William Hovell Drive Duplication:

Aboriginal and Historical Cultural Heritage Assessment.

Report Prepared for SMEC 20 April 2021

www.pasttraces.com.au email: [email protected]

Document Control

Version Date Author Reviewed

D1 12/4/2021 Lyn O’Brien SMEC/RAOs

F1 20/4/2021 Lyn O’Brien

Disclaimer

Past Traces Pty Ltd has undertaken this assessment in accordance with the relevant Federal, State and Local Government legislation. Past Traces accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of use for any purpose other than that for which it was commissioned.

Copyright of the report remains the property of Past Traces Pty Ltd. This report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned.

Restricted Information

Under Part 9 of the Heritage Act 2004 information contained within this report is restricted and should not be made publically available. The information that is restricted includes (but is not limited to):

 Maps, Mapping Grid Reference Co-ordinates or images for Aboriginal heritage sites, places and objects.  Location or detailed information regarding places of Aboriginal cultural significance, as expressed or directed by Representative Aboriginal Organisations, Aboriginal elders, or members of the wider Aboriginal community.  Other culturally appropriate restricted information as advised by Aboriginal representatives and traditional knowledge holders.

Information in the report covered by the above categories should be redacted before being made available to the general public. This information should only be made available to those persons with a just and reasonable need for access.

William Hovell Drive

Acknowledgements

This report would not have been possible without the assistance of the following people and organisations in the preparation of this report:

 Paul House - Mirrabee

 Wally Bell – Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation

 James Mundy – Ngarigu Currawong Clan

 Adrian Brown – King Brown Tribal Group

Abbreviations

CHA – Cultural Heritage Assessment

RAO – Representative Aboriginal Organisation registered under Heritage Act 2004

PAD – Potential Archaeological Deposit

SHE – Statement of Heritage Effects

WSP – WSP Australia Pty Ltd

UDP – Unanticipated Discovery Plan

William Hovell Drive Duplication

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1

1.2 PROPOSED WORKS AND IMPACTS ...... 1

1.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION ...... 2

1.4 REPORT AIMS AND FORMAT ...... 2

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 5

2.1 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ...... 5

2.1.1 Geology and Topography ...... 5

2.1.2 Flora and Fauna ...... 5

2.1.3 Natural Heritage Search of ACT Heritage Register ...... 8

2.2 REVIEW OF HISTORIC CONTEXT ...... 10

2.2.1 Historic Land use ...... 10

2.2.2 Historic search of ACT Heritage Register ...... 10

2.3 REVIEW OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...... 15

2.3.1 Ethnohistoric Setting ...... 15

2.3.2 Previous archaeological studies...... 15

2.3.3 Aboriginal heritage search of ACT Heritage Register ...... 17

2.4 ABORIGINAL LAND USE/PREDICTIVE MODEL ...... 17

2.5 DESKTOP ASESSMENT SUMMARY ...... 17

3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...... 21

3.1 FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 21

3.2 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...... 21

3.2.1 Historical Heritage - Weetangera Cemetery ...... 21

3.2.2 Natural Heritage - Kama Woodlands ...... 22

4 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE EFFECTS ...... 26

4.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 26

4.1.1 Summary ...... 27

4.2 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 27

William Hovell Drive Duplication

5 REFERENCES ...... 29 APPENDIX 1. ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION ...... 30 APPENDIX 2. 2018 CHA ...... 31 APPENDIX 3. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY PLAN ...... 32

2. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 32 3. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS ...... 33

Figures

Figure 1. Location of project area in regional context ...... 3

Figure 2. Project area boundary ...... 4

Figure 3. Geology of the Project Area ...... 6

Figure 4. Soil Landscapes of the Project Area ...... 7

Figure 5. Location of Natural Heritage listing ...... 9

Figure 6. Parish map 1912 ...... 12

Figure 7. Federal Territory Feature Map 1915...... 13

Figure 8. Location of historic heritage listing ...... 14

Figure 9. Locations of recorded sites (ACTMAPi) ...... 19

Figure 10. Locations of recorded sites from 2018 Field survey ...... 20

Figure 11. PAD Locations and Whitlam Development ...... 25

William Hovell Drive Duplication

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Past Traces Pty Ltd has been engaged by SMEC to update the Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) completed (on behalf of WSP) for the proposed duplication of William Hovell Drive from Coppins Crossing Road to Drake Brockman Drive in Holt (Past Traces 2018). The proposed area covers the road easement with an adjoining 20m on each boundary for an approximate length of 4.7km.

The study area is shown in Figure 1 in a regional context and in detail in Figure 2.

Additional information has been requested from the ACT Heritage Council (dated 17/4/2020) following review of the 2018 CHA. This additional information is in regards to the following:

 The degree of impact to the heritage listed Kama Woodlands requires clarification  Additional information on the impacts of the works on the two boundary Cypress trees at the Weetangera Cemetery is required. Clarification as to whether avoidance measures are required to protect their values is necessary.  Clarification of the five PAD boundaries identified by the 2018 field survey and details of how they are defined.  Incorporation of the results of recent heritage assessments for the Whitlam Stage 3 Development and impacts on the identified areas of PAD.

To address these requirements, this CHA reviewed heritage studies undertaken since the original field survey, reviewed the 2018 field notes and topographic maps to define landforms and area of potential, and assessed impacts since their recording against these reports. To determine Ecological (Natural heritage) impacts, consultation with the projects ecologist to determine the extent of impact to the Kama Woodlands has been undertaken.

Consultation with the Aboriginal Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) was undertaken in accordance with ACT Heritage guidelines and the Heritage Act 2004 for the 2018 assessment. As no additional areas are included in the updated report, and no alterations have occurred to the design no additional field survey with RAOs has been undertaken. The RAOs were contacted in regards to the project, the updates discussed and the draft of the report circulated for their comments and information.

As a result of the assessment completed for the project the following findings and recommendations apply:

Natural Heritage

 A section of the listed Kama Woodlands is located within the road reserve. Impacts would occur to a small section of the larger listing and no significant impact or decrease in heritage values would result from the impacts within the road reserve.

Aboriginal Heritage

 No Aboriginal or historical heritage sites would be impacted by the project as impacts can be avoided through design. No impacts would occur to the site WHD1 or the three areas of PAD (PAD1, PAD3 and PAD5) located within the road corridor.

William Hovell Drive i

 Barrier fencing must be installed to demarcate the site boundaries with a buffer zone of 10m. Barrier fencing would consist of star pickets with high visibility flagging and would be installed by or under the direction of the RAOs and heritage team.

 The areas of PAD identified within the study area should be avoided by the proposed works. If, due to alteration in design, these areas are to be impacted then a program of subsurface testing of the impacted areas of PAD would be required to determine the presence of cultural material.

Historical Heritage

 Barrier fencing must be installed to delineate the extent of construction in the vicinity of the Weetangera Cemetery to prevent accidental impacts. The placement of barrier fencing must be on the exterior boundary of heritage curtilages.

 A buffer zone of 10m from the dripline of the two cypress trees that are included within the Weetangera Cemetery Listing will be demarcated by barrier fencing prior any construction. Barrier fencing would be in place and remain for the duration of all construction. No impacts are permissible to the Cypress Trees or any area of the Weetangera Cemetery listing.

 Design where practical should be undertaken to reduce the potential for indirect impacts due to higher visibility and visitor impacts to the Weetangera Cemetery. This could take the form of screening landscaping on the road verge.

General

 The location of heritage sites and requirements for impact avoidance shall be communicated to project manager and personnel engaged on the project. Heritage site information will be included in site inductions.

 Impacts can be avoided by design at all heritage sites and areas of potential other than the Kama Woodlands listing. As heritage impacts would occur within the Kama Woodlands, there are known heritage impacts from the proposed project. As a result, submission of a Statement of Heritage Effects (SHE) for approval to the ACT Heritage Council is required. A SHE is provided within this CHA for approval by the ACT Heritage Council prior to works commencing.

 All Aboriginal objects and places are protected under the ACT Heritage Act 2004. It is an offence to disturb an Aboriginal site without approvals granted by the ACT Heritage Council. Should any Aboriginal objects be encountered during works then works must cease immediately in the vicinity of the find, and the find should not be moved until assessed by a qualified archaeologist with the participation of the RAOs. Adherence to the Unexpected Discovery Plan (UDP) attached at Appendix 2 is required.

William Hovell Drive ii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Past Traces Pty Ltd has been engaged by SMEC to update the Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) completed (on behalf of WSP) for the proposed duplication of William Hovell Drive from Coppins Crossing Road to Drake Brockman Drive in Holt (Past Traces 2018). The study area covers the road easement with an adjoining 20m on each boundary for an approximate length of 4.7km.

The duplication of William Hovell Drive is required to address the increased traffic flows resulting from the development of the Molonglo Valley and the West Belconnen region. As a major arterial road to the City, the current single lane configuration is no longer adequate.

The study area is shown in Figure 1 in a regional context and in detail in Figure 2.

The CHA is being updated to provide the additional information that has been requested from the ACT Heritage Council (dated 17/4/2020) following review of the 2018 CHA. The additional information required is in relation to:

 The degree of impact to the heritage listed Kama Woodlands requires clarification

 Additional information on the impacts of the works on the two boundary Cypress trees at the Weetangera Cemetery is required. Clarification as to whether avoidance measures are required to protect their values is necessary.

 Clarification of the five PAD boundaries identified by the 2018 field survey and details of how they are defined.

 Incorporation of the results of recent heritage assessments for the Whitlam Stage 3 Development and impacts on the identified areas of PAD.

To address these requirements, this CHA reviewed heritage studies undertaken since the original field survey, reviewed the 2018 field notes and topographic maps to define landforms and area of potential, and assessed impacts since their recording against these reports. To determine Ecological (Natural heritage) impacts, consultation with the projects ecologist to determine the extent of impact to the Kama Woodlands has been undertaken.

1.2 PROPOSED WORKS AND IMPACTS

The proposal would result in the area of the duplicated road being highly disturbed with excavation and displacement of soils. The immediate surrounds would also be impacted by machinery movement and the storage of materials. All of these construction activities will compact and impact on soils within the impact areas.

Due to the highly destructive nature of the works, the study area extends over the existing road reserve and an additional 20m outside of the road reserve to allow for works encroachment and the additional space required for ‘cut and fill’ for road levelling.

William Hovell Drive 1

Any heritage sites in the vicinity of works would be impacted by the proposed construction. As the project is at a final design phase, the Aboriginal and Historical heritage sites identified in the 2018 CHA have been avoided through design.

The Kama Woodland would be impacted within the road reserve and the degree of impact and relevant mitigation and management measures requires assessment and determination as components of the updated CHA.

1.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

Consultation with the Aboriginal Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) was undertaken in accordance with ACT Heritage guidelines and the Heritage Act 2004 for the 2018 assessment. As no additional areas are included in the updated report, and as no alterations have occurred to the design no additional field survey with RAOs has been undertaken.

The RAOs were contacted in regards to the project, the updates discussed and the draft of the report circulated for their comments and information.

The RAOs consulted are Mirrabee, King Brown Tribal Group, Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation and the Ngarigu Currawong Clan.

The process of consultation to the development of this CHA is provided in Appendix 1.

