road Cottage and stable, depicted in the 1915 plan (Figure 14 and Figure 21). This building may have been the aforementioned cottage and is the only remnant historical structure identified within the study area. The northern boundary of the study area is primarily occupied by the three large maturation ponds, while the southern boundary is bordered by the unsealed Mountain Road (Figure 52).

The western portion of Area 3, in the location of the recorded ‘Oaks Estate 1’, was currently being used for stockpiling cost material at the time of the site inspection (Figure 53 and Figure 54). Large undulating mounds of compost were present and were actively being moved by an excavator. The ground slopes

Page 65

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment down from Mountain Road towards the maturation ponds to the north (Figure 55). The ground surface in this area has been heavily modified and landscaped, with exposed bedrock present on the surface through most of the area (Figure 56). The only areas which had not been cleared to bedrock were along the edge of the maturation pond and in a cluster of trees which were also planted in the second half of the twentieth century. A curving drainage line was also present close to the maturation pond. The area was inspected for any evidence of artefacts associated with ‘Oaks Estate 1’, however, due to the level of disturbance in the area the site could not be re-identified.

No Aboriginal objects were observed within this area during the site inspection.

Figure 43: South view from STP towards Figure 44: South view towards ponds and STP structures

Figure 45: West view towards STP buildings Figure 46: East view towards STP structures

Figure 47: North view towards the ponds Figure 48: South view within Area 3. Note shrubbery and twentieth century trees

Page 66

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 49: North view towards existing Figure 50: East view from of stockpiled pipeline and road, which has been cut into the material and dump sites slope

Figure 51: Northwest view of the remnant Figure 52: West view of the unsealed historical structure in the old nursery area Mountain Road from Nimrod Road (provided by Arup)

Figure 53: Northwest view of the western Figure 54: Northeast view of the western portion of Area 3, showing the stockpiled portion of Area 3, showing the stockpiled compost compost in the recorded location of ‘Oaks Estate 1’

Page 67

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 55: Northeast view of the cleared Figure 56: West view of the exposed bedrock ground in the western portion of Area 3 in Area 3

Area 4

Area 4 was not accessible at the time of the site inspection and therefore was not inspected in detail. It is separated from Area 3 by a metal mesh fence and is bounded by Maturation Pond 3 to the north. The area has been largely excluded from development associated with the STP, although a curving drainage line is present along the northern edge and the Jerrabomberra trunk main is also partially buried in this area, although some parts of it are present aboveground. The area is currently unused due to the asbestos cladding on the pipeline. A small number of Eucalypts are present in the area and there appears to be little to no exposed rock surfaces or bedrock.

Figure 57: Southwest view towards Area 4

Page 68

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

8.0 ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTAIL

8.1 Introduction

The following section provides an assessment of the archaeological potential of the site based on the literature review, the registered heritage items, the environmental and historical context, and the results of the site inspection.

8.2 Aboriginal archaeological potential

It has been noted in this report that the Molonglo River is an important water source and pathway in the area and that the local area was a meeting place that was still used into the mid-nineteenth century. In addition, the study area is located on an elevated landform along the river. Based on the previous archaeological investigations that have been undertaken in the region these factors indicate that the study area would have been conducive to Aboriginal occupation. However, in areas where there is high level of disturbance the archaeological potential is lowered, and it is unlikely that subsurface archaeological deposits in these areas would be intact.

It has been noted in Section 6.4 that the historical land use associated with the study area has involved a substantial degree of ground disturbing works, especially associated with the establishment, operation and expansion of the STP. These activities have involved substantial excavations, ground clearance, and heavy vehicle movement, in addition to impacts associated with flooding and the previous farming and residential development of the site during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Evidence of the extensive impacts were confirmed during the site inspection and by the geotechnical investigations, which noted that disturbed material was being found at depths of 1500mm. Furthermore, although an Aboriginal site, ‘Oaks Estate 1’, has previously been recorded within Area 3 of the study area, it was noted to have been found within a disturbed context and to have been impacted by works associated with the operation of the STP. It was confirmed during the site inspection that the recorded area of the artefact scatter has since been cleared to bedrock and no evidence of the site remains in that location. As a result, it is not expected that additional artefact scatters would be located in that area. Overall, due to the level of previous impacts it is assessed that there is low potential for intact evidence of Aboriginal occupation within Area 1 and Area 3.

Although Area 2 has not been as heavily developed for the construction of the STP, it still features several tracks, a sewage main, and has been disturbed by its use as a stockpile area. The results of the geotechnical investigations have indicated that at least the top 300mm of the area consists of fill, that the underlying soil contains disturbed material, and that the underlying rock is relatively shallow. As a result, it is unlikely that intact subsurface remains would be present. Overall, it is assessed that there is also low potential for intact evidence of Aboriginal occupation within Area 2. It is noted that Area 2 includes a small portion of the listed site ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ which is noted to have moderate archaeological potential overall.121 However as the portion of the cultural area within the study area is limited to the road corridor of Oaks Estate Road it is assessed that that portion has low archaeological potential.

Area 4 appears to have been largely undisturbed by the establishment and operation of the STP, and development during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was also reduced compared to the remainder of the STP site. Areas of disturbance within Area 4 are expected to be limited to the belowground installation of the Jerrabomberra trunk main and the northern portion of Area 4 from the drainage trench to the edge of the maturation pond. As a result, this area has a higher potential to

121 NOHC 2013.

Page 69

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment contain Aboriginal objects. This is supported by information provided by Dr. Williams who has reported previously observing a wedge and hammerstone in this area. This is also consistent with the description of the recorded ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and ‘MOL PAD’ which note that there is higher potential in this area. Overall, it is assessed that there is high potential for intact evidence of Aboriginal occupation within the portion of Area 4 to the south of the drainage trench. This area of archaeological potential has been identified as ‘QSTP PAD’.

King Billy’s Cottage site

It has previously been suggested that ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ may have been located within the study area and because of this the study area has been nominated for inclusion on the ACTHR. However, the information relating to this is limited and the historical sources do not provide accurate and descriptive information relating to the location of Clements’ residence. References to Clements’ residence in the historical sources include that he lived in a mud hovel outside Queanbeyan, that the ruins of his cottage were near The Oaks, and that he had a camping ground on Moore’s subdivision, which is located in the town of Queanbeyan and not in the location of the study area.122 These sources do not conclusively demonstrate that Clements lived within the study area, or what his residence consisted of. As a result, the analysis of the historical records undertaken for this CHA has been unable to confirm if Clements did reside in a cottage within the study area.

It is possible that Clements’ cottage may have been one of those shown on maps in 1910s (Figure 14 to Figure 16) or it may have been an undocumented building or camp site. However, if Clements did have a cottage or camp site in the study area then it is likely it would have been substantially impacted by the construction and expansion of the STP, as with the other residences discussed in Section 8.3. As a result, it is assessed that there is nil to low potential for the study area to contain archaeological evidence associated with ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’.

The assessed Aboriginal archaeological potential of the study area and the location of ‘QSTP PAD’ is illustrated in Figure 58.

8.3 Non-Aboriginal archaeological potential

Prior to the development of the STP the study area was primarily associated with rural farming and rural residential development. These developments were largely undertaken within areas that are now occupied by the STP infrastructure, which as noted above and in Section 6.4 has involved substantial ground works. Furthermore, no substantial developments were recorded to have occurred within the study area during its ownership by Campbell, and it likely would have been largely used for grazing or cultivation. Archaeological remains associated with these activities, such as artefact scatters or evidence of bark huts for workers, would be ephemeral in nature and even less likely to have survived the construction and expansion of the STP intact. As a result, it is unlikely that intact archaeological remains from the previous phases of development would have survived within the study area. No evidence of remnant former structures was identified within the study area during the site inspection, except for an intact brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable and the scattered building rubble around the former location of the River View residence. Overall, it is assessed that the study area has nil to low potential to contain archaeological evidence associated with the historical occupation of the area.

122 ‘The masked man was King Billy, but was he alone?’ The Canberra Times, Sunday 27 December 1987, p. 7; Death of “King Billy”’. The Burrowa News, Friday 9 September 1927, p. 9; ‘Old King Billy’. Delegate Argus, Thursday 29 September 1927, p. 2; ‘The masked man was King Billy, but was he alone?’ The Canberra Times, Sunday 27 December 1987, p. 7.

Page 70

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Figure 58: Areas of assessed Aboriginal archaeological potential

Page 71

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

9.0 ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

9.1 Introduction

This section provides an assessment of the cultural heritage values and heritage significance of the potential archaeological remains within the study area. Based on the assessed significance of the study area an assessment is then made regarding possible recommendations for whether further investigations are required to inform the heritage values of the site.

The cultural heritage assessment in this report includes information determined from desktop assessment and from consultation during the site inspection and preparation of the CHA. It is noted that no comments or assessments of cultural and social significance were received from the RAOs or community stakeholders during the review period for this CHA.