1.4 REPORT AIMS AND FORMAT

To address these requirements, this CHA reviewed heritage studies undertaken since the original field survey, reviewed the 2018 field notes and topographic maps to define landforms and area of potential, and assessed impacts since their recording against these reports. To determine Ecological (Natural heritage) impacts, consultation with the projects ecologist to determine the extent of impact to the Kama Woodlands has been undertaken.

The following is a summary of the major aims of the CHA:

 Review heritage register listings within the study area.

 Conduct review of 2018 CHA and heritage studies completed since 2018 in the area.

 Review previous work to determine identifiable patterns in Aboriginal site distribution and landform potential

 Review mapping to determine landforms and assess potential

 Consult with Aboriginal and statutory stakeholders

 Identify impacts to all identified Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage sites and places as a result of the proposed works

 Develop recommendations to minimise or mitigate impacts to cultural heritage values within the study area.

William Hovell Drive 2

Figure 1: Regional Context

Legend Study Area

±

1:40,000 0 250500 1,000 1,500

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017 Figure 2: Study Area

Legend Study Area

±

1:20,000 0100200 400 600

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The following section briefly summarises the geology and landforms, flora and fauna of the study area. The discussion focuses on those elements of the natural environment that may have influenced past human behaviour and archaeological site formation processes.

2.1 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

2.1.1 Geology and Topography

The William Hovell Drive study area is underlain by the Walker and Mt Painter Volcanics. These late Silurian volcanic systems consists mainly of rhyolitic and dacitic tuffs. Quartz will be present naturally within this formations along with shales. A common geological feature of the area is highly weathered bedrock. Thin shallow soils characterise the area, highly acidic and easily erodible. A duplex soil system overlaying clay bedrock appears in profile across the area.

The Burra soil landscape is described as being on ‘undulating to rolling low hills and alluvial fans over the Silurian Volcanics (Jenkins 2000:44). The Burra Group soils are moderately deep and well drained Kurosols and Chromosols. Shallow earthy sands (Lithosols) are present on upper slopes and crests. Red and Brown Kandosols and Kurosols occupy mid slopes and most lower slopes. Brown chromosols are present along minor drainage lines (Jenkins 2000:44).

The topography of the area consists of gently undulating hills and fans, interspersed with small drainage lines and minor tributary creek lines which drain to the south west to the Molonglo River. The immediate road reserve has been subject to modification with the original construction of William Hovell Drive and original soils would have been removed and displaced within this section.

The geology of the study area is shown in Figure 3 with soil landscapes shown in Figure 4.

2.1.2 Flora and Fauna

The natural vegetation across the study area has been cleared for pastoral grazing and now consists of open paddocks with pockets of remnant woodland tree species such as Yellow box or Blakely Red Gum and limited areas of native grassland. Prior to the clearance of the natural vegetation the area would have supported a mixed woodland on the ridge tops and rolling hills with natural temperate grasslands along the flatter slopes close to the creek lines. These communities supported a wide range of edible plant and fauna species. Fauna present would range from small marsupials (i.e. possums), to avian species and macropods.

The Molonglo River to the south of the study area would have focused activity including camping sites with a variety of resources, such as fish, yabbies, turtles and in the past platypus. Tributary creeks also focused mammal and birdlife providing hunting opportunities and access to water supplies. Creek lines also supplied fibrous material for weaving into twine for use in a range of activities as well as providing edible tubers and reeds (Percival and Stewart 1971).

William Hovell Drive 5

Figure 3: Geology

Legend Study Area Geology Deakin Volcanics Mount Painter Volcanics Walker Volcanics Water

±

1:20,000 0100200 400 600

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017 Figure 4: Soils

Legend Study Area ACT Soil Landscapes Burra Campbell Lower Molonglo variant b Williamsdale

±

1:20,000 0100200 400 600

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

2.1.3 Natural Heritage Search of ACT Heritage Register

The Kama Woodlands Nature Reserve is located on Blocks 1419, 1386, and parts of 1596 and 181 Belconnen. In addition the listing extends into the verge of William Hovell Drive adjacent to blocks 1419, 1386 and 1596, Belconnen. The Kama Woodlands were gazetted in 2012 to the ACT Heritage register for natural heritage values. The listing extends to the verge of William Hovell Drive and a detailed ecological report has been completed by SMEC for the Woodlands, resulting in a finding that 1.16ha of the Woodlands will be impacted within the road reserve, which will have a negligible impact on the listed values.

The Kama Woodlands Nature Reserve is listed due to the following:

The Kama Woodland/Grassland, Belconnen is significant because it includes examples of two endangered ecological communities (Yellow Box-Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Natural Temperate Grassland) together with the natural boundary (ecotone) between them. The landscape relationship between the two vegetation communities is important because it is considered to be similar to the vegetation patterns that existed prior to European settlement.

This place is also significant because there is a high diversity of native species in the Kama Woodland/Grassland including uncommon native forbs, woodland birds and riparian species. The Kama Woodland/Grassland provides important ecological connectivity between the lower Molonglo River and The Pinnacle (ACT Heritage Listing No NI2012—541 – Statement of Significance).

As a listed place, impacts cannot occur that are detrimental to any of the heritage values. Based on a review of the project mapping, impacts would occur within the listing boundaries. The location of the Kama Woodlands listing in relation to the proposed works is shown in Figure 5. The significance and degree of these impacts will be assessed and discussed in Section 3.

William Hovell Drive 8

Figure 5: Karma Nature Reserve

Legend Study Area Nature Reserve World Transportation The Pinnacle Nature Reserve

Kama Nature Reserve ±

1:10,000 0 50100 200 300 400

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi

2.2 REVIEW OF HISTORIC CONTEXT

Historical background for the study area has been provided in the 2018 CHA with the main land use history and impacts summarised in the following sections.

2.2.1 Historic Land use

The study area was historically part of the larger grazing properties in the region. The study area was originally settled as part of the Palmerville (Ginninderra) station owned by George Palmer established in 1826. In 1829 Palmer applied for a further 14 blocks along Ginninderra Creek (Gillespie 1992). The Dixon 1837 map of landholding show this section of the Northern Molonglo under the control of Palmer.

With the passing of the Robertson Land Acts of 1861 many larger properties were broken into smaller settlements. The Parish Map of Weetangera (1912) shows the major landholder as still being Palmer but the Schumack family of Weetangera now are present to the east and the Kilbys have gained Land End in the northern section adjacent to the holdings of William Plummer. William and other members of the Plummer family are buried at the Weetangera Methodist Cemetery. The land allocations from the 1912 Parish map are shown on Figure 6.

Mary Smith married Cameron Ewan, the school teacher at Weetangera who with Levi Plummer constructed the Weetangera Methodist Church in 1872. The Church was dedicated in 1873 and continued to hold services till 1952. The church was demolished in 1955 to allow for suburban expansion. The Methodist cemetery that was located adjacent to the church is located on the verge of William Hovell Drive in Holt and is listed on the ACT Heritage Register.

The Federal Territory Feature Map (1915) shows the location of the Methodist Church and the Kilby’s property. The FTF Map notes that the area has been used for cultivation and cleared of trees along the study area. The FTF Map is shown on Figure 7.

2.2.2 Historic search of ACT Heritage Register

A search of the ACT Heritage Register was requested in March 2018 for the original heritage assessment and an online search of the heritage overlays identified one registered historical site located adjacent to the study area.

The Weetangera Methodist Cemetery was gazetted in 2004 to the ACT Heritage Register for its early historical association with the settlement of the early and the Methodist community. The Methodist Church and Cemetery and their relationship to the Kilby, Cameron, Smith and Plummer families has been mentioned in the previous section. The registered curtilage for the site ends at the road reserve easement. Registered features include as a main component, the two Cypress trees at the entrance gate. The study area extends 20m to the exterior of the road reserve and would therefore affect the listing. The location of the heritage listing in relation to the proposed works is shown on Figure 8.

William Hovell Drive 10

As a listed place, any impacts must be avoided if possible, and within this section the study area may not extend past the designated road reserve boundary to avoid direct impacts. Indirect impacts to the entrance trees and the cemetery may result through increased visitation and visibility from the extended road corridor. The potential for these indirect impacts needs to be investigated through the field survey and avoided through careful planning of road verges and site points.

The degree of impact from the project and the required mitigation measures for each of the heritage listings is discussed in Section 3.

William Hovell Drive 11

Figure 7: Parish Map

Legend Study Area

±

1:25,000 0125250 500 750 1,000

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

Figure 8: Weetangera Cemetery

Legend Weetangera Cemetery Study Area World Transportation

± 1:17,000 0 175 350 700

Meters

GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi

2.3 REVIEW OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

2.3.1 Ethnohistoric Setting

The major language group identified in the Canberra region by Norman Tindale in his seminal work on Aboriginal tribal boundaries are the Ngunnawal people. The Ngambri people hold affiliation with the central area of Canberra, where early accounts of settlers often refer to the group as the Ngambi or Ngamberry. Both groups hold cultural connections through the Canberra Region.

The boundaries of the Ngunawal according to Tindale ran to the south east where they met the Ngarigo at the Molonglo and the Gundungara to the north of Lake George (Tindale 1974). This distribution with minor amendments is still widely accepted and the review of tribal boundaries undertaken in the 1990s (Horton 1996) confirmed these earlier linguistic divisions. These findings are not accepted by all members of the Aboriginal community and it is beyond the scope of this report to determine connection to country. Currently the ACT Government accepts the ACT to be Ngunnawal/Ngambri Country.

The Molonglo River and the Murrumbidgee River represent the boundary between Ngunnawal and Ngarigo nations. Currently descendants of both Aboriginal groups hold cultural affiliation with the study area and have been consulted for the project.

The traditional lifeways of the Aboriginal people were disrupted by the arrival of European settlers in the 1830’s. The impact of new disease, displacement from traditional lands and disruption of hunting practices lead to a decline in the local population, with some remaining families finding employment on the large pastoral stations that had become established in the region. Blanket distribution lists from this period show a continuity of presence with recognised members of Ngambri and Ngunnawal families. How people identified during this period is difficult to know, but in the face of the European presence, the connections between Aboriginal people would have been strengthened into a picture of Aboriginal identity.

2.3.2 Previous archaeological studies.

A number of archaeological heritage assessment have been undertaken in the vicinity of the study area. A brief overview of the most relevant studies are provided below, a more detailed listing has been supplied previously in the 2018 CHA. The studies have been small scale and development focused and no regional synthesis has been completed for the region.

Navin Officer in 1991 undertook preliminary archaeological surveys and assessment for the proposed West Belconnen Urban Release Area, which included the current study area. This study comprised three areas A, B & C and covered a large area for field survey. Historical heritage sites were identified to the south of the study area consisting of the Weetangera cemetery and early remains of European settlement of the region.

Archaeological Heritage Surveys (1995) were contracted by ACT Parks and Conservation Service to complete an assessment of the lower Molonglo River Corridor. This study area is adjacent to the southern portion of the current study area. Aboriginal sites were located through all landforms and Saunders conclude that sites were most likely in proximity to water and away from steep terrain. William Hovell Drive 15

Following the Canberra bushfires in 2003 an archaeological survey was undertaken of the area on the southern side of William Hovell Drive. This field survey identified a number of small artefact scatters which conformed to modelling being in locations overlooking major creek lines. No site cards were submitted and details of these sites are scarce.

Biosis (2012) completed the Molonglo Stage 3 Future Residential Development heritage assessment. This project included field survey over the large area of land on the north side of the Molonglo River. This study area is adjacent to the current study area on the southern termination point. Thirty eight Aboriginal sites were located mainly consisting of small artefact scatters and the historic Kallenia Woolshed considered to hold high cultural significance. Test pitting was undertaken in areas of identified PAD and further studies on the Woolshed in 2013, recovering low density artefacts only in the PAD locations.

Biosis (2014) completed the Molonglo Stage 3 Additional Areas assessment which covered an area of Caswell Drive to Coulter Drive on the northern side of William Hovell Drive. This study area is adjacent to the southern boundary of the current study area. Thirty-eight sites were located, most within the lower foothills of Black Mountain in the most southern section. The sites were located along minor drainage lines and in their location conformed to the accepted site modelling for the region.

Past Traces (2017) completed a survey and subsurface testing over the length of Drake Brockman Drive Holt for a proposed road duplication. This area is adjacent to the northern end of the current study area. The survey identified no heritage sites but was confined to the area of high previous impact of the road reserve.

Past Traces in 2018 completed the original assessment for the duplication of William Hovell Drive. The results of that assessment are repeated in this assessment with updated details. The assessment identified one isolated find and five areas of PAD along Deep Creek. These five areas of PAD (PAD 1 – 5) consist of broad crests (level areas) on small knolls overlooking the creek line. A process of subsurface testing was recommended if the PADs were to be impacted. As the report was not accepted by ACT Heritage, these PADs were not registered on the Heritage register to be provided to applicants.

CHMA in 2018(a) completed an assessment for the Whitlam Stage 1 development, concurrently as the assessment for William Hovell Drive was being undertaken. The report identified 11 Aboriginal heritage sites within the Whitlam Stage 1 area and recommended salvage and subsurface testing in areas of PAD. Two areas of PAD (CLB7 and MVS2) were identified, located on a broad flat crest of a spur landform overlooking Deep Creek within the Whitlam Stage 1 area to the south of the William Hovell Road corridor. These areas of PAD are to the southeast of the areas of PAD identified by Past Traces (2018).

A series of testpits were excavated recovering 93 artefacts from CLB7 and 92 from MSV2. Mixing and inversion of soil profiles due to agricultural impacts was evident throughout. Due to the high number of artefacts, further salvage of the sites was recommended. The additional salvage (CHMA 2018b) consisted of a series of trenches, resulting in the excavation of an additional 11m2 area. The additional salvage recovered 638 artefacts at CLB7 and 128 artefacts from MSV2. The significance of the sites was classified as moderate. Following this salvage work, construction occurred throughout the Whitlam development.

William Hovell Drive 16

Past Traces in 2020 completed an assessment through the current study area for the installation of underground electricity lines for the Molonglo Stage 3 development. The proposed route crossed the areas of PAD 3 and PAD 5. The survey completed for the project identified that the areas of PAD 2 and PAD 4 had been destroyed through the construction works for the Whitlam Development. The most southern end of PAD 3 had also been impacted from the works. RAOs were present, participated in the field survey and concurred that destruction of the areas of PAD had occurred.

As these areas of PAD have been impacted, one of the main purposes of this report, is to provide a condition assessment of the areas of PAD within the study area and the potential impact from the William Hovell Drive Duplication.

2.3.3 Aboriginal heritage search of ACT Heritage Register

A search of the ACT Heritage Register and a request for relevant reports was submitted to ACT Heritage in March 2018. A search of the online ACTMAPi heritage overlay was undertaken with no registered sites (Aboriginal or historical) being located within the study area. Aboriginal sites are located to the north east of the study area and south towards the Molonglo River.

These recorded sites consist of artefact scatters, mainly small located on terraces near the creek lines or on ridge crests. The location of these sites is shown on Figure 9.

Following the survey for the 2018 CHA, one Aboriginal heritage site (WHD1) and five areas of PAD were identified within the study area. Details of the site and areas of PAD are discussed in Section 3. The location of these sites is shown in Figure 10.

2.4 ABORIGINAL LAND USE/PREDICTIVE MODEL

The results of previous archaeological surveys in the region indicates that the potential for sites is present in a range of landforms. A pattern of site location that relates to the presence of potential resources for Aboriginal use appears to be present, based on site locations recorded from the studies described in the previous section. A predictive model was developed for the project in the 2018 CHA which identified areas of elevated terrace or broad crest terminal spur lines in association with creeklines to hold the highest potential.

The identification of the five areas of PAD in 2018 was based on the application of this model, and the studies undertaken in the area since that time, especially the subsurface testing and salvage completed within the Whitlam 3 area by CHMA have confirmed the applicability of the model.

2.5 DESKTOP ASESSMENT SUMMARY

The desktop assessment and review of previous studies has shown that heritage sites (Aboriginal, and Natural) are present within the study area. An historical site is present in the adjoining paddocks to the road alignment and at risk of potential indirect impacts from the project.

William Hovell Drive 17

Design has been undertaken since the 2018 study to avoid impacts to all of the recorded Aboriginal PAD and site locations. No impacts to Aboriginal heritage are anticipated.

One historical site is present outside of the road reserve but within the extended study area. If works are not confined to the road reserve and mitigation measures applied, the proposed works have the potential to impact on the registered curtilage of the Weetangera Cemetery. No impacts to Historic heritage are anticipated from the project.

A Natural heritage listing is present for the Kama Woodlands which extends into a section of the road reserve, impacts will occur through this section of the heritage listing.

Throughout the road corridor, previous construction of William Hovell Drive has impacted the integrity of soils and vegetation. The road reserve is not actively maintained and has regenerated to a natural bush landscape. Adjoining paddocks are under rural lease and have suffered stock impacts, fencing and property access tracks.

William Hovell Drive 18

Figure 9. Locations of recorded sites (ACTMAPi)

William Hovell Drive 19

Figure 10. Locations of recorded sites from 2018 Field survey

William Hovell Drive 20

3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

As mentioned in the preceding sections, field survey was completed over the study area in 2018 with the methodology and results reported in the 2018 CHA. A summary of the field survey results are provided here for ease of reference. The 2018 CHA is attached at Appendix 2 for additional information.

3.1 FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Field survey over the study area was undertaken on the 12th and 16th of April 2018 by Lyn O’Brien (Past Traces) and all four members of the RAOs. Field survey consisted of pedestrian transects on the southern and northern borders of William Hovell Drive, across the road reserve sampling all landforms. Although the study area extends for an additional 20m outside of the road reserve, this area was only subject to visual inspection from the boundary of the road reserve. Grass length throughout the paddocks made any survey attempt redundant.

The study area was walked by all participants at an approximate spacing of 5m across all land forms within the study area. The number of participants ensured that all of the area surface was visibly inspected (from road verge to boundary fencing).

3.2 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS

The field survey revealed that impacts to soils and vegetation have occurred throughout the study area. The study area consists of disturbed soils which are shown in uneven land surface, numerous hollows and ridges. On each side of William Hovell Drive the soils have been erected into banks with a water drainage channel constructed along the length (0.5m wide). This water channel had raised banks on each side and in places these banks had then been planted to provide some landscaping to the road verge. Disturbance lessened with distance to the road with the areas adjacent to the boundary fencing in sections where the boundary was over 15m having suffered little impact.

The field survey identified the following heritage sites within or at risk of impact from the development.

3.2.1 Historical Heritage - Weetangera Cemetery

Weetangera Cemetery is listed on the ACT heritage Register (ID20102). The curtilage (registered boundary) for this site extends to the road reserve boundary and specifically includes the two Cypress trees that flank the cemetery entrance. No impacts can occur within the registered site boundary unless there is no alternative and all options have been considered and found to be unacceptable. The cemetery site is of high significance and as a result should not be impacted.

No direct impact to the Weetangera Cemetery will occur as a result of the road widening and indirect impacts are considered to be unlikely. The position of the Weetangera Cemetery on the verge of the widened road has a low potential to increase visitor impacts and vandalism. However, the risks of vandalism is pre-existing and will not markedly increase as a result of the road design. The proposed

William Hovell Drive 21

road works provide an opportunity to reduce this risk by implementing active screening on the road verge to retain the current levels of visibility of the cemetery from the road.

As the historical site is located directly on the boundary of the road reserve, barrier fencing would be appropriate to maintain a buffer zone from any works to prevent accidental impact, including any future tree planting or landscaping works within the verge.

The location of the Cemetery to William Hovell Drive and the width of the road reserve are shown in Plate 1 below from the 2018 report.

Plate 1: Weetangera Cemetery road verge.

3.2.2 Natural Heritage - Kama Woodlands

The Kama Woodlands are listed on the ACT Heritage Register for their natural heritage values. The Kama Woodlands contain areas of endangered ecological communities consisting of Yellow Box Woodland and natural temperate grasslands. The boundary of the Kama Woodlands extends to the road reserve. A detailed ecological assessment has been undertaken for the project and consultation has been undertaken with the project ecologist.

From consultation with the project ecologist the Kama woodlands will be directly impacted by the proposal within a small section (1.16ha) of the Kama Woodlands. These areas contain areas of Box Gum Woodland, no identified species or grasslands are present within the Road Reserve. Mitigation measures such lighting design and retention of trees where possible have been applied for the project. Connectivity works for arboreal mammals (overhead crossing) and wildlife underpasses have also been designed into the road construction to reduce and/or remove impacts.

As a result of these measures, and the small section of the Woodland impacted by the road proposal, it is considered that no significant impact on natural heritage values will result from the proposal.

For further details of the assessment of natural heritage impacts and proposed mitigation steps reference should be made to the detailed ecological report. William Hovell Drive 22

3.2.3 Aboriginal Heritage

One Aboriginal heritage site (WHD1) and five areas of Potential Archaeological deposit (PAD) were recorded during the 2018 field survey. Details of the site and the areas of PAD are provided in Table 1 as recorded in 2018. The location of these sites has been provided in Figure 10.

Impacts have occurred to the PAD areas that are located outside of the road corridor on the southern boundary within the development area of Whitlam. Based on aerial review, the reports completed for the Whitlam Development and the findings of the Past Traces (2020) report for the Molonglo Transmission Line Relocation, two areas of PAD have been removed and a small section of a third impacted. The current status of each of the areas of PAD is also included for reference in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of recorded Aboriginal Heritage Sites

Site Name Grid Location Description Status (GDA94)

WHD1 redacted redacted Not impacted by works – as recorded

WHDPAD1 redacted redacted Not impacted by works - as recorded

WHDPAD2 redacted redacted Destroyed by Whitlam Construction works

WHDPAD3 redacted redacted Small section on southern boundary affected by construction works. Majority of PAD remains

WHDPAD4 redacted redacted Destroyed by Whitlam construction works

WHDPAD5 redacted redacted Not impacted by works – as recorded

William Hovell Drive 23

Potential Archaeological Deposits are areas which based on predictive modelling for landforms are considered to hold a higher potential for subsurface or unrecorded heritage sites to be present in relation to the surrounding areas. The predictive modelling for the study area along William Hovell Drive indicated that areas of elevated terrace or broad crests on terminal spur lines overlooking creeklines hold higher potential for subsurface deposits.