9.2 Aboriginal cultural heritage and significance

Cultural landscape

The World Heritage Convention of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) defines a cultural landscape as one which has ‘powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent’ (UNESCO 1991). The relationship between Aboriginal Australians and the land is conceived in spiritual terms rather than primarily in material terms (Andrews et al 2006). Aboriginal cultural knowledge has been defined as:

Accumulated knowledge which encompasses spiritual relationships, relationships with the natural environment and the sustainable use of natural resources, and relationships between people, which are reflected in language, narratives, social organisation, values, beliefs and cultural laws and custom (Andrews et al 2006).

Aboriginal cultural knowledge was traditionally bequeathed through oral traditions from generation to generation. Within all Aboriginal communities there was a time of dislocation and upheaval associated with the arrival of colonial settlers. This widespread disruption resulted in much of the detailed knowledge and understanding of many of the elements of the cultural landscape being lost from the Aboriginal community, nonetheless many Aboriginal people maintain a strong connection to the land of their ancestors and collectively possess a wealth of knowledge passed down through the generations.

Identified Aboriginal cultural heritage values

Table 12 provides a summary of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values which have been previously identified within the local region and which are associated with the study area.

Page 72

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Table 12: Previously identified Aboriginal cultural heritage values within the local area

Cultural heritage value Description Source

Archaeological evidence of All pre-contact (pre-European settlement) sites in the Biosis Research 2008 Aboriginal occupation region are considered to have cultural significance to the Aboriginal stakeholder groups within the area (Wally Bell, Tyronne Bell, Carl Brown and Tina Brown, Justin Brown and James Mundy pers.comm.). The sites are evidence of past Aboriginal occupation and use of the area, and represent a source of information about the Aboriginal past. There is an expectation from these stakeholder groups that the cultural significance of the place will be respected and managed responsibly

Rarity of site-types Any recorded (and unrecorded) pre-contact sites are of Biosis Research 2008 cultural significance because they are rare or, at least, uncommon site-types. In particular, many sites in the greater Canberra region have been destroyed as a result of land clearance and land-use practices in the historic period

Continuity of Aboriginal culture Stone artefacts constitute an enduring record of ACT Heritage Council Aboriginal technology and settlement patterns. The 2000 community has also indicated that trees considered to be scarred by Aboriginal people are highly valued and represent the continuity of local Aboriginal culture. Their protection and conservation has a high priority

Pathways The Molonglo River has been noted as an important ACT Heritage Council pathway by Flood (1980: 162–168). Pathways are a vital 2017 element in the Aboriginal landscape as access to resources and as trade routes. They played an important role in social interaction between groups as well as in ceremonial and religious occasions. They are intrinsic to the Aboriginal cultural experience not only as physical ways of moving between places but as knowledge of how places are interconnected which was passed on in rich and varied forms of cultural representation (Kabaila, 2005:27– 28)

Aboriginal significance assessment

Section 8.2 assed that ‘QSTP PAD’ had high potential to contain evidence of Aboriginal occupation while the remainder of the site generally had low potential, including the potential for ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’. ‘QSTP PAD’ included part of the previously recorded ‘MOL PAD’ and is described as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ as an area of high potential. Both of these previously recorded sites are part of the wider listed item ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’. Table 13 outlines the Aboriginal heritage significance assessment for ‘QSTP PAD’ and the remainder of the study area. Archaeological remains associated with ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ have been included as part of this significance assessment.

Page 73

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Table 13: Aboriginal heritage significance assessment

Criteria Definition Assessment

‘QSTP PAD’ The study area is located along the southern boundary of the Molonglo River which was a key pathway through the area and the land near the confluence of the Molonglo and Queanbeyan Rivers was an important meeting place. Evidence of aboriginal occupation within ‘QSTP PAD’ may demonstrate Aboriginal travel through the area and use of the landscape. As a result, ‘QSTP PAD’ is considered to contain moderate historical significance

Areas 1-3 Historical Significance Due to the level of disturbance associated with the A Importance to the course or pattern of construction, expansion and operation of the STP through the ACT’s cultural or natural history; the remainder of the study area, it is unlikely that any surviving archaeological remains would be able to fully demonstrate Aboriginal land uses and practices. The study area is reported to be associated with the residence of Jimmy Clements, who was historically significant for presenting the first recorded Aboriginal protest at Old Parliament House. However again due to the level of ground disturbance within the study area it is unlikely that intact evidence of ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ survives within the study area, if it was present to begin with. As a result, the remaining areas of the study area are considered to contain low historical significance

‘QSTP PAD’ A number of other archaeological sites have been identified within a 2km radius of the study area and there is no evidence at this time to suggest that ‘QSTP PAD’ demonstrates a cultural or natural history that is of an uncommon, rare or endangered aspect. As a result, ‘QSTP Rarity PAD’ is considered to contain low rarity values Has uncommon, rare or endangered B aspects of the ACT’s cultural or natural Areas 1-3 history; Due to the expected level of disturbance across the remainder of the site it is not expected that these areas would contain evidence that demonstrates a cultural or natural history that is of an uncommon, rare or endangered aspect. As a result, the remaining areas of the study area are considered to contain low rarity values

‘QSTP PAD’ Areas of archaeological potential are considered to be significant cultural resources because they may contain occupation evidence that has been subject to a lesser Research Potential degree of disturbance from European land use practices Potential to yield important information C and erosion. ‘QSTP PAD’ is undeveloped and appears to that will contribute to an understanding have been left relatively undisturbed from previous phases of the ACT’s cultural or natural history with the exception of some excavations for the Jerrabomberra Trunk Main. As a result, relatively undisturbed subsurface deposits may be present which could yield information relating to Aboriginal occupation and

Page 74

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Criteria Definition Assessment

movement in the area. Therefore, ‘QSTP PAD’ is considered to contain moderate research potential

Areas 1-3 Due to the expected level of disturbance across the remainder of the site it is not expected that these areas would contain intact evidence of occupation which would yield new and important information. As a result, the remaining areas of the study area are considered to contain low rarity values

‘QSTP PAD’ ‘QSTP PAD’ and ‘MOL PAD’ appear to be in good condition, however at this time it is unclear if the area is Representativeness representative of a principal characteristic. As a result, the Importance in demonstrating the representativeness values of ‘QSTP PAD’ is unknown D principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or objects; Areas 1-3 There is no evidence to suggest that the remaining areas of the study area demonstrate the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or objects

‘QSTP PAD’ The landscape of the study area along the Molonglo River has been heavily impacted by the construction of the STP and its associated structures. ‘QSTP PAD’ has been less disturbed however and still retains some of its setting within the landscape setting of the river corridor which served as a pathway. As a result, ‘QSTP PAD’ is considered to contain Aesthetic Significance moderate aesthetic values Importance in exhibiting particular

E aesthetic characteristics valued by the Areas 1-3 ACT community or a cultural group in The landscape of Areas 1 and 3 have been heavily modified the ACT as part of the construction and expansion of the STP. Any surviving archaeological remains within these areas have likely been entirely removed from their setting within the Molonglo River landscape as a results of the substantial earthworks which have been undertaken and the presence of the STP infrastructure. As a result, these areas are considered to contain low aesthetic values

Technical Significance Areas 1-4 Importance in demonstrating a high There is no evidence to suggest that the study area F degree of creative or technical demonstrates a high degree of creative or technical achievement for a particular period; achievement at this time

Page 75

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Criteria Definition Assessment

‘QSTP PAD’ The ACT Aboriginal community considers any evidence of the occupation of the ACT by Aboriginal people to be significant. The Molonglo River was an important landmark, pathway and meeting place for Aboriginal groups and as a result they have a strong association with the area. This is supported by comments received during consultation. As a result, ‘QSTP PAD’ is considered to have high social significance

Areas 1-3 The study area is located along the Molonglo River which is noted above as being an important pathway to Aboriginal Social significance groups. In addition, a small portion of the ‘Corroboree Has a strong or special association with Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ G the ACT community, or a cultural group extends into the south end of Area 2. The study area is also in the ACT for social, cultural or spiritual reported to be associated with the residence of Jimmy reasons; Clements. Clements was a well-known local resident and due to his historical significance for his protest at Parliament House it is likely that evidence of his residence would be significant to the ACT community, and in particular to members of the Wiradjuri group that Clements was a member of. However, due to the level of disturbance across the remaining portions of the study area it is unlikely that any artefacts which may be present would be located within their context and therefore could not be tied directly to the use of these areas as a meeting place. It is also unlikely that evidence of Clements’ cottage survives within the study area. As a result, it is considered that remaining areas of the study area have low social values

Areas 1-4 The study area is suggested to have been the location of ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’. Jimmy Clements was a well- known figure in the area, particularly as a result of his participation in the opening of Parliament House. He is Associative significance known for presenting the first recorded Aboriginal protest at Has a special association with the life or H Parliament House. Evidence of his cottage site may help to work of a person, or people, important to tell his story. However, no conclusive evidence has been the history of the ACT. found which confirms that his cottage site was situated within the study area. Furthermore, if it was it has likely been substantially impacted by the STP and it is unlikely that substantial remains survive. As a result, the study area is considered to have low associative significance

Statement of significance

The study area is located within the wider archaeological item ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’, which includes both ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and ‘MOL PAD’. The statement of significance for this item records that

These sites are the product of a traditional way of life that is no longer practised within the ACT. The presence of artefact scatters, scarred trees and utilised sources of stone in these localities demonstrates occupation and use of the place by

Page 76

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Aboriginal people, in the past. The areas of archaeological potential are considered to be significant cultural resources because they may contain occupation evidence that has been subject to a lesser degree of disturbance from European land use practices and erosion. Their true informational value, scientific value and significance to Aboriginal people can only be realised or determined through further research.

Stone artefacts constitute an enduring record of Aboriginal technology and settlement patterns. Stone was a central resource in past Aboriginal economic systems, essential in the technological and day to day life of the population. Many of the sites do not present individually outstanding qualities since their condition and integrity have been reduced by post depositional factors and European land use practices. However, as a related body of evidence with potential to inform about a regional pattern of past Aboriginal land use practices and settlement patterns, these sites have high significance.

The individual artefacts at the sites have scientific and educational potential for the study of Aboriginal stone technology. Locational and descriptive information about them builds upon and complements the considerable body of archaeological research that exists for the Canberra region….123

Although no artefacts have been officially recorded within ‘QSTP PAD’ to date, it has been assessed as having high potential to contain evidence subsurface archaeological deposits which could potentially provide information on Aboriginal travel along the Molonglo River. The Molonglo River was an important pathway and meeting place for Aboriginal groups. The study area is also potentially associated with Jimmy Clements (‘King Billy’) and his cottage site which has been reported to be within the study area. Evidence associated with the cottage site would be significant for its historical, social and associative values. However, no historical accounts or records are able to confirm the location of Clements’ cottage, or even if it was within the study area. Due to the substantial degree of landscaping and groundworks that have been undertaken for the STP it is unlikely that intact archaeological remains of the cottage site survive within the study area. Overall, ‘QSTP PAD’ is considered to be of moderate significance, however the archaeological significance of potential surface or subsurface deposits cannot be determined without further investigation. The remainder of the study area is generally considered to be of low significance.

9.3 Non-Aboriginal heritage and significance

Identified non-Aboriginal heritage values

Table 14 provides a summary of the non-Aboriginal heritage values which have been previously identified within the local region and which are associated with the study area.

123 ACT Heritage Council 2000.

Page 77

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Table 14: Previously identified non-Aboriginal heritage values within the local area

Heritage value Description Source

Robert Campbell’s Duntroon The Oaks has a strong association with the ACT Heritage Council Estate development of the region during its early colonial 2015 occupation, with the expansion of Robert Campbell’s Duntroon Estate, and the development of Queanbeyan and the local community. Duntroon was one of the earliest and most important pastoral estates in the region

Views and vistas Important views and vistas which contribute significantly NOHC 2013 to the semirural character of Oaks Estate

Non-Aboriginal significance assessment

Table 15 outlines the heritage significance assessment for the non-Aboriginal heritage of the study area.

Table 15: Non-Aboriginal heritage significance assessment

Criteria Definition Assessment

The study area is located within land that was part of the expansion of Robert Campbell’s Duntroon Estate which was an important early pastoral estate. However, there were no recorded developments within the study area during this time and it is expected that any Historical Significance archaeological remains would have been A Importance to the course or pattern of the ACT’s substantially impacted by the construction and cultural or natural history; expansion of the STP. Although the QSTP was the first treatment plant located within the area, there is no evidence to suggest that the study area is important to the course or pattern of the ACT’s cultural history. As a result, the study area is considered to contain low historical values

There is no evidence to suggest that the study Rarity area demonstrates a cultural or natural history B Has uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the that is of an uncommon, rare or endangered ACT’s cultural or natural history; aspect. As a result, the study area is considered to contain low rarity values

The location of former structures has been documented and recorded in this report. These structures primarily date to the late nineteenth Research Potential and early twentieth century and consisted of Potential to yield important information that will C standard rural residences. Examples of these contribute to an understanding of the ACT’s cultural structures are not rare and it is unlikely that or natural history archaeological remains associated with them would yield information that is not already known or available from historical sources. As

Page 78

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Criteria Definition Assessment

a result, the study area is considered to contain low research potential values

Due to the expected substantial impacts associated with the development of the STP, it is not expected that any surviving archaeological remains would be able to Representativeness demonstrate the principal characteristics of a Importance in demonstrating the principal class of cultural or natural places or objects. D characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places The extant brick building associated with or objects Mountain Road Cottage and stable also lacks importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places. As a result, the study area is considered to contain low representativeness values

Due to the expected substantial impacts associated with the development of the STP, it is not expected that any surviving archaeological remains would be able to demonstrate particular aesthetic characteristics. The extant brick building Aesthetic Significance associated with Mountain Road Cottage and Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic E stable is a standard design and does not characteristics valued by the ACT community or a demonstrate particular aesthetic cultural group in the ACT characteristics. However, introduced tree species such as the Peppercorn Trees are associated with the aesthetical setting of the rural residences such as River View. Overall, the study area is considered to contain low aesthetical values

Technical Significance There is no evidence to suggest that potential Importance in demonstrating a high degree of archaeological remains within the study area, F creative or technical achievement for a particular or the current STP, demonstrate a high degree period; of creative or technical achievement

The study area is associated with Chinese market gardeners, however, due to the level of land disturbance it is not expected that any Social significance archaeological remains associated with this Has a strong or special association with the ACT G group. The extant brick building associated community, or a cultural group in the ACT for social, with Mountain Road Cottage and stable does cultural or spiritual reasons; not have a strong or special association with the ACT community. As a result, the study area is considered to contain low social values

Page 79

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Criteria Definition Assessment

The study area is associated with Robert and Charles Campbell, who were well established in the historical development of the area. However, there were no known developments within the study area associated with Campbell Associative significance and the land use was likely limited to farm use. Has a special association with the life or work of a As a result, it is unlikely that substantial H person, or people, important to the history of the remains survive within the study which could ACT. be tied directly to the Campbells. The extant brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable is not associated with any notable person or people of historical importance. As a result, the study area is considered to contain low associative values

Statement of significance

The study area is associated with the historical extension of Robert Campbell’s Duntroon Estate, residential subdivision and development during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the provision of the main sewage scheme to Queanbeyan. However, the remnant brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable and the existing STP are not considered to be significant under the criteria above, and due to the level of impacts caused by the construction and expansion of the STP it is unlikely that any surviving archaeological remains would be able to demonstrate significance under the criterion.

9.4 Recommendations for further investigation

This CHA has assessed that ‘QSTP PAD’, which includes parts of the listed sites ‘MOL PAD’ and ‘Oaks Estate 1’ of the wider archaeological site ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’, is an area of high Aboriginal archaeological potential and moderate significance. However, the archaeological significance of potential surface or subsurface deposits within Area cannot be determined without further investigation. As a result, should works be proposed within ‘QSTP PAD’ which would potentially impact Aboriginal archaeological remains then it is recommended that further investigation be undertaken prior to works in accordance with the Heritage Act and Cultural Heritage Reporting Policy.

Due to the low Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeological potential across the remainder of the study area, no recommendations are made for further investigation of Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3.

Page 80

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

10.0 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE EFFECT

10.1 Introduction

This section provides a preliminary Statement of Heritage Effect for the proposed works on the potential archaeological remains and the identified heritage items within the study area.

10.2 Proposed development

The proposed works associated with the QSTP Upgrade project include construction of a new STP and associated infrastructure, decommissioning the maturation ponds, and the re-diversion of the Jerrabomberra and Morisset Sewage trunk mains. The project works would involve a combination of modifications to existing infrastructure, construction of new infrastructure, and bulk excavation and landscaping works. The establishment of the new STP and associated infrastructure would primarily be situated within the proposed build zone to the north of Mountain Road. This area would largely be situated within Area 1, with some of the infrastructure extending to the west and north into Area 3. Works within this area would require substantial excavations, with the construction of bioreactors, storm ponds and circular clarifiers requiring excavation to depths of 5-10m.

To the south of Mountain Road and east of Nimrod Road with Area 2, a temporary site amenities and laydown area would be stablished. Works associated with this would primarily be limited to surface works, with no excavations planned. The proposed site amenities and laydown area would be bounded by the track which passes through the middle of the Area 2. No works would be undertaken within the southern portion of Area 2 near the listed site ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’.

Other works would include re-diversion of sections of the Morisset trunk main and Jerrabomberra trunk main. Only part of the Jerrabomberra trunk main would be re-diverted rather than the full extent which travels to the west end of the study area. The re-divert of the Jerrabomberra trunk main would primarily be located within Area 3 in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building zone and existing sludge lagoons. The re-divert of the Morisset trunk main would cross through the build zone and the site amenities and laydown area and would then extend to the south end of the study area. The diversions would involve excavating 3m wide trenches to a depth of up to 3m, however, south of the site amenities and laydown area the Morisset trunk main would be re-diverted through an underbore instead of a trench in order avoid impacts to the Golden Sun Moth exclusion zone in that area. Mountain Road would be upgraded however this would be limited to surface works.