The definition and boundaries of these area of PAD is based on the following:

 The undisturbed nature of the section of Deep Creek within the road corridor. Apart from the current road alignment, which has been constructed across Deep Creek, the remainder of the creek line within the road corridor, has suffered no construction impacts and the natural creek line edge has been retained. These areas of creek line are heavily grassed with incursions of blackberry and woody weeds.

 The boundaries of landforms adjacent to the creek line (defined by break of slope, gradient and crest). The areas of PAD boundaries follow natural creek lines and break of slope where creeklines are not present. The PADs are located on terrace or level area (broad crest) of terminal spur line within 50m of the creek line.

No impacts will occur to any of these PAD areas as design has been undertaken to remove any potential. To remove the potential for any indirect impacts, it would be appropriate for barrier fencing to be installed prior to construction. Based on the fact that PADs 2 and 4 have been destroyed by the construction of Whitlam, the designation of PAD should be removed from these two areas.

Within the William Hovell Drive road corridor, there are no alterations or changes to PAD boundaries. The relationship of the areas of PAD to the Whitlam Development is shown in Figure 11.

The areas of PAD and conditions during the 2018 survey are shown in Plates 2 to 6.

Redacted redacted

Plate 2: PAD 1 looking east to Deep Creek Plate 3: PAD 2 looking northeast along Deep Creek

redacted redacted

Plate 4: PAD 3 looking east Plate 5: PAD 4 looking west

redacted

Plate 6: PAD 5 looking southwest

William Hovell Drive 24

Figure 11. PAD Locations and Whitlam Development

REDACTED

William Hovell Drive 25

4 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE EFFECTS

4.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The study area is currently used as the road reserve for William Hovell Drive. The additional 20m on the boundary of the road reserve are currently leased for rural agistment or within Nature Park. The proposed use of the area would involve excavation of soils within road easement, construction of road batters and cut and fill sections, with machinery movements and storage of materials during construction.

Any heritage sites located within the road reserve are at risk of damage through the proposed works. Discussions with project personnel and the placement of the identified heritage sites within the road reserve allows for design of works to avoid all direct and indirect impacts to all registered sites and their curtilage except for the Kama Woodlands.

The Kama Woodlands listing extends across a section of the road corridor. As impacts cannot be avoided, the degree of impact requires assessment. The assessment of harm resulting from the proposed works is provided in Table 2 against the intrinsic features that hold heritage values (as stated in ACT Heritage Register listing NI2012-541).

Table 2. Impact Kama Woodland

Heritage Criteria Impact

An area of Yellow Box-Red Gum Grassy 1.16ha of the BGW would be affected within the Woodland (an endangered ecological road reserve. This equates to 0.75% of the Kama community) that is described as partially Woodland and would not have a significant modified and retains good species diversity and impact on the extent, diversity or significance of habitat complexity, including the number of listing. mature age and old growth trees that provide a high density of hollows and other habitat suitable for hollow-dependent animals (such as bats, parrots and treecreepers);

An area of Natural Temperate Grassland (an No grassland is present within road corridor and endangered ecological community no impact to values would result

Not present within road corridor and no impact The natural boundary (an ecotone) between two to values would result endangered ecological communities (Yellow Box-Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Natural Temperate Grassland) that is now rarely found in the ACT and demonstrates the landscape location of the zone of cold air drainage that is often associated with the boundary;

William Hovell Drive 26

Heritage Criteria Impact

Habitat for many native plant and animal species No listed species identified within road corridor including several threatened species: the Brown – pre clearing surveys and retention of habitat Treecreeper, Varied Sittella, White-winged Triller trees will be implemented for project. and Pink-tailed Worm Lizard;

A zone of ecological connectivity between the Partially impacted by road widening – mitigation lower Molonglo River and The Pinnacle (south measures such as underpasses, overhead paths Belconnen Hills) with a high level of ecological and fauna friendly lighting will be implemented integrity of the area’s natural values within a by the project – no significant impact. landscape that is mostly highly altered

Details on ecological assessment and mitigation measures are provided in the ecological report prepared for the project.

4.1.1 Summary

As a result of the background review, assessment of landforms and current condition, only minor heritage impacts are anticipated from the proposed road duplication works to the Kama Woodland Reserve. These heritage impacts are not considered to be significant.

No impacts will occur to the Aboriginal or historical heritage sites, if the management recommendations developed for the project and provided in the following section are implemented.

4.2 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the updated heritage assessment completed for the project the following findings and recommendations apply:

Natural Heritage

 A section of the listed Kama Woodlands is located within the road reserve. Impacts would occur to a small section of the larger listing and no significant impact or decrease in heritage values would result from the impacts within the road reserve.

Aboriginal Heritage

 No Aboriginal or historical heritage sites would be impacted by the project as impacts can be avoided through design. No impacts will occur to the site WHD1 or the three areas of PAD (PAD1, PAD3 and PAD5) located within the road corridor.

 Barrier fencing should be installed to demarcate the PAD boundaries with a buffer zone of 10m prior to works. Barrier fencing will consist of star pickets with high visibility flagging and would be installed by or under the direction of the RAOs and heritage team.

William Hovell Drive 27

 The areas of PAD identified within the study area should be avoided by the proposed works. If, due to alteration in design, these areas are to be impacted then a program of subsurface testing of the impacted areas of PAD would be required to determine the presence of cultural material.

Historical Heritage

 Barrier fencing should be installed to delineate the extent of construction in the vicinity of the Weetangera Cemetery to prevent accidental impacts. The placement of barrier fencing must be on the exterior boundary of heritage curtilages.

 A buffer zone of 10m from the dripline of the two cypress trees that are included within the Weetangera Cemetery Listing would be demarcated by barrier fencing prior any construction. Barrier fencing would be in place and remain for the duration of all construction. No impacts are permissible to the Cypress Trees or any area of the Weetangera Cemetery listing.

 Design where practical should be undertaken to reduce the potential for indirect impacts due to higher visibility and visitor impacts to the Weetangera Cemetery. This could take the form of screening landscaping on the road verge.

General

 The location of heritage sites and requirements for impact avoidance shall be communicated to project manager and personnel engaged on the project. Heritage site information will be included in site inductions.

 Impacts can be avoided by design at all heritage sites and areas of potential other than the Kama Woodlands listing. As heritage impacts would occur, there are known heritage impacts from the proposed project. As a result a submission of a Statement of Heritage Effects for approval to the ACT Heritage Council is required. A SHE is provided within this CHA for approval by the ACT Heritage Council prior to works commencing.

 All Aboriginal objects and places are protected under the ACT Heritage Act 2004. It is an offence to disturb an Aboriginal site without approvals granted by the ACT Heritage Council. Should any Aboriginal objects be encountered during works then works must cease immediately in the vicinity of the find, and the find should not be moved until assessed by a qualified archaeologist with the participation of the RAOs. Adherence to the Unexpected Discovery Plan (UDP) attached at Appendix 2 is required.

William Hovell Drive 28

5 REFERENCES

Biosis. (2013). Molonglo Stage 3 Future Urban Release Area: Subsurface testing report and further studies. Report for Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate.

Biosis. (2014). Molonglo Stage 3 Additional Areas Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report for Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate.

Biosis Research. (2010). Molonglo Stage 2: Detailed Heritage Assessmnet - Aboriginal and Historical Heritage. Report for ACTPLA.

Biosis Research. (2012). Molonglo Stage 3 Future Urban Release Areas: Detailed Heritage Assessment - Aboriginal and Historical Heritage. Report to Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate.

Cultural Heritage Management Australia. (2018a). Whitlam Residential Estate Molonglo Valley Release Stage 3B: Excavation Report and Statement of Heritage Effect. Report for ACT Suburban Land Agency.

Cultural Heritage Management Australia. (2018b). Whitlam Residential Estate, Molonglo valley Rural Release Stage 3B: Final Salvage Report. Report to Suburban Land Agency .

Gillespie, L.L. (1992). Ginninderra: Forerunner to Canberra. Lyall L Gillespie, Canberra.

Horton, D. (1994). The Encyclopidea of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture. Canberra: Aboriginal Press Studies.

Jenkins, B. (2000). Soil Landscapes of the Canberra 1:100 000 Sheet. . Sydney: Department of Land and Water Conservation .

Navin, K and Officer, K. (1991). West Belconnen Urban Release Area Archaeological Assessment. Report to Kinhill Pty Ltd.

Past Traces . (2017). Cultural Heritage Assessment: Drake Brockman Drive Duplication, Holt, ACT. Report prepared for ISG Projects Pty Ltd.

Past Traces. (2018). William Hovell Drive Duplication - Aboriginal and Historical Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report for WSP.

Saunders, P. (1995). Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of Lower Molonglo Corridor ACT . Report to Department of Environment, Land and Planning.

Stewart, K and Percival, B. (1997). Bush Foods of New South Wales. Sydney: Royal Botanic Gardens.

Tindale, N. (1974). Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. Canberra: ANU Press.

William Hovell Drive 29

Appendix 1. Aboriginal consultation

RAO Date and type of contact Response

All RAOs 15th March 2018 – phone call to all RAOs to Paul House – will send rep arrange participation in field work for 12th April James Mundy – will send rep Follow up email to Wally Bell and Matilda House Carl Brown – will send rep

Wally Bell - will send rep

All RAOs 12th April 2018 – field survey and on site meeting Reuben house

Karen Denny

Robert Mundy.

All agreed with recommendations – one site found and low significance of area – no further work required

All RAOs 16th April 2018 – field survey and on site meeting Karen Denny

Reuben House

Robert Mundy

Justin Brown

Five areas of PAD identified, but distant to works near southern boundary – no anticipated impacts

All RAOs 17/4/2018 - Draft Report emailed/circulated for 15/5/2018 – RAO phoned/emailed to comments discuss. No objections to report.

All RAOs 12/4/2021 – Phone call to each RAO to discuss project and impacts from previous works to areas of PAD and impacts from road duplication. Follow up emails sent to all

All RAOs 13/4/2021 - Draft report sent to all RAOs by email for their review and comments

ALL RAOs 20/4/2021 – Email sent to all RAOs requesting any No response to date. feedback on the Draft report

William Hovell Drive 30

Appendix 2. 2018 CHA

William Hovell Drive 31

William Hovell Drive Duplication- Aboriginal and Historical Cultural Heritage Assessment.

Report Prepared for WSP 13th April 2018

www.pasttraces.com.au email: [email protected]

Document Verification

Project Number: Project File Name: William Hovell Drive Duplication Revision Date Prepared by (name) Reviewed by (name) D1 16/4/2018 Lyn O’Brien Amelia van Ewijk F1 19/4/2018 Lyn O’Brien

 Past Traces Pty Ltd This document is and shall remain the property of Past Traces Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Disclaimer: Past Traces Pty Ltd has completed this assessment in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local Legislation. Past Traces accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

Important Information Concerning the Distribution of this Document

This report contains information restricted under Part 9 of the Heritage Act 2004 and cannot be publicly available. Restricted information includes (but is not limited to):  Tabled GPS co-ordinates for Aboriginal places or objects, including lithic artefacts, stone arrangements, middens, burials, scarred trees, rock art and Potential Archaeological Deposits.  Maps or images depicting the location of Aboriginal places or objects, including lithic artefacts, stone arrangements, middens, burials, scarred trees, rock art and Potential Archaeological Deposits.  Location or overly descriptive information pertaining to places of Aboriginal cultural significance, as expressed or directed by Representative Aboriginal Organisations, Aboriginal elders, or members of the wider Aboriginal community.  Heritage places or objects vulnerable to vandalism, theft, or damage.