Works would also include the decommissioning of the current maturation ponds, including the western maturation pond (Maturation Pond 3) to the north of ‘QSTP PAD’. The decommissioning of the maturation ponds would generally consist of draining the treated effluent and organic sludge, modifying the embankments, and then filling the maturation ponds with fill. No works would be undertaken within ‘QSTP PAD’.

10.3 Assessment of heritage impacts

Potential Aboriginal heritage impacts

The proposed excavation works would be limited to the area around the proposed build zone in Area 1 and Area 3, the proposed site amenities and laydown area in Area 2, and the embankments of the maturation ponds in Area 3. These areas have been assessed as generally having low potential to contain Aboriginal subsurface deposits due to the level of previous ground disturbance that has occurred. Furthermore, the majority of the bulk excavations would be undertaken within the grounds on

Page 81

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

the northeast side of Mountain Road which the geotechnical investigations have indicated have likely been previously disturbed to a depth of about 1500mm as a result of the construction, operation and expansion of the STP. Works in Area 2 would largely consist of surface works for the site amenities and laydown area, and the results of the geotechnical investigation have demonstrated that at least the top 300mm of Area 2 consists of fill material. Where excavations would be required in Zone 2 for the Morisset trunk main these would be partially located within the area that has been used for stockpiling biosolids, which has likely impacted the area. Where the re-diversion of the Morisset trunk main extends to the south end of the study area, this section would be underbored at a sufficient depth that there would be little to no risk for Aboriginal subsurface deposits to be present. As a result, it is not expected that these works would impact any intact potential subsurface archaeological deposits.

‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’

The only works undertaken at the south end of the study area would be the re-diversion of the Jerrabomberra trunk main. However, these works would not be located within the boundaries of the ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, would be underbored at depth rather than trenched, and the trunk main would be re-diverted 20m to the west where it would be further away from the heritage item than the current alignment of the trunk main. As a result, the proposed works would result in nil impacts to this heritage item.

‘QSTP PAD’, ‘Oaks Estate 1’, ‘MOL PAD’, ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’

Works within the western end of the study area in the vicinity of ‘QSTP PAD’, ‘Oaks Estate 1’, or ‘MOL PAD’ would primarily consist of the decommissioning and stabilisation of Maturation Pond 3. The results of the site inspection and register searches have indicated that the artefact scatter recorded as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ is no longer present and therefore would not be disturbed by works in the area. However, the area of high archaeological potential to the west that has been identified as ‘QSTP PAD’, and which was described as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and is included as part of ‘MOL PAD’, is still present and appears to be relatively undisturbed. The proposed works though would largely consist of emptying and backfilling the maturation pond, which would not impact any potential subsurface archaeological deposits. Excavations would be required to stabilise some of the embankments of the maturation pond; however, excavations would not be required around the southwest corner of the maturation pond adjacent to ‘QSTP PAD’. Overall, the proposed works would result in nil impacts to these areas of archaeological potential.

As there would be nil impacts to ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and ‘MOL PAD’ there would also be nil impacts to ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ of which these sites are a part.

‘King Billy’s Cottage site’

The literature review undertaken for this report was unable to confirm if ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ was located within the study area or if it was located elsewhere. However, if it had been located within the study area it likely would have been substantially impacted and/or removed as a result of the development of the existing STP. As a result, it has been assessed that the study area has low potential to contain archaeological remains associated with ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed works would impact any intact archaeological remains associated with ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’.

Potential non-Aboriginal heritage impacts

The proposed works would be located in the vicinity of at least five former residences from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as well associated yards, property boundaries and gardens. Overall, it has been assessed that there is generally nil to low potential for archaeological remains of these structures to have survived within the study area as a result of the substantial ground disturbing

Page 82

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

works associated with the development of the existing STP. During Campbell’s ownership of the study area it was likely only used for farming and grazing, with no substantial developments, and because the residential development of the study area only dates to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it has been assessed that the potential non-Aboriginal archaeological remains within the study area would be of little to no heritage value and would not be considered significant under the heritage criteria. As a result, it is not expected that the proposed works would result in impacts to any significant non- Aboriginal archaeological remains.

No non-Aboriginal heritage items have been identified within the study. Only one remnant historical building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable is present within the study area. As this structure is limited to a small brick building of simple design, possibly a cottage, which is not associated with any notable historical development or people, it is considered to be of little heritage significance. The community consultation undertaken for the project did not identify the existing STP or its associated infrastructure as an item of heritage significance. No modifications are proposed to the existing STP buildings or the remnant historical building as part of the current concept design for the QSTP Upgrade project. As a result, the proposed works would not result in any direct impacts to fabric of heritage significance. The STP is located in the vicinity of several heritage items. However, the design of the new STP is in keeping with the general arrangement of the current study area and the vegetation and terrain helps to screen the STP. These factors would help to mitigate any visual impacts associated with the development. As a result, it is expected that visual impacts associated with the proposed works would be neutral.

10.4 Consideration of alternatives

As part of the QSTP Upgrade project three design alternatives were considered. These alternatives consisted of: a) Build a new STP b) Build a new STP, using restored parts of QSTP c) Restore QSTP and expand as needed to provide sufficient capacity.

A condition assessment was undertaken for the project which identified that only the aeration tanks, secondary clarifiers and sludge lagoons could be plausibly reused as structures, although not necessarily as their current process unit operations. The inlet works, primary sedimentation tanks, trickling filters and effluent ponds were all discarded as having reuse potential due to their poor condition and in part being affected by the 100 year ARI flood level.

Following this six build strategy options were compared. These included consideration of both Conventional Activated Sludge and Membrane Bio Reactor technology for each of the three build strategies. The six options that were compared are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: QSTP Upgrade options

Option Build strategy Treatment technology

1A Build New all process units and equipment, completely BNR - Biological Nutrient Removal CAS abandon the existing plant - Conventional process

1B Build New all process units and equipment, completely BNR - Biological Nutrient Removal MBR abandon the existing plant - Membrane process

2A Build New main process units and Reuse some process BNR - Biological Nutrient Removal CAS units from STP - Conventional process

Page 83

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Option Build strategy Treatment technology

2B Build New main process units and Reuse some process BNR - Biological Nutrient Removal MBR units from STP - Membrane process

3A Renew main QSTP process units & Augment with new BNR - Biological Nutrient Removal CAS additional process units - Conventional process

3B Renew main QSTP process units & Augment with new BNR - Biological Nutrient Removal MBR additional process units - Membrane process

A Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) was undertaken for the six options considered. The MCA considered six criteria:

• Cost • Constructability, including quality, environmental and safety risks, timeframe for completion, likelihood of exceeding discharge licence conditions and extent of temporary works • Operability, including potential for increase in operating costs, ability to operate, WHS for operational staff, extent of autonomy and remote capability • Sustainability, including impact on environment, ability to reuse effluent and biosolids and ability to capture gas and resource recovery • Future Proofing, including achieving licence, increasing capacity and accommodating unexpected increases in flows or influent quality • Community acceptance and affordability, including impact on rates and QPRC financial position and QPRC reputation

The MCA was tested in a variety of weighted criteria, however options 1A and 1B were consistently indicated as the preferred options. As a result, the ‘Build New’ strategy was identified as the preferred option.

Page 84

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

11.0 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES

11.1 Introduction

The overall guiding principle for cultural heritage management is that where possible Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage should be conserved. If conservation is not practical, measures should be taken to mitigate against impacts to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sites. The nature of the mitigation measures recommended is primarily based on an assessment of archaeological significance.

Where unavoidable impacts occur, measures to mitigate and manage impacts are then proposed. Mitigation measures are employed to preserve the heritage values of sites beyond the physical existence of the site. The most common mitigation measures involve:

• Detailed recording of Aboriginal objects and non-Aboriginal archaeological remains • Archaeological salvage excavations • Artefact analysis and, where appropriate • Reburial of Aboriginal objects in a location determined by the RAOs.

Mitigation measures vary depending on the assessment of archaeological significance of a Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal site and are based on its research potential, rarity, representatives and educational value. In general, the significance of a site would influence the choice of preferred conservation outcomes and appropriate mitigation measures, usually on the following basis:

• Low archaeological significance - Conservation where possible, but usually no mitigation required if impacts are unavoidable • Moderate archaeological significance - Conservation where possible. If conservation is not practicable, salvage excavations or similar mechanisms determined in consultation with the Aboriginal community may be necessary • High archaeological significance - Conservation as a priority. Only if all practicable alternatives have been exhausted would impacts be considered justified. Comprehensive salvage excavations may be necessary.

11.2 Options to avoid and reduce impact

The current concept design is largely limited to the grounds surrounding the existing STP which have been substantially disturbed as a result of the construction, operation and expansion of the STP. The proposed works would be limited to areas of the study area which have been assessed as having low potential for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeological remains. The proposed works would not impact ‘QSTP PAD’, which has been assessed as having high potential and moderate significance, and would not impact the sites of ‘Oaks Estate 1’, ‘MOL PAD’, ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ or ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’.

Overall, the current concept design has largely avoided and reduced potential heritage impacts.

11.3 Detailed design mitigations

It has been assessed that the proposed works associated with the QST Upgrade project are unlikely to impact significant Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal archaeological remains, and that the visual impacts

Page 85

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

would be mitigated and would be neutral overall. The following design suggestions are made to help ensure these outcomes:

• No excavations should be undertaken on the southwest bank of Maturation Pond 3 adjacent to ‘QSTP PAD’ • Incorporate a recessive scale for the new structures to avoid overshadowing the existing landscape of the surrounding area and the riverway, and to maintain view lines from the surrounding landscape to the east and north which are part of listed Aboriginal places • Add new plantings around the STP to screen it from view • Maintain the brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable where practicable to conserve its association with the historical development of the study area • Maintain the Mountain Road alignment where practicable to conserve its association with the historical development of the study area during the late nineteenth century.

11.4 Site conservation

Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing works the locations of ‘QSTP PAD’ and the ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ should be marked on construction and environmental site plans to ensure that no works are undertaken in the vicinity of these area. An exclusion zone should be established around the outer perimeter of ‘QSTP PAD’ to prevent inadvertent impacts. As the boundary of the ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ is marked by the edge of Oaks Estate Road and would be located 70m south of the proposed works, an exclusion zone would not need to be set up.

A heritage induction should be provided as part of the site induction. This would help to ensure team members awareness regarding the nearby heritage sites, the cultural significance of the study area, and the types of potential archaeological remains which may be encountered.

11.5 Recommendations for further investigation

In accordance with the Heritage Act and Cultural Heritage Reporting Policy it has been recommended that further investigations should be undertaken of ‘QSTP PAD’ should works be proposed in this area which would result in impacts to potential archaeological remains. No excavations are proposed within or immediately adjacent to ‘QSTP PAD’ as part of the current concept design for the QSTP Upgrade project, however. Therefore, it has been assessed that the proposed works associated with the QSTP Upgrade project would not result in impacts to ‘QSTP PAD’. As a result, no further investigation is currently required of ‘QSTP PAD’ as part of this project.

Due to the low Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeological potential across the remainder of the study area, no recommendations are made for further investigation of Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3.

11.6 Nominations to the heritage register

This CHA makes no recommendations for any new sites to be nominated for inclusion on the ACTHR. One area of high potential and moderate significance, ‘QSTP PAD’, has been identified in this CHA. ‘QSTP PAD’ includes the part of the previously identified Aboriginal site ‘MOL PAD’ and is recorded as an area of potential in the description for ‘Oaks Estate 1’. Both of these sites are already part of the listed Aboriginal item ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ (Heritage ID 1166). It is assessed that ‘QSTP PAD’ is already sufficiently identified as part of these previously recorded sites

Page 86

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

and therefore does not constitute a separate site at this time. If further investigation of the area is undertaken at a later date, then this recommendation may be revised.

No new sites or heritage items have been identified by this CHA. It has been assessed that the remnant brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable is of little heritage significance. Community consultation undertaken for the QSTP Upgrade project has not identified the existing STP as being of heritage significance. As a result, no recommendations are made for the current STP to be nominated for inclusion on the ACTHR.

11.7 Archaeological management

Due to the low level of archaeological potential within the proposed work areas of the study area, archaeological management in the form of archaeological monitoring, test excavations and/or salvage excavations are not recommended for the project. An unexpected finds protocol should be developed for the project which outlines the requirements for when further archaeological management is required.

11.8 Specific requirements

In accordance with s54(1) of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991, the ACTHR listing for ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ (Heritage ID 1166) identifies a series of specific policies which have been identified as being essential to the conservation of the heritage significance of the Aboriginal heritage item. The heritage listing identifies which policies are relevant to the individual Aboriginal sites which are included as part of ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’. The policies identified as being applicable to ‘Oaks Estate 1’ and ‘MOL PAD’ and the management of these policies are discussed in Table 17 below.

Table 17: Relevant conservation policies for ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’ (Heritage ID 1166)

Policy Description Relevant site Discussion

A1 Information regarding the Oaks Estate 1 / Information regarding the description and specific description and specific location MOL PAD location of Oaks Estate 1 and MOL PAD are held of the place is to be held in a in the database of ACT Aboriginal heritage sites database of ACT Aboriginal heritage sites

A2 Proponents of development Oaks Estate 1 This CHA provides QPRC with information within the place are to be regarding the location, nature and significance of provided with information Oaks Estate 1, and alerts them to the potential for regarding the location, nature development constraints if working within QSTP and significance of the PAD Aboriginal site/s and alerted to the potential for development constraints

A3 Any proposed development, Oaks Estate 1 It has been assessed that the proposed works including landscape work that would not impact Oaks Estate 1 or MOL PAD. A may potentially impact on the copy of this CHA has been provided to the RAOs heritage significance of the for consideration and advice and would also be Place shall be referred to the provided to ACT Heritage Council ACT Heritage Council and relevant Aboriginal organisations for consideration and advice

Page 87

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

Policy Description Relevant site Discussion

A7 The surface artefacts that are Oaks Estate 1 It has been noted that the artefacts that were currently on site may either be previously recorded as part of Oaks Estate 1 left on site or be collected and appear to no longer be present as a result of appropriately archived according previous works undertaken in the area. The site to the advice of the Heritage inspection undertaken for this CHA did not identify Council in consultation with the any surface artefacts within the study area relevant Aboriginal organisations

A9 Artefacts that are collected from Oaks Estate 1 No artefacts were identified during the site the place are to be archived at inspection, therefore there are no artefacts to the Heritage Unit pending collect establishment of an Aboriginal Heritage Keeping Place

C1 Places of archaeological MOL PAD It has been assessed that the study area contains potential require further an area of archaeological potential in the investigation of their Aboriginal southwest corner, identified as QSTP PAD, which and archaeological significance includes part of MOL PAD. It has been prior to development recommended that further investigation be undertaken of this area if the area would be impacted. This CHA has determined however that the area of archaeological potential would not be impacted by works associated with QSTP Upgrade project. Therefore, it has been determined that no further investigation is currently required to be undertaken as part of the QSTP Upgrade project

C2 Proponents of development MOL PAD This CHA notifies QPRC of the development within the place are to be alerted constraints regarding undertaking works within to the potential for development QSTP PAD, which includes part of MOL PAD. A constraints and the development copy of this CHA has been provided to the RAOs application is to be referred to for consideration and advice and would also be the Heritage Council for advice provided to ACT Heritage Council regarding appropriate further investigation

C3 Should further investigation MOL PAD As no works would be undertaken within QSTP determine that there are no PAD and MOL PAD as part of the QSTP Upgrade significant Aboriginal project, no further investigation is currently archaeological materials present recommended as part of the QSTP Upgrade in the identified place of project. Therefore, it is currently unknown if archaeological potential then the Aboriginal archaeological materials are present in interim Heritage Places Register the area of archaeological potential. As a result, an entry for the place is to be update to the ACTHR is not recommended at this amended appropriately, time following consultation with the Heritage Council and relevant Aboriginal organisations

C4 Should further investigation MOL PAD As no works would be undertaken within QSTP determine that Aboriginal PAD and MOL PAD as part of the QSTP Upgrade archaeological materials are project, no further investigation is currently present in the place of recommended as part of the QSTP Upgrade archaeological potential then the project. Therefore, it is currently unknown if interim Heritage Places Register Aboriginal archaeological materials are present in entry for the place is to be the area of archaeological potential. It has been updated, and the Heritage assessed that the area of QSTP PAD is already Council and relevant Aboriginal sufficiently covered by MOL PAD and Oaks Estate organisations are to be 1, therefore an update to the ACTHR is not consulted for advice regarding recommended at this time. A copy of this CHA has the appropriate management of been provided to the RAOs for consideration and the place advice and would also be provided to ACT Heritage Council

Page 88

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

11.9 Changes to the proposed works

This CHA is based upon the most recent information made available to Artefact Heritage as of the date of preparation of this report. Any changes made to the proposal should be assessed by an archaeologist in consultation with the RAOs and community stakeholders. Any changes that may impact on Aboriginal sites not assessed as part of the proposal may warrant further investigation and result in changes to the recommended management and mitigation measures. This may include recommendations for further investigation of ‘QSTP PAD’.

11.10 Ongoing RAO and community consultation

Consultation with RAOs and community stakeholders would continue throughout the life of the project, as necessary. Ongoing consultation with RAOs would take place in the event that any unexpected Aboriginal objects or evidence of ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’ are encountered.