These items must be removed from the report before being made available to the general public and should only be made available to those persons with a just and reasonable need for access to the knowledge.

William Hovell Drive Duplication CHA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Past Traces acknowledges the assistance of the following people and organisations in the preparation of this report:

 Reuben House - Mirrabee

 Karen Denny – Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation

 Robert Mundy – Ngarigu Currawong Clan

 Justin Brown – King Brown Tribal Group

ABBREVIATIONS

CHA – Cultural Heritage Assessment FTF - Federal Territory Feature Map RAO – Representative Aboriginal Organisation registered under Heritage Act 2004 PAD – Potential Archaeological Deposit SHE – Statement of Heritage Effects UFP – Unexpected Find Protocol

William Hovell Drive Duplication – CHA

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 3 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.2 PROPOSED WORKS AND IMPACTS ...... 3 1.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION ...... 3 1.4 REPORT AIMS AND FORMAT ...... 4 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 7 2.1 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ...... 7 2.1.1 Geology and Topography ...... 7 2.1.2 Flora and Fauna ...... 7 2.1.3 Historic Land use ...... 10 2.1.4 Historic search of ACT Heritage Register ...... 13 2.2 REVIEW OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...... 13 2.2.1 Ethnohistoric Setting ...... 13 2.2.2 Aboriginal heritage search of ACT Heritage Register ...... 14 2.2.3 Previous archaeological studies...... 14 2.3 ABORIGINAL LAND USE/PREDICTIVE MODEL ...... 16 2.4 DESKTOP ASESSMENT SUMMARY ...... 17 3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...... 20 3.1 FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 20 3.2 FIELD SURVEY CONDITIONS ...... 20 3.3 SURVEY RESULTS – IDENTIFIED HERITAGE SITES...... 25 3.3.1 WHD1 – Grid Reference MGA Zone 55 684565.6098042 ...... 25 3.3.2 Weetangera Cemetery...... 25 3.3.3 Kama Woodlands ...... 26 3.4 SURVEY RESULTS – AREA OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSIT (PAD) ...... 28 4 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT...... 32 4.1 SIGNFICANCE CRITERIA ...... 32 4.1.1 Social Significance ...... 32 4.1.2 Scientific Significance ...... 32

William Hovell Drive Duplication – CHA

4.2 ACT HERITAGE CRITERIA ...... 33 4.3 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 33 4.3.1 Social values ...... 33 4.3.2 Scientific values ...... 34 4.3.3 Heritage Act 2004 criteria ...... 34 4.3.4 Summary ...... 34 5 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 35 5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 35 5.2 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 35 REFERENCES ...... 37 APPENDIX 1. ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION ...... 2 APPENDIX 2. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY PLAN ...... 3 1. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 3 2. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 3 3. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS ...... 4

Figures

Figure 1. Location of project area in regional context ...... 5

Figure 2. Project area boundary ...... 6

Figure 3. Geology of the Project Area ...... 8

Figure 4. Soil Landscapes of the Project Area ...... 9

Figure 5. Parish map 1912 ...... 11

Figure 6. Federal Territory Feature Map 1915...... 12

Figure 7. Locations of recorded sites (ACTMAPi) ...... 18

Figure 8. Location of recorded sites based on reports ...... 19

Figure 9. Location of survey transects ...... 21

Figure 10. Location of WHD1 ...... 27

Figure 11. PAD Locations ...... 31

William Hovell Drive Duplication – CHA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Past Traces Pty Ltd has been engaged by WSP to prepare a Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) to identify constraints and provide planning information for the proposed duplication of William Hovell Drive from Coppins Crossing Road to Drake Brockman Drive in Holt. The proposed area covers the road easement with an adjoining 20m on each boundary for an approximate length of 4.7km. This assessment will review previous work in the area to gain background information, inform predictive modelling and complete a field survey across the project area to determine if any heritage constraints apply to the project area or the potential to impact on any heritage sites is present. Archaeological site patterning in the region shows a landscape dominated by low density artefact scatters focused on the areas of the Molonglo River to the south and the area of Black Mountain to the east. No previously identified Aboriginal or historical heritage sites are located within the project area. The project is currently at a concept plan level, but any construction project has the potential to impact on unidentified Aboriginal and historic heritage sites (places and/or objects), which are protected under the ACT Heritage Act 2004. The purpose of the heritage assessment is therefore to investigate the presence of any heritage sites and to assess the impacts and management strategies that may mitigate any potential impact. Consultation with the Aboriginal Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) has been undertaken in accordance with ACT Heritage guidelines and the Heritage Act 2004. The RAOs participated in the field survey and provided guidance in regards to significance and appropriate management strategies. A field survey was undertaken on the 12th and 16th of April to confirm the findings of the desktop assessment. The field survey located one Aboriginal heritage site (WHD1). Low ground surface visibility (GSV) was present throughout the alignment as a result of long grass coverage and leaf litter. Based on the proposed alignment and disturbance along the proposed route five areas of potential archaeological deposit (PAD) were identified within the project area. One historical heritage listing (Weetangera Methodist Church) and one natural heritage listing (Kama Woodlands) are located on the road reserve boundary, within the extended project area. These listings cannot be impacted and in these areas the project can only extend to the existing road reserve boundary on the south west. No direct impacts can occur to either of these listings, though there is a low potential for indirect impacts to the Weetangera Methodist Church site as a result of increased visitation due to the increased visibility of the site. This can be avoided through design and planning. As a result of the assessment completed for the project the following findings and recommendations apply:

 No identified heritage sites (Aboriginal, Historical or Natural) are located within the road reserve area.

 One Aboriginal heritage site is located within the project area (WHD1). This site is located at the rear of houses in the suburb of Hawker and can be avoided through design of the project. No impacts can occur to this site and the duplication must avoid impacting this area.

 One historical and one natural heritage listed sites are within the extended project area but not within the road reserve. No direct impacts are permitted to occur to heritage listings in the vicinity of works. Works in the vicinity of heritage listings must be contained within the existing road reserve.

i William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

 Barrier fencing must be installed to delineate the extent of construction in the vicinity of the Weetangera Cemetery and Kama Woodlands to prevent accidental impacts. The placement of barrier fencing must be on the exterior boundary of heritage curtilages.

 The location of heritage sites and requirements for impact avoidance shall be communicated to project manager and personnel engaged on the project. Heritage site information will be included in site inductions.

 Design should be undertaken to reduce the potential for indirect impacts due to higher visibility and visitor impacts to the Weetangera Cemetery. This could take the form of screening landscaping on the road verge.

 The five areas of PAD identified within the project area should be avoided by the proposed works. If these areas must be impacted then a program of subsurface testing of the impacted areas of PAD would be required to determine the presence of cultural material.

 If impacts cannot be avoided through design of works to any of the identified heritage sites then completion of a Statement of Heritage Effects and approval for works will be required from the ACT Heritage Council prior to works commencing.

 As all heritage impacts can be removed through design of works and avoidance of site impacts there are no known heritage impacts from the proposed project. As a result no submission of a Statement of Heritage Effects for approval to the ACT Heritage Council is required as long as all sites are avoided and these recommendations implemented. This CHA should be submitted to ACT Heritage Council for endorsement prior to works commencing.

 All Aboriginal objects and places are protected under the ACT Heritage Act 2004. It is an offence to disturb an Aboriginal site without approvals granted by the ACT Heritage Council. Should any Aboriginal objects be encountered during works then works must cease immediately in the vicinity of the find, and the find should not be moved until assessed by a qualified archaeologist with the participation of the RAOs. Adherence to the Unexpected Discovery Plan (UDP) attached at Appendix 2 is required.

ii William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Past Traces Pty Ltd has been engaged by WSP to prepare a Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) to identify constraints and provide planning information for the proposed duplication of William Hovell Drive from Coppins Crossing Road to Drake Brockman Drive Holt. The duplication is required based on current increased traffic flows and projected future increases in vehicle movements due to the future residential developments in the Molonglo Valley and the West Belconnen areas. The project area covers the existing road reserve and an additional 20m on the boundary for an approximate length of 4.7km. This CHA will review heritage registers, previous work in the area to gain background information, inform predictive modelling and complete a field survey across the project area to determine if any heritage constraints apply to the project area or the potential to impact on any heritage sites is present. The project area in a regional context is shown in Figure 1 and the project area is shown on Figure 2. Archaeological site patterning in the region shows a landscape dominated by low density artefact scatters focused on the areas of the Molonglo River to the south and Black Mountain to the east. Heritage studies have been undertaken in the surrounding areas for the future residential developments within the Molonglo Valley which have located numerous small artefact sites within the vicinity of the project area. No known heritage sites are located within the project area.

1.2 PROPOSED WORKS AND IMPACTS

The proposal would result in the area of the duplicated road being highly disturbed with excavation and displacement of soils. The immediate surrounds would also be impacted by machinery movement and the storage of materials. All of these construction activities will compact and impact on soils. Due to the highly destructive nature of the works, the project area extends over the existing road reserve and an additional 20m outside of the road reserve to allow for works encroachment and the additional space required for ‘cut and fill’ for road levelling. Any heritage sites in the vicinity of works would be impacted by the proposed construction. As the project is at a design phase, it is anticipated that if any sites are located in the proposed work corridor the project will be re-designed to avoid impacts wherever possible.

1.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

Consultation with the four Representative Aboriginal Organisations (RAOs) has been undertaken in accordance with ACT Heritage guidelines and the Heritage Act 2004. All of the RAOs participated in the field survey of the project area and provided guidance in regards to significance and appropriate management strategies. The RAOs consulted are:

 Mirrabee

 King Brown Tribal Group

3 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

 Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation

 Ngarigu Currawong Clan In addition to the discussions held on site with the RAOs, a draft of this report was supplied for comments and follow up phone calls made to each of the RAOs to determine if they had any concerns with the management outcomes. The process of consultation to the development of this CHA is provided in Appendix 1.

1.4 REPORT AIMS AND FORMAT

The following is a summary of the major aims of the CHA:

 Conduct heritage register searches to identify any previously recorded cultural heritage sites within the project area. Searches will include the ACT Heritage Register, the National Heritage List and National Trust heritage listings.

 Conduct review of previous work to determine identifiable patterns in site distribution and location

 Consult with Aboriginal and statutory stakeholders

 Undertake a comprehensive survey of the project area

 Record and assess sites identified during the survey as well as areas of Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs)

 Identify impacts to all identified Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage sites and places as a result of the proposed works

 Develop recommendations to minimise or mitigate impacts to cultural heritage values within the project area. The CHA follows the following format:

 Review of background information

 Results of field survey and site visit

 Management recommendations – provides mitigation strategies to avoid or minimise impact to unidentified heritage sites.

 Record of Consultation

 Unexpected Finds Protocol.

4 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Figure 1: Regional Context

Legend Study Area

±

1:40,000 0 250500 1,000 1,500

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017 Figure 2: Study Area

Legend Study Area

±

1:20,000 0100200 400 600

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following section briefly summarises the geology and landforms, flora and fauna of the project area. The discussion focuses on those elements of the natural environment that may have influenced past human behaviour and archaeological site formation processes.

2.1 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

2.1.1 Geology and Topography The William Hovell Drive project area is underlain by the Walker and Mt Painter Volcanics. These late Silurian volcanic systems consists mainly of rhyolitic and dacitic tuffs. Quartz will be present naturally within this formations along with shales. A common geological feature of the area is highly weathered bedrock. Thin shallow soils characterise the area, highly acidic and easily erodible. A duplex soil system overlaying clay bedrock appears in profile across the area. The Burra soil landscape is described as being on ‘undulating to rolling low hills and alluvial fans over the Silurian Volcanics (Jenkins 2000:44). The Burra Group soils are moderately deep and well drained Kurosols and Chromosols. Shallow earthy sands (Lithosols) are present on upper slopes and crests. Red and Brown Kandosols and Kurosols occupy mid slopes and most lower slopes. Brown chromosols are present along minor drainage lines (Jenkins 2000:44). The topography of the area consists of gently undulating hills and fans, interspersed with small drainage lines and minor tributary creek lines which drain to the south west to the Molonglo River. The immediate road reserve has been subject to modification with the original construction of William Hovell Drive and original soils would have been removed and displaced within this section. The geology of the project area is shown in Figure 3 with soil landscapes shown in Figure 4

2.1.2 Flora and Fauna The natural vegetation across the project area has been cleared for pastoral grazing and now consists of open paddocks with pockets of remnant woodland tree species such as Yellow box or Blakely Red Gum. Prior to the clearance of the natural vegetation the area would have supported a mixed woodland on the ridge tops and rolling hills with natural temperate grasslands along the flatter slopes close to the creek lines. These communities supported a wide range of edible plant and fauna species. Fauna present would range from small marsupials (i.e. possums), to avian species and macropods. A range of lizards also inhabit this environment that would have been utilised by Aboriginal groups. The NSW OEH lists over 200 flora and fauna species as present within these woodlands, the majority of which had some utilisation in traditional Aboriginal lifeways.

7 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Figure 3: Geology

Legend Study Area Geology Deakin Volcanics Mount Painter Volcanics Walker Volcanics Water

±

1:20,000 0100200 400 600

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017 Figure 4: Soils

Legend Study Area ACT Soil Landscapes Burra Campbell Lower Molonglo variant b Williamsdale

±

1:20,000 0100200 400 600

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

The Molonglo River to the south of the project area would have focused activity including camping sites with a variety of resources, such as fish, yabbies, turtles and in the past platypus. Tributary creeks also focused mammal and birdlife providing hunting opportunities and access to water supplies. Creek lines also supplied fibrous material for weaving into twine for use in a range of activities as well as providing edible tubers and reeds (Percival and Stewart 1971).

2.1.3 Historic Land use The project area was historically part of the larger grazing properties in the region. The project area was originally settled as part of the Palmerville (Ginninderra) station owned by George Palmer established in 1826. In 1829 Palmer applied for a further 14 blocks along Ginninderra Creek (Gillespie 1992). The Dixon 1837 map of landholding show this section of the Northern Molonglo under the control of Palmer.

With the passing of the Robertson Land Acts of 1861 many larger properties were broken into smaller settlements. The Parish Map of Weetangera (1912) shows the major landholder as still being Palmer but the Schumack family of Weetangera now are present to the east and the Kilbys have gained Land End in the northern section adjacent to the holdings of William Plummer. William and other members of the Plummer family are buried at the Weetangera Methodist Cemetery. George Smith (Son of Edward Smith) is listed on the northern property. Edward Smith worked as a ploughman for William Davis at the Ginninderra estate in 1860 where he was eventually to become superintendent. He introduced ploughing with draught horses rather than bullocks, was the first to bring the combined reaper / binder into the district, and offered a mechanical threshing service. He imported and trialled some English wheat varieties and later exhibited his wheat at the Yass Show on many occasions with great success. After introducing horse drawn ploughing he was an initiator of ploughing matches in the 1870's. These events were highlights in the residents of Canberra calendars. George Smith was to become a champion ploughman. The Smiths selected land in Weetangera in the 1970s (Hall Museum 2018 - Rediscovering Ginninderra). The land allocations from the 1912 Parish map are shown on Figure 5.

Mary Smith married Cameron Ewan, the school teacher at Weetangera who with Levi Plummer constructed the Weetangera Methodist Church in 1872. The Church was dedicated in 1873 and continued to hold services till 1952. The church was demolished in 1955 to allow for suburban expansion. The Methodist cemetery that was located adjacent to the church is located on the verge of William Hovell Drive in Holt and is listed on the ACT Heritage Register.

Robert Kilby was the nephew of Edward Smith (by marriage) and followed his Aunt to Weetangera. In 1840 he acquired a 40 acre block at Weetangera - Portion 73, Parish of Weetangera. His father Bill took up three adjacent Portions amounting to a further 120 acres - a total of 160 acres between them. 'Lands End' was to be the Kilby family home until 1915 when the Weetangera district land was resumed by the federal government (Hall Museum 2018 - Rediscovering Ginninderra). The Federal Territory Feature Map (1915) shows the location of the Methodist Church and the Kilby’s property. The FTF Map notes that the area has been used for cultivation and cleared of trees along the project area. The FTF Map is shown on Figure 6.

10 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Figure 7: Parish Map

Legend Study Area

±

1:25,000 0125250 500 750 1,000

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017 Figure 8: Federation Features

Legend Study Area

±

1:25,000 0125250 500 750 1,000

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

2.1.4 Historic search of ACT Heritage Register A search of the ACT Heritage Register was requested in March 2018. Online search of the heritage overlays and listings show two registered sites located adjacent to the project area. These are:

 The Weetangera Methodist Cemetery and  The Kama Woodlands. The Weetangera Methodist Cemetery was gazetted in 2004 to the ACT Heritage Register for its early historical association with the settlement of the early and the Methodist community. The Methodist Church and Cemetery and their relationship to the Kilby, Cameron, Smith and Plummer families has been mentioned in the previous section. The registered curtilage for the site ends at the road reserve easement. Registered features include the Cypress trees at the entrance gate. The project area extends 20m to the exterior of the road reserve and would therefore affect the listing. Any impacts must be avoided and in this section the project area may not extend past the designated road reserve boundary. Indirect impacts to the entrance trees and the cemetery may result through increased visitation and visibility from the extended road corridor. The potential for these indirect impacts needs to be investigated through the field survey and avoided through careful planning of road verges and site points. The Kama Woodlands were gazetted in 2012 to the ACT Heritage register for natural heritage values. The listing extends to the verge of William Hovell Drive. Increased traffic and night light may affect this listing and a detailed ecological report should be consulted in regards to this section of the road to determine impacts.

2.2 REVIEW OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

2.2.1 Ethnohistoric Setting The project area is within a region identified as part of the Ngunnawal language group. This is an assemblage of many small clans and bands speaking a number of similar dialects (Howitt 1996, Tindale 1974, Horton 1994). The borders were however, not static, they were most likely fluid, expanding and contracting over time to the movements of smaller family or clan groups. Boundaries ebbed and flowed through contact with neighbours, the seasons and periods of drought and abundance. The southern section of Canberra represents the boundary between Ngunnawal and Ngarigo language groups. Currently descendants of both Aboriginal groups hold cultural affiliation with the project area. The northern section of Canberra is considered to be Ngunnawal country with visitations from Wiradjuri people.

Prior to European settlement, the tablelands supported dense woodlands, which provided habitat for a broad range of plant and animal species that formed the core of Aboriginal dietary items prior to contact with early European explorers and settlers. Temperate grasslands supplied a range of resources including

13 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Yam Daisy and fibre plants (Gott 2008) and would have been present along the open banks to the Molonglo River. The Molonglo River was a focus of occupation and utilisation and has an important cultural role to the Aboriginal community. Many sites are located along its banks to the north and northwest outside of the areas of suburban Belconnen. Aboriginal traditional lifestyles were disrupted by the spread of European settlement by the 1840s. European disease and land displacement by early settlers lead to a decline in the local population, with some remaining families finding employment on the large pastoral stations that had become established in the region, including Huntley, Weetangera and Land’s End.

2.2.2 Aboriginal heritage search of ACT Heritage Register A search of the ACT Heritage Register and a request for relevant reports was submitted to ACT Heritage in March 2018. A search of the online ACTMAPi heritage overlay was undertaken with no registered sites (Aboriginal or historical) being located within the project area. Aboriginal sites are located to the north east of the project area and south towards the Molonglo River. These sites consist of artefact scatters, mainly small located on terraces near the creek lines or on ridge crests. The location of these sites is shown on Figure 7.

The location of the proposed works to previously recorded sites in the region based on previous reports for the area are shown on Figure 8.

2.2.3 Previous archaeological studies. Archaeological evidence has shown that Aboriginal people have occupied the Australian continent for at least 40,000 years and perhaps 60,000 years and beyond (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999). Excavations at Birrigai Rock shelter show evidence of occupation of 32, 000 years (Flood et al 1987). A number of archaeological heritage assessment have been undertaken in the vicinity of the project area. A brief overview of the most relevant studies are provided below. These studies have been small scale and development focused and no regional synthesis has been completed for the region. English (1985) completed a survey of the Molonglo Gorge Area to determine whether the location of river pools was a factor in Aboriginal site location and the role of the Molonglo as a winter refuge in the Canberra winters. The survey identified 27 Aboriginal sites consisting of small artefact scatters or isolated finds. Only two of the sites were large with over 100 artefacts. In 1990 Bulbeck and Boot were engaged by ACT Forests to undertake a cultural resource survey for the Stromlo Pine Forest at the southern end of the Molonglo Valley. The field survey resulted in the identification of 62 Aboriginal sites, including 28 open artefact scatters and 34 isolated artefacts. Based on their findings they developed a site location model that favoured the occupation of lower spurs overlooking water courses. Artefact densities were lowest in steep terrain and away from water courses. No historical sites were identified during the course of their field surveys.