11.11 Interpretation strategies and thematic history

As part of the requirements for the ISCA rating, the project should consider opportunities is to enhance the heritage values of the study area and develop an interpretation strategy and thematic history to accompany the EIS. Due to the generally low archaeological potential within the study, and as the development is primarily avoiding impacts to the areas of high potential, there is currently limited opportunity to incorporate heritage interpretation for the archaeological sites. However, an interpretation strategy should be developed as part of the EIS which considers options for interpretation, if feasible, including options for interpretations of unexpected significant archaeological remains.

Page 89

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

12.0 CONCULSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on consideration of:

• Statutory requirements under the Heritage Act • The requirements of the IS Rating Scheme • The results of the site inspection • The nature of the development and the potential impacts • Consultation with the RAOs and community stakeholders.

It was found that:

• A total of five previously identified Aboriginal sites are present within the study area. These include: o ‘Oaks Estate 1’, a scatter of flaked stone artefacts in a disturbed context in Block 2087 o ‘MOL PAD’, an area of archaeological potential in Block 1036 and part of Block 2067. It is noted that the ACT Heritage maps identify ‘MOL PAD’ as being within Block 1036, however the description for ‘MOL PAD’ included on the ACT Heritage Register (ACTHR) listing for ‘Aboriginal Places of the District of Jerrabomberra (Heritage ID 1166) states that it is also located within the undeveloped part of Block 2087 o ‘Aboriginal Places in the District of Jerrabomberra’, a listed heritage item on the ACTHR (Heritage ID 1166), which includes several Aboriginal sites including ‘Oaks Estate 1’ o ‘King Billy’s Cottage site’, the residence of Jimmy Clements which is suggested to have been within the study area and has been nominated for provisional registration on the ACTHR (Heritage ID 280) o ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’, a listed item on the ACTHR which consists of a large cultural area identified as having moderate archaeological potential and which includes several artefact scatters • There are no registered items on the World Heritage List (WHL), National Heritage List (NHL), Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL), National Trust of Australia Register (NTAR) or Register of the National Estate (RNE) within the study area • ‘Oaks Estate 1’ has been disturbed by previous activities associated with the STP. No evidence of the artefact scatter was observed during the site inspection. The area of higher archaeological potential to the west which is described as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ remains relatively undisturbed however • The site inspection identified an area of high archaeological potential and moderate significance, ‘QSTP PAD’, in the southwest corner of the study area in the undeveloped portion of Blocks 2087 and 1036. This area includes part of ‘MOL PAD’ and the area of higher archaeological potential described as part of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ • The literature review was not able to confirm that Jimmy Clements’ residence (‘King Billy’s Cottage site) was ever present in the study area. If Clements’ residence was within the study area, then it has likely been substantially impacted and/or removed as a result of previous ground disturbances associated with the construction, operation and expansion of the STP

Page 90

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

• Only one of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century residences remain in the study area, which is associated with ‘Mountain Road Cottage and stable’. However, this building has not been assessed as being of heritage significance. No other intact remnant remains were identified during the site inspection • Works associated with the construction, operation, and expansion of the STP have resulted in substantial ground disturbance across most of the study area • The study area has Aboriginal cultural heritage value for its location along the Molonglo River, which was an important pathway and meeting place • Landscape elements and the existing Mountain Road alignment was noted by the Molonglo Conservation Group as being important to the history and legibility of the site • The study area generally has nil to low non-Aboriginal archaeological potential and low Aboriginal archaeological potential (with the exception of ‘QSTP PAD’) • The proposed works would not impact ‘QSTP PAD’ or the five Aboriginal sites identified above • Overall, it is not expected that the proposed works would result in impacts to intact and significant Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeological remains • Further investigation is required of ’QSTP PAD’ if works would be undertaken within this area of archaeological potential. As no works would be undertaken within ’QSTP PAD’ for the QSTP Upgrade project however, no further investigation is currently required as part of this project.

It is recommended that:

• A copy of this report must be submitted to ACT Heritage Council for review and comment • No further investigation of ’QSTP PAD’ needs to be undertaken as part of the QSTP Upgrade project as it would not be impacted. Should works be proposed at a later stage which would potentially impact ‘QSTP PAD’ then further investigation would be required • This CHA makes no recommendations for any new sites to be nominated for inclusion on the ACTHR. It is assessed that the area of ‘QSTP PAD’ is already sufficiently covered by ‘MOL PAD’ and ‘Oaks Estate 1’ • Although it has not been assessed as being of heritage significance, the brick building associated with Mountain Road Cottage and stable should be maintained where practicable to conserve its association with the historical development of the study area • Maintain the Mountain Road alignment where practicable to conserve its association with the historical development of the study area during the late nineteenth century • Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing works the locations of ’QSTP PAD’ and the ‘Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River’ should be marked on construction and environmental site plans to ensure that no works are undertaken within these areas. An exclusion zone should also be established around the outer perimeter of ‘QSTP PAD’ to prevent inadvertent impacts • Excavations on the southwest side of Maturation Pond 3 within Area 3, and adjacent to ‘QSTP PAD’, should be avoided so as to ensure that there are no inadvertent impacts within ‘QSTP PAD’ • A heritage induction should be prepared and provided as part of the site induction

Page 91

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District, ACT Culltural Heritage Assessment

• An unexpected finds protocol should be developed for the project which outlines the requirements for when further archaeological management is required • The RAOs and community stakeholders should be provided with progress updates for the project • As part of the requirements for the ISCA rating under Version 1.2 of the IS rating tool, the project should consider opportunities where available to enhance the heritage values of the study area. An interpretation strategy should be developed as part of the EIS.

Page 92

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

13.0 REFERENCES

ACT Heritage Council, 2000. Aboriginal Places – Jerrabomberra. Entry to the ACT Heritage Register. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/148599/1166.pdf (28 May 2020).

ACT Heritage Council, 2015. Heritage (Decision about Registration of The Oaks, Oaks Estate) Notice 2015. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/644494/185_1.pdf (16 May 2020).

ACT Heritage Council, 2017. Background Information, Oaks Estate Subdivision and Environs: All Blocks Within Section 2, 3, 5-8 and Oaks Estate. Accessed online at: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj- 499725745/view (11 May 2020).

ACT Government, 2006. Heritage (Representative Aboriginal Organisations) Declaration 2006 (No 1). ACT Legislation Register. Accessed online at: https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2006- 298/default.asp (26 November 2019).

ACT Government, Community Services Directorate, 2012. Our kin our country: ACT Government genealogy project. Community Services Directorate, Canberra.

A. M. Fallick & Sons, 1938. The Story of Queanbeyan 1838-1938: published on the occasion of the town's centenary. A.M. Fallick & Sons, Queanbeyan.

Anne Jackson-Nakano, 2001. The Kamberri: A History of Aboriginal Families in the ACT and Surrounds. Aboriginal History, Canberra.

Arup, 2019. Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade: EIA Scoping Report. Report prepared for Queanbeyan Palerang Regional Council.

Arup, 2019. Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant (QSTP) Factual geotechnical investigation. Report prepared for Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (QPRC).

Australian Capital Territory. Community Services Directorate (2012). Our kin our country: ACT Government genealogy project. Community Services Directorate, Canberra.

Biosis Research, 2008. Archaeological Re-assessment: Block 182, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development on the former Canberra Abattoir site. Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Biosis Research, 2009, Archaeological Excavation: Block 2223, Jerrabomberra, ACT: Fyshwick East development of the former Canberra Abattoir site.

Daly, P., 2017. ‘Sovereignty never ceded: how two Indigenous elders changed Canberra's big day’. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial- blog/2017/may/07/sovereignty-never-ceded-how-two-indigenous-elders-changed-canberras-big- day.

Department of Climate Change & Water, 2010. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010. Research and Publications. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/aboriginal- cultural-heritage-consultation-requirements-for-proponents-2010 (26 November 2019).

Page 93

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Douglas Partners, 2020. Factual Report on Geotechnical Investigation: Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade. Report prepared for Hunter H2O.

Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT Government, 2015. Cultural Heritage Reporting Policy. Endorsed by ACT Heritage Council April 2015. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/heritage/publications-and-resources (8 November 2019).

Fitzhardinge, L. F. Moore, Joshua John (1790–1864). Australian Dictionary of Biography. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, published first in hardcopy 1967. Accessed online at: http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/moore-joshua-john-2475 (7 May 2020).

Flood, J. 1980. The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal Prehistory of Australian Alps. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Flood, J, et al., 1987. Birrigai: A Pleistocene site in the south-eastern highlands. Archaeology in Oceania, Vol. (22), pp. 9-26.

Flood, J., 1995. Archaeology of the Dreamtime: the Story of Prehistoric Australia and its People. J.B. Publishing, Marleston, South Australia.

Hunter H2O, 2020. Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade Project Concept Design. Report prepared for Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council.

Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA), 2018. IS Technical Manual Version 1.2. Accessed online at: https://www.isca.org.au/is_ratings (8 November 2019).

ISCA, 2020. Who We Are: Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA). ISCA. Accessed online at: https://www.isca.org.au/Who-We-Are (12 November 2019).

Lea-Scarlett, E. J. and T. Robinson, 1986. First light on the Limestone Plains: historic photographs of Canberra & Queanbeyan. Hale & Iremonger for Canberra & District Historical Society, Sydney.

Moffitt, K., 1997. Kyle Moffitt, 1997. A Cultural Resource Survey of Blocks 597, 598 and 599 Majura, ACT. Report prepared for Department of Urban Services.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants (NOHC), 1994. Preliminary Archaeological Assessment - Canberra Abattoir Site, ACT. Report prepared for CMPS&F.

NOHC, 1999a. Majura Valley Transport Corridor, Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for GHD.

NOHC, 1999b. Survey and Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Resource of Part of the Majura Valley, Woolshed Creek, ACT – Volume 1. Report prepared for Heritage Unit, Environment ACT, ACT Dept of Urban Services.

NOHC, 2001. Sutton Road Preliminary Assessment Cultural Heritage Component. Report prepared for RD Gossip.

NOHC, 2003. Tralee Local Environmental Study Cultural Heritage Component. Report prepared for URS Group Australia.

NOHC, 2005, Majura Field Firing Range Services Upgrade, Majura Valley, ACT – Archaeological Monitoring and Salvage within Site MV121. Report prepared for GHD.

NOHC, 2012. Sutton Road Upgrade, ACT: Archaeological Salvage (Collection) Program. Report prepared for Roads ACT.

Page 94

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

NOHC, 2013. Oaks Estate Master Plan: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate.

NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE - formerly NSW Office of Environment and Heritage), 2016. Winnunga. eSPADE – ACT Soil Landscape Mapping Project. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/land-and-soil/information/espade (7 May 2020).

Officer, K., 1997. Inventory of Known and Reported Cultural Heritage Places, Majura Valley ACT. Desktop Review for Proposed Majura Valley Transport Corridor, NOHC. Report prepared for Gutteridge Haskins & Davey.

Phillip Leeson Architects, 2013. Heritage Assessment Oaks Estate, ACT. Report prepared for ACT Environment & Sustainable Development Directorate, p. 13.

Peter Freeman & Partners, 1988. Queanbeyan heritage study: report. Peter Freeman & Partners, Canberra.

Saunders, 2003. Investigation of Aboriginal Places to be Impacted by the Sutton Road (ACT) Upgrade – Stage 1.

Saunders, P. 2004. ‘Griffin Green’ Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for Capital Planners, Pty. Ltd.

Saunders, P. 2006. 'Griffin Green' Cultural Heritage Assessment (amended). Report prepared for Capital Planners, Pty. Ltd.

Tegan Osborne, 2016. What is the Aboriginal History of Canberra? ABC News. Accessed online at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/curious-canberra/2016-04-04/curious-canberra-what-is- the-aboriginal-history-of-canberra/7286124 (7 May 2020).

Theden-Ringl, F., 2016. Aboriginal presence in the high country: new dates from Namadji Ranges in the Australian Capital Territory. Australian Archaeology. Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 25–42.

Tindale, N. B. (Norman Barnett) & Jones, Rhys, 1941- (1974). Aboriginal tribes of Australia: their terrain, environmental controls, distribution, limits, and proper names. Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Tregear, G. A., 2018. No Time for Toys. Xlibris Corporation, Bloomington, Indianna.

Williams, K., 1997. Oaks Estate: No Man’s Land. Karen Williams, Oaks Estate, ACT.

Williams, K. 2000. Draft Citation of the Oaks Estate Cultural Landscape to the ACT Interim Heritage Places Register. National Trust of Australia (ACT).

Newspaper articles

‘General Post Office’. The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser, Tuesday 22 March 1836, p. 4. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2203354?searchTerm=queanbeyan (16 March 2020).

‘Shocking Murder of a Blackfellow’. Queanbeyan Age, 5 April 1862. Cited in ACT Heritage Council, 2017. Background Information: Corroboree Ground and Aboriginal Cultural Area, Queanbeyan River. Accessed online at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/1130462/Background- Information.pdf (12 May 2020).

Page 95

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

‘Presentation to Queen Nellie’. Queanbeyan Age, Saturday 15 September 1888, p. 2. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/30920522 (7 May 2020).

‘Library, But No Rostrum’. The Sun, Friday 10 August 1923, p. 8. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/224113746 (14 May 2020)

‘Sewerage Scheme: Probable Cost £60,000’. The Canberra Times, Thursday 11 November 1926, p.4. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1208531 (14 May 2020); ‘Sewerage Scheme Approved’. The Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 7 January 1935, p. 8. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17121849 (14 May 2020).

‘Pollution in Queanbeyan River: Breach of Agreement’. The Canberra Times, Wednesday 13 April 1927, p. 1. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1212405 (14 May 2020).

‘Nothing Wrong With Canberra Opening, Says "King Billy"’. The Daily Telegraph, Friday 13 May 1927, p. 2. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article245750627 (1 May 2020); (1910). N/a, c.1910-1927. Portrait of Jimmy Clements, known as King Billy, and John Noble, known as Marvellous. National Library of Australia, PIC/6121 LOC Box PIC/6121. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-137325062 (1 May 2020).

‘King Billy Dead’. The Herald (Melbourne), Monday 29 August 1927, p. 1. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/244189442? (1 May 2020).

‘Death of “King Billy”’. The Burrowa News, Friday 9 September 1927, p. 9. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article102488965 (1 May 2020).

‘King Billy Dead’. The Port Macquarie News and Hastings River Advocate, Saturday 10 September 1927, p. 5. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/112534982 (7 May 2020).

‘Old King Billy’. Delegate Argus, Thursday 29 September 1927, p. 2. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article121216108 (1 May 2020).

‘Queanbeyan Sewerage Scheme on State List of Proposed Works For Unemployed’. The Canberra Times, Monday 17 December 1934, p. 1. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2381518 (14 May 2020).

‘Here and There: Queanbeyan Sewerage’. Yass Tribune-Courier, Thursday 4 July 1935, p. 7. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/249535815 (15 May 2020)

‘Queanbeyan Sewerage Works’. The Canberra Times, Saturday 24 August 1935, p. 4. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2397133 (15 Mary 2020)

‘Queanbeyan Sewerage Works Resumed’. The Canberra Times, Saturday 4 January 1936, p. 2. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2404388 (15 May 2020).

‘Queanbeyan Sewerage System in Operation’. The Canberra Times, Tuesday 6 September 1938, p. 3. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2495757 (15 May 2020).

‘Queanbeyan’s First 100 Years. From Struggling Village to Thriving Town’. The Canberra Times, Monday 3 October 1938, p. 2. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2502214 (16 March 2020).

‘Queanbeyan Age 96’. The Canberra Times, Thursday 20 September 1956, p. 2. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91223485 (16 March 2020).

Page 96

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

‘Drought and land hunger led to old 'Quinbean'’. The Canberra Times, Sunday 14 November 1982, p. 13. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article130829104 (16 March 2020).

'Government Gazette Proclamations and Legislation'. New South Wales Government Gazette, Tuesday 3 February 1985, p. 911. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news- article221624183 (16 Mar 2020).

‘The masked man was King Billy, but was he alone?’ The Canberra Times, Sunday 27 December 1987, p. 7. Accessed online at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122418256 (14 May 2020).

‘Queanbeyan Named from clear water’. The Canberra Times, Sunday 18 March 1990, p. 29. Accessed online at: from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article120885921 (16 March 2020).

'Home destined to fade into history'. The Canberra Times, 5 June 1995, p. 3.

'Derelict house has backers'. The Canberra Times, Monday 3 July 1995, p. 5. Accessed online at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article128285134 (5 May 2020).

‘180 items mark 180 years’. Queanbeyan Age, 13 September 2018. Accessed online at: https://www.queanbeyanagechronicle.com.au/story/5638917/180-items-mark-180-years/ (8 May 2020).