Navin Officer in 1991 undertook preliminary archaeological surveys and assessment for the proposed West Belconnen Urban Release Area, which included the current project area. This study comprised three areas

14 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

A, B & C and covered a large area for field survey. Predictive modelling reflected a concentration on the drainage and creek lines within the undulating slopes. This model was supported by the results of the field survey. Historical heritage sites were identified to the south of the project area consisting of the Weetangera cemetery and early remains of European settlement of the region. Archaeological Heritage Surveys (1995) were contracted by ACT Parks and Conservation Service to complete an assessment of the lower Molonglo River Corridor. This study area is adjacent to the southern portion of the current project area. Aboriginal sites were located through all landforms and Saunders conclude that sites were most likely in proximity to water and away from steep terrain. Kabaila (1997) completed surveys through the nature parks and open spaces in Belconnen from Black Mountain. He located numerous surface scatters along ridgelines which he theorised represented pathways through the landscape and were routes followed by Aboriginal people. His findings are contested amongst the archaeological community, but are supported in general by the oral traditions of the Ngunnawal. Following the Canberra bushfires in 2003 an archaeological survey was undertaken of the area on the southern side of William Hovell Drive. This field survey identified a number of small artefact scatters which conformed to modelling being in locations overlooking major creek lines. No site cards were submitted and details of these sites are scarce. Navin Officer 2003 completed field survey along fire trails within Canberra Nature Parks following the Canberra Bushfires. The parks included Black Mountain, O’Connor ridge, Bruce Ridge, Aranda Bushland, Rob Roy Range and Gungahlin Hill. The findings in the location of Black Mountain and the Aranda Bushland are applicable to the current project. They found from this large study that Aboriginal site location were located on low gradient spurs, basal slopes and flats adjacent to major drainage lines. Within the Aranda Bushland, located to the north of the current project area, four sites consisting of three small artefact scatters and one isolated find were located along ridgelines. Navin Officer (2002, 2003b and 2004) undertook field surveys and excavations along the edge of Black Mountain for the proposed Gungahlin drive. Further studies were also undertaken in 2008 and 2009. Numerous sites were found, consisting of artefact scatters, isolated finds and a burial. Scarred trees were also noted on the foot slopes of Black Mountain. Following from Bulbeck and Boot, Grinsbergs (2005) was engaged to undertake a heritage survey at Mt Stromlo. The survey identified 12 artefact scatters and four isolated finds. Sites were evenly distributed over spur crests and open slopes but generally overlooked small drainage lines. Australian Archaeological Survey Consultants (AASC) were engaged in 2006 to complete a review of heritage work undertaken for the Molonglo Valley. A locational model was developed as a result of this heritage review concluding that sites located on elevated landscapes near water sources would be the primary focus of occupation. Over the wider Molonglo Valley, a total of 79 Aboriginal sties were recorded and 27 historical sites. Biosis (2010) completed a heritage assessment over the large area of the Stage 2 residential development at Molonglo. This area is located on the south side of the Molonglo River at an approximate distance of 2km south of the current project area. The project resulted in the identification of thirty-eight Aboriginal sites (artefact scatters and isolated finds) and two historical sites (a surveyor’s tree and a slab hut). The assessment concluded that the patterning of Aboriginal sites corresponded with the site locational model devised by Boot and Bulbeck from their Stromlo forest work and refined by later researchers.

15 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

In 2011(a) Navin Officer Heritage Consultants were engaged by ActewAGL to assess Block 1572 located on the northern bank of the Molonglo River and to the west of Coppins Crossing Road. Within this area are the disused sewerage sludge ponds and associated infrastructure. No cultural heritage sites were located during this survey and the area was considered to be low in potential. Biosis (2012) completed the Molonglo Stage 3 Future Residential Development heritage assessment. This project included field survey over the large area of land on the north side of the Molonglo River. This study area is adjacent to the current project area on the southern termination point. 38 Aboriginal sites were located mainly consisting of small artefact scatters and the historic Kallenia Woolshed considered to hold high cultural significance. Biosis (2012) also completed an assessment for the rural blocks 10, 45 and 46 on the northern banks of the Molonglo River approximately 1.7km south of the current project area. Two isolated finds were recorded overlooking the Molonglo River. Biosis (2014) completed the Molonglo Stage 3 Additional Areas assessment which covered an area of Caswell Drive to Coulter Drive on the northern side of William Hovell Drive. This study area is adjacent to the southern boundary of the current project area. 38 sites were located, most within the lower foothills of Black Mountain in the most southern section. The sites were located along minor drainage lines and in their location conformed to the accepted site modelling for the region. Past Traces (2017) completed a survey and subsurface testing over the length of Drake Brockman Drive Holt for a proposed road duplication. This area is adjacent to the northern end of the current project area. The survey identified no heritage sites but was confined to the area of high previous impact of the road reserve.

2.3 ABORIGINAL LAND USE/PREDICTIVE MODEL

The results of previous archaeological surveys in the region indicates that the potential for sites is present in a range of landforms. A pattern of site location that relates to the presence of potential resources for Aboriginal use appears to be present, based on site locations recorded from the studies described in the previous section. The recorded sites, mainly consisting of small artefact scatters tend to be present due to the occurrence of small drainage or creek lines with their access to water resources, an essential factor for Aboriginal people. This model is based on stream order (Strahler 1952) and is considered applicable to a wider area of NSW (White and McDonald 2010) based on the similarity of Aboriginal landscape use and the need for base resources. Based on the results of these previous archaeological investigations in the local area, it is possible to provide the following model of site location in relation to the project area. Stone artefact scatters – representing camp sites these sites can occur across the landscape, usually in association with some form of resource or landscape unit on level to gently sloping landforms. Creek lines and small water holding bodies can also be a focus of Aboriginal occupation. Boundaries between changes in vegetation can also be a focus for occupation. Within the project area, such features exist but have been subject to high levels of disturbance within the road reserve. There is a low probability of these sites occurring within the project area. Burials – are generally found in sandy contexts or in association with rivers and major creeks. No such features exist with the project area, and therefore such sites are unlikely to occur.

16 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Culturally Modified Trees (CMT) – these require the presence of mature trees. No mature native trees remain within the project area. There is no potential for this site type to be present. Isolated Artefacts – are present across the entire landscape, in varying densities. As Aboriginal people traversed the entire landscape for thousands of years, such finds can occur anywhere and indicate the presence of isolated activity, dropped or discarded artefacts from hunting or gathering expeditions or the ephemeral presence of short term camps. There is a moderate probability for the presence of these sites but due to high levels of previous disturbance it would be unlikely that they would be in-situ. Potential Archaeological Deposits – consisting of areas considered to hold higher potential for subsurface deposits then the surrounding landforms the identification of areas of PAD are based on landform and predictive modelling. For the context of the project area these would consist of level areas of terrace or lower slopes in the proximity of creek lines. Creek lines are present and there is a low to moderate potential for areas of PAD to be present.

2.4 DESKTOP ASESSMENT SUMMARY

The desktop assessment and review of previous studies has shown that registered heritage sites (Aboriginal and Historical) are present within the wider region but none are located within the project area. The recorded sites in the region consist of artefact scatters or isolated finds of lithic artefacts. The majority of these sites were allocated low significance by the report authors on both scientific and cultural values. One historical site and one natural heritage listing are present outside of the road reserve but within the extended project area. If works are not confined to the road reserve in these locations then the proposed works will impact on the registered curtilage of the Methodist Cemetery at Holt or the Kama Woodlands. Previous construction of William Hovell Drive have impacted throughout the road reserve area. The road reserve is not maintained and has been allowed to regenerate to a natural bush landscape. Adjoining paddocks are under rural lease and have suffered stock impacts, fencing and property access tracks.

17 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Figure 5: Previous Recorded Sites

Legend

Study Area Heritage - Final Registration Heritage - Provisional Registration Heritage - Nominated for Provisional Registration

± 9/04/2018 1:20,000 0 125250 500 750

Meters GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Imagery © ACTmapi 2017

3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

3.1 FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Field survey over the project area was undertaken on the 12th and 16th of April 2018 by Lyn O’Brien (Past Traces) and 4 members of the RAOs. Field survey consisted of pedestrian transects on the southern and northern borders of William Hovell Drive, across the road reserve sampling all landforms. Although the project area extends for an additional 20m outside of the road reserve, this area was only subject to visual inspection from the boundary of the road reserve. Grass length throughout the paddocks made any survey attempt redundant. The project area was walked by all participants at an approximate spacing of 5m across all land forms within the project area. The spacing effectiveness is based on Burke and Smith (2004) who concluded that effective survey coverage extends 2m to the side of each field survey participant. The number of participants ensured that all of the area surface was visibly inspected (from road verge to boundary fencing). In places due to creek crossings, gradient and grass length the survey team converged and then dispersed again across the corridor. The route followed for the pedestrian transects is provided in Figure 9. Two main factors contribute to the effectiveness of a field survey, ground surface visibility and rate of exposures. Ground Surface Visibility (GSV) is the proportion of ground surface visible during the field survey. GSV is affected by conditions of grass coverage, leaf litter, imported gravels and fallen timber. A percentage rating of GSV is applied to each survey area (Terry and Chillinger 1955) based on the proportion of bare soil visible through the surface conditions. Exposures are defined as areas where bare soil is present due to erosional or disturbance factors and is separate and distinctive from the background GSV of the surrounding area. Exposures show the potential subsurface as well as surface contexts as they represent disturbed areas of soils.

3.2 FIELD SURVEY CONDITIONS

GSV was generally low to negligible across the project area with GSV decreased due to extensive long grass coverage. In sections along the road reserve the grass extended to waist high making survey difficult and slow and allowing for no inspection of ground surface. In other sections the grass length was lower but still extensive with no areas of clear coverage. The GSV overall for the road reserve is considered to be less than 5%. The road reserve climbs from the low point at Coppins Crossing Road to Drake Brockman Drive. Soils appeared to be thin, composed of shales and clay where they were visible in small exposures along creek lines or areas of disturbance. Only occasional remnant mature trees were present with the majority of trees being natural regrowth or areas of plantings following road works. Areas of exposure (estimated at an occurrence rate of 5%), were present in limited areas of small erosion scours confined to creek edges, access gates and tops of constructed water ridge features. GSV within the areas of exposure was high estimated at 80% but were mainly present in areas of past disturbance. Access roads and carparks are present in the area of the Weetangera Cemetery, Land Ends Homestead, Kama Woodlands and along the rear of house in the suburb of Hawker.

20 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Legend

Survey Transect

N

Figure 9a. Survey Transects

Base Mapping: ACTMAP1 ACT Govt 2004

Legend

Survey Transect

N

Figure 9b. Survey Transects

Base Mapping: ACTMAP1 ACT Govt 2004

Impacts have occurred throughout the project area. The project area consists of disturbed soils which are shown in uneven land surface, numerous hollows and ridges. On each side of William Hovell Drive the soils have been erected into banks with a water drainage channel constructed along the length (0.5m wide). This water channel had raised banks on each side and in places these banks had then been planted to provide some landscaping to the road verge. Disturbance lessened with distance to the road with the areas adjacent to the boundary fencing in sections where the boundary was over 15m having suffered little impact. The area adjacent to the road reserve was inspected visually from the road reserve boundary. No areas of exposure were identified or remnant mature trees that may hold cultural scarring were identified. No survey attempt was undertaken for the extended project area outside of the road reserve due to grass length. The conditions within the project area at the time of survey are shown in Plate 1 to 10.

Plate 1. Northern end southern verge Plate 2. Regrowth vegetation southern verge

Plate 3. Typical grass length southern verge Plate 4. Culvert southern verge – one of many disturbed areas

23 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Plate 5. Kama Woodlands carpark and Plate 6. Constructed bank on road verge – note underground access – northern verge gradient

Plate 7. Conditions northern verge – mid section Plate 8. Access track at rear of houses

Plate 9: Northern verge Coppins Crossing William Plate 10: Southern Verge near Deep Creek Hovell Drive Intersection

24 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

3.3 SURVEY RESULTS – IDENTIFIED HERITAGE SITES

3.3.1 WHD1 – WHD1 consists of a single brown silcrete flake located on the electricity easement access road underneath power lines at the rear of houses in the suburb of Hawker. The access runs along the back boundary fences of the housing lots in a continuous linear exposure of approximately 5m in width. GSV within the cleared access road was high at 90%. The site location is shown in Plate 11 and the artefact in Plate 12. Artefact details are provided in table 1 and the site location is shown in Figure 10.