Page 97

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

14.0 APPENDICES

14.1 Appendix 1: ACT Heritage Council approvals

Page 98

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

14.2 Appendix 2: RAO and community stakeholder consultation log

Contact Organisation Contacted by Organisation Method Date Comment/Response Invitation to register Admin Consultative Body Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Letter 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Corporation on Indigenous participate in the site inspection. Registration of Land and Artefacts in the interest requested by 10 December 2019 Ngunnawal Area Matilda House Little Gudgenby River Tribal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Letter 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Council participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 James Mundy Ngarigu Currawong Clan Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Letter 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Corporation participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Admin Queanbeyan Museum Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Nick Swain Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Society participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Admin ACT National Trust Council Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Margot Sachse Jerrabomberra Residents’ Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Association participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Admin The Oaks Estate Progress Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Association participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019

Page 99

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Admin Institution of Engineers Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Australia participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Admin South Canberra Community Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Invitation to register for consultation and Council participate in the site inspection. Registration of interest requested by 10 December 2019 Relative of Jimmy Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Facebook 26/11/2019 A relative was contacted via Facebook messenger Clements (name messenger regarding their open Facebook post to a heritage withheld for privacy group page reasons)

Registration of interest responses, site inspection organisation and additional correspondence Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Email 26/11/2019 Registered interest in participating in consultation and the site inspection when a date was identified. Contact number provided Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 26/11/2019 Acknowledged registration of interest and notified that a follow up email would be sent when an inspection date was confirmed Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Hugh Griffin The Oaks Estate Progress Phone call 28/11/2019 Missed phone call from OEPA. Phone message Association taken Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Hugh Griffin The Oaks Estate Progress Phone call 28/11/2019 OEPA noted they do not wish to attend the site visit Association though would like to remain in contact during the consultation process. Recommended contacting Dr. Williams of the Molonglo Catchment Group as an additional community stakeholder Hugh Griffin The Oaks Estate Progress Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 29/11/2019 Acknowledged request to be kept informed of the Association project Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 29/11/2019 Invite to register for consultation and participate in the site inspection Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Phone call 02/12/2019 Registered interest in the site inspection and confirmed having knowledge of the area. Sent a follow up email Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 02/12/2019 Registered interest in participating in consultation and the site inspection and confirmed having knowledge of the area Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 03/12/2019 Acknowledged registration of interest and notified that a follow up email would be sent when an inspection date was confirmed

Page 100

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 05/12/2019 Informed that the site inspection had been rescheduled to an unconfirmed date Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 05/12/2019 Enquiry regarding site information - particularly pertaining to the heritage items located within the area or surrounding allotments Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 05/12/2019 Response to enquiry regarding information pertaining to historical documents and Billy Clements Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 05/12/2019 Response thanking Dr Williams for the information provided Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 05/12/2019 Response regarding the provision of a historical plan Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 05/12/2019 Response thanking Dr Williams for the information provided Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 05/12/2019 Response with attached map and information on the houses within the area Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 05/12/2019 Informed that the site inspection had been rescheduled to an unconfirmed date Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Email 05/12/2019 Acknowledged that the site inspection had been rescheduled Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Email 09/12/2019 Registered interest in participating in consultation Corporation and the site inspection Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 10/12/2019 Update regarding date of site inspection Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 10/12/2019 Acknowledged registration of interest and notified Corporation that an update would be provided when an inspection date was confirmed Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 10/12/2019 Update regarding date of site inspection Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Confirming site inspection scheduled for 16/12/2019. Attached map of site meeting area Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Confirming site inspection scheduled for 16/12/2019. Attached map of site meeting area Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Confirming site inspection scheduled for Corporation 16/12/2019. Attached map of site meeting area

Page 101

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Follow up email providing contact numbers for Artefact Heritage staff and PPE requirements Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Follow up email providing contact numbers for Artefact Heritage staff and PPE requirements Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Follow up email providing contact numbers for Corporation Artefact Heritage staff and PPE requirements Admin Queanbeyan Museum Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Courtesy email noting deadline for site inspection registration had closed, however expressed continued interest in receiving information relating to the site. Sought confirmation if the organisation would like to receive project updates Margot Sachse Jerrabomberra Residents’ Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Courtesy email noting deadline for site inspection Association registration had closed, however expressed continued interest in receiving information relating to the site. Sought confirmation if the organisation would like to receive project updates Admin South Canberra Community Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Courtesy email noting deadline for site inspection Council registration had closed, however expressed continued interest in receiving information relating to the site. Sought confirmation if the organisation would like to receive project updates Admin Institution of Engineers Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Courtesy email noting deadline for site inspection Australia registration had closed, however expressed continued interest in receiving information relating to the site. Sought confirmation if the organisation would like to receive project updates Admin ACT National Trust Council Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Courtesy email noting deadline for site inspection registration had closed, however expressed continued interest in receiving information relating to the site. Sought confirmation if the organisation would like to receive project updates Nick Swain Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Courtesy email noting deadline for site inspection Society registration had closed, however expressed continued interest in receiving information relating to the site. Sought confirmation if the organisation would like to receive project updates Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 12/12/2019 Acknowledged scheduled date of the site inspection

Page 102

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Nick Swain Canberra and District Email 17/12/2019 Noting the Christmas shutdown and welcome to Historical Society consult the resources at the Canberra and District Historical Society. Identified that Canberra and District Historical Society would be in contact with Dr Peter Dowling Nick Swain Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Acknowledged response and queried if Canberra Society and District Historical Society wished to review a draft copy of the CHA Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Confirmed that the site inspection had been undertaken and that the organisation would continue to be engaged for consultation. Requested additional information be provided for inclusion in the CHA Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Confirmed that the site inspection had been Corporation undertaken and that the organisation would continue to be engaged for consultation. Requested additional information be provided for inclusion in the CHA Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Email 18/12/2019 Acknowledged that a representative was not able Corporation to attend the site inspection on the day, however requested Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation continue to be consulted. Identified that the area is highly significant as a major pathway and for nearby evidence of cultural objects and features Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Acknowledged that the area is of high community Corporation value and confirmed that Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Corporation would be consulted with. Requested additional information be provided for inclusion in the CHA Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Request for additional information regarding the listed ‘Oaks Estate 1’ site Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 18/12/2019 Request for additional information regarding the listed ‘Oaks Estate 1’ site Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Outlined the general location of ‘Oaks Estate 1’ Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 18/12/2019 Response providing additional information regarding Aboriginal sites in the area Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 18/12/2019 Acknowledged information provided by Dr Williams

Page 103

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Email 18/12/2019 Registered interest in participating in consultation Historical Society / ACT on behalf of both Canberra and District Historical National Trust Council Society and ACT National Trust Council, though noted that the response was after the requested registration date

Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Thank you email for response and requested Society / ACT National Trust additional information regarding the site Council

Preliminary assessment and additional correspondence Matilda House Little Gudgenby River Tribal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Letter 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Council James Mundy Ngarigu Currawong Clan Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Letter 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Admin Consultative Body Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Letter 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Corporation on Indigenous Land and Artefacts in the Ngunnawal Area Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Corporation Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Margot Sachse Jerrabomberra Residents’ Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Association Hugh Griffin The Oaks Estate Progress Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Association Admin South Canberra Community Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Council Admin Institution of Engineers Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Australia Nick Swain Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Society Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Preliminary observations from the site inspection Society / ACT National Trust Council Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Email 19/12/2019 Acknowledged receival of preliminary observations

Page 104

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 19/12/2019 Response email Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Hugh Griffin The Oakes Estate Progress Email 19/12/2019 Noted the site had not featured in previous Association discussions at planning and community meetings that the OEPA had records of covering the last decade. OEPA deferred to the expert views of indigenous organisations and Dr Karen Williams as the expert on heritage and history. Requested that the emails be withheld from the report Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Email 20/12/2019 Acknowledged receival of preliminary observations. Corporation Noted it was unfortunate that no Aboriginal representative was in attendance to embrace the Aboriginal cultural significance of the project area Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 06/01/2020 Response email. Requested additional comments Corporation regarding the cultural heritage significance of the area for inclusion in the CHA Hugh Griffin The Oakes Estate Progress Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 06/01/2020 Acknowledged the response and input from OEPA Association Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Email 07/01/2020 Provided additional historical information Historical Society / ACT regarding the project area National Trust Council Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 07/01/2020 Response email thanking Dr Dowling for the Society / ACT National Trust additional information provided Council Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Email 08/01/2020 Provided additional historical information Historical Society / ACT regarding the project area National Trust Council Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Historical Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Email 09/01/2020 Response email thanking Dr Dowling for the Society / ACT National Trust additional information provided Council Sophie Barbera Artefact Heritage Hugh Griffin The Oakes Estate Progress Email 20/01/2020 Email from correspondent regarding their input Association Hugh Griffin The Oakes Estate Progress Jayden van Beek Artefact Heritage Email 21/01/2020 Email to correspondent responding their input Association

Page 105

Queanbeyan Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade, Jerrabomberra District Cultural Heritage Assessment

Draft CHA review Matilda House Little Gudgenby River Tribal Darrienne Artefact Heritage Letter 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Council Wyndham requested by 22 June James Mundy Ngarigu Currawong Clan Darrienne Artefact Heritage Letter 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Wyndham requested by 22 June Admin Consultative Body Aboriginal Darrienne Artefact Heritage Letter 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Corporation on Indigenous Wyndham requested by 22 June Land and Artefacts in the Ngunnawal Area Wally Bell Buru Ngunnawal Aboriginal Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Corporation Wyndham requested by 22 June Tina Brown King Brown Tribal Group Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Wyndham requested by 22 June Dr Peter Dowling Canberra and District Historical Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Society / ACT National Trust Wyndham requested by 22 June Council Hugh Griffin The Oaks Estate Progress Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Association Wyndham requested by 22 June Dr Karen Williams Molonglo Catchment Group Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Wyndham requested by 22 June Admin Queanbeyan Museum Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Wyndham requested by 22 June Admin South Canberra Community Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Council Wyndham requested by 22 June Admin Institution of Engineers Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Australia Wyndham requested by 22 June Admin ACT National Trust Council Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Wyndham requested by 22 June Margot Sachse Jerrabomberra Residents’ Darrienne Artefact Heritage Email 05/06/2020 Draft CHA provided for review. Comments Association Wyndham requested by 22 June

Page 106