Plate 11. Site location Plate 12. Artefact WDH1

Table 1. WDH1 Artefact Details.

Artefact Artefact Materials Dimensions (mm) Comments type ( l x w x b)

Flake Brown silcrete 22 x 17x 4 Flat platform and feather termination, edge damage with one recent flake removal (vehicle damage) and crushing on distal margin.

3.3.2 Weetangera Cemetery Weetangera Cemetery is listed on the ACT heritage Register (ID20102). The curtilage (registered boundary) for this site extends to the road reserve boundary and specifically includes the two Cypress trees that flank the cemetery entrance. No impacts can occur within the registered site boundary unless there is no alternative and all options have been considered and found to be unacceptable. The cemetery site is of high significance and as a result should not be impacted. Any impacts, if unavoidable through design of road duplication alignment, would require submission of a detailed Statement of Heritage Effect to the ACT Heritage Council for their approval. Approval to impact such a high significance site would be granted only under extreme circumstances. The field survey showed that the road verge in the location of the Cemetery is wide and already at three lanes capacity. Design should be possible to place the additional road width within the road reserve

25 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

without needing to impact the curtilage (boundary) of the heritage listing. This will remove all direct impacts. Heritage impacts can also take the form of indirect impacts. A historical site such as the Weetangera Cemetery can be impacted from an increase in visitor numbers and vandalism. The position of the Weetangera Cemetery on the verge of the widened road has a low potential to increase these effects. The Cemetery is already visible from the current road alignment and the local population seems aware of its existence. The risks of vandalism is current and will not markedly increase as a result of the road design. The proposed road works provide an opportunity to reduce this risk by implementing active screening on the road verge to retain the current levels of visibility of the cemetery from the road. The location of the Cemetery to William Hovell Drive and the width of the road reserve are shown in Plate 13 below.

Plate 13. Weetangera Cemetery road verge.

3.3.3 Kama Woodlands The Kama Woodlands are listed on the ACT Heritage Register for their natural heritage values. The Kama Woodlands contain areas of endangered ecological communities consisting of Yellow Box Woodland and natural temperate grasslands. The boundary of the Kama Woodlands extends to the road reserve. A detailed ecological assessment has been undertaken for the project and consultation has been undertaken with the project ecologist. From consultation with the project ecologist the Kama woodlands will not be directly impacted by the proposal if works are confined to the road reserve. Indirect impacts can be mitigated and reduced through design of works within the road reserve. For further details of the assessment of natural heritage impacts and proposed mitigation steps reference should be made to the detailed ecological report.

26 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Legend

Site WDH1

N

Figure 10. Location of site WHD1

Base Mapping: ACTMAP1 ACT Govt 2004

3.4 SURVEY RESULTS – AREA OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSIT (PAD)

Potential Archaeological Deposits are areas which based on predictive modelling for landforms are considered to hold a higher potential for subsurface or unrecorded heritage sites to be present in relation to the surrounding areas. The predictive modelling for the project area along William Hovell Drive is centred on level areas of terrace along creek banks. Several small tributary creek lines cross the road reserve area. The edges and surrounds of the creek lines were examined for exposures and artefacts as part of the field survey. The majority of these creek lines have been altered due to the road placement with culverts, edging and channels having been constructed along their length. No areas of PAD were located in their vicinity except for the area along Deep Creek which contained a number of small areas of PAD. Within the current project area Deep Creek runs from the North of William Hovell Drive under the road and continues south to the Molonglo River. Deep creek is an abraded channel with two and in some places three small stream flows. On the northern bank of Deep Creek (on the southern side of William Hovell Drive) the prior construction work associated with the road construction has removed topsoils and incorporated them into the steep, supporting batter for the road. At the base of the large steep batter, plantings have been undertaken of trees within rubber tyres to stabilise the bank. The soils in these areas are uneven and show signs of redeposition. The road reserve boundary in this section is very wide at an approximate distance of 60m on the southern side to William Hovell Drive due to the inclusion of the creek corridor. On the southern side of Deep Creek no construction impacts have occurred and the natural creek line edge has been retained. These areas of creek line are heavily grassed with incursions of blackberry and woody weeds. Several small areas of PAD were located during the field survey on the banks of Deep Creek. All of these areas of PAD consisted of the following characteristics:

 Located on terrace or level area of spur line within 50m of the creek line  No evidence of past disturbance  Nil visibility during ground survey to confirm or deny potential based on landform. The details of the areas of PAD are provided in Table 2 below. The locations of the areas of PAD are shown in Figure 11. All of these areas of PAD are distant to the proposed works whilst within the project area. During the design phase it should be possible to avoid all impacts to these areas of PAD.

Table 2. PAD details PAD NUMBER GRID REFERENCES DESCRIPTION

WHDPAD1

WHDPAD2

28 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

PAD NUMBER GRID REFERENCES DESCRIPTION

WHDPAD3

WHDPAD4

WHDPAD5

The areas of PAD and conditions during the survey are shown in Plates 14 to 21.

Plate 14. PAD1 looking east to Deep Creek Plate 15. PAD 2 looking northeast along Deep Creek

Plate 16. PAD 3 looking east Plate 17: PD4 looking west

29 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Plate 18. PAD5 looking southwest Plate 19: Deep Creek looking west

Plate 20. Steep batter edge on northern bank of Plate 21. Eastern end of project area Deep Creek and tree plantings

30 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Legend

PAD Area

N

Figure 11. Location of PADS

Base Mapping: ACTMAP1 ACT Govt 2004

4 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT 4.1 SIGNFICANCE CRITERIA

Assessing and assigning significance to an identified cultural heritage place or object is undertaken to guide decision making about the management of the identified heritage place or object. Defining significance is a complex process and the Burra Charter (Icomos 2013) defines a ‘best practice’ and widely accepted methodology for assigning significance. The cultural heritage values of a site or place are broadly defined in the Burra Charter as the ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values for past, present or future generations’ (Marquis-Kyle and Walker 1992: 21). In the assessment of Aboriginal heritage places or objects, although a range of values may be present, the primary criteria are scientific/archaeological values and social/Aboriginal cultural values. The definition of both of these terms as applied in the assessment process to the Aboriginal, historical and natural heritage sites present within the project area is provided below.

4.1.1 Social Significance This relates to the values placed upon the heritage place or object by the local community, or group, as communicated by representatives. Aboriginal people are the primary determinants of cultural significance for Aboriginal cultural sites, and consultation should be undertaken with appropriate cultural knowledge holders to determine significance. These values may be the result of historical events, orally transmitted cultural knowledge of gathering or hunting areas or relate to archaeological sites that demonstrate the past occupation of the landscape, thus anchoring the present community to the past.

4.1.2 Scientific Significance Scientific values are assessed on the potential of the heritage place or object to provide additional significant knowledge or data on the history, occupation or traditional lifeways of past Aboriginal people in all its forms. This knowledge or data can include past historical occupation of the landscape, activities (including European farming or Aboriginal hunting, fishing and gathering) and technology (including weaving, wood working and lithics). Scientific significance can be summarised as research potential, which is based on the occurrence rate of the site (representativeness) and its state of preservation (intactness or level of disturbance) within its local context. This system is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Scientific Significance Matrix

Research potential

Rare Moderate High High High

Occasional Low Moderate Moderate High

Common Low Low Low Moderate

State of Highly Partially Slightly Intact Preservation disturbed disturbed disturbed Representativeness

32 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA 4.2 ACT HERITAGE CRITERIA

Having determined that the object or place holds heritage significance, it may warrant listing on the relevant heritage register, thus providing the heritage object or place with recognition and statutory protection. Within the ACT heritage protection and significance is assessed under Section 10 of the Heritage Act 2004, which states: A place or object has heritage significance if the place or object meets 1 or more of the following criteria (the heritage significance criteria): (a) importance to the course or pattern of the ACT’s cultural or natural history; (b) has uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the ACT’s cultural or natural history; (c) potential to yield important information that will contribute to an understanding of the ACT’s cultural or natural history; (d) importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or objects; (e) importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by the ACT community or a cultural group in the ACT; (f) importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement for a particular period; (g) has a strong or special association with the ACT community, or a cultural group in the ACT for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) has a special association with the life or work of a person, or people, important to the history of the ACT. Although other criteria may in cases be applicable, criteria c, d and g generally apply to Aboriginal heritage places or objects located within the ACT.

4.3 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The newly identified site of WHD1 and the listed heritage sites when assessed against the criteria and in accordance with the Heritage Assessment Policy (ACT Heritage Council 2018) resulted in the following designations of significance.

4.3.1 Social values Following discussions with the RAOs on site, the significance of the sites to the Aboriginal community has been assessed as low for WHD1. All sites hold heritage significance to the Aboriginal community, providing information and evidence of the past usage of the landscape by Aboriginal people. Larger and rarer site types hold higher levels due to the ability to educate the younger generation and the wider population as to the depth of Aboriginal culture. WHD1 is a common site type and consists of a single artefact, probably in a displaced context.

It is the view of the RAOs that all sites should be respected, either by avoidance of impacts or if impacts are unavoidable by mitigation strategies, such as recording and salvage collection. The return of artefacts to “country” is of utmost importance to maintain their connection to the landscape.

33 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA Both the Weetangera Cemetery and Kama Woodlands are assessed as holding high social significance being areas of high importance to the local Canberra Community.

4.3.2 Scientific values Based on the criteria in Section 4.1.2 rankings of scientific significance have been allocated to the known heritage sites. The results of the analysis are provided in the following table.

Table 4. Scientific values

Site Name Representative rating Preservation rating Scientific value

WHD1 common disturbed Low

Weetangera Rare Fair/moderate High Cemetery

Kama Rare High High Woodlands

4.3.3 Heritage Act 2004 criteria When assessed against the Heritage Act 2004 criteria (as listed in Section 4.2) the following results for each site as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Heritage Sites assessment Criteria a b c d e f g h

WDH1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Weetangera yes yes yes yes NA NA yes yes Cemetery

Kama yes yes yes yes na na na na Woodlands

The Kama Woodlands and Weetangera Cemetery were listed under the past heritage significance criteria and the above assessment compares them to the current 2018 heritage criteria. Thus the criteria that they are listed for in their respective registrations, vary slightly but do not alter their heritage significance or validity of the registrations. 4.3.4 Summary As a result of the assessment against the criteria and the Heritage Assessment Policy (ACT Heritage Council 2018) WHD1 does not meet any of the criteria for listing to the ACT Heritage Register although the site remains protected under the Heritage Act 2004 and can only be impacted with approval granted by the ACT Heritage Council. Both the Weetangera Cemetery and Kama Woodlands are currently registered to the ACT Heritage Register as holding high heritage significance and no impacts can occur within the registered curtilages.

34 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

5 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The project area is currently used as the road reserve for William Hovell Drive. The additional 20m on the boundary of the road reserve are currently leased for rural agistment. No known Aboriginal sites, one historical heritage site and one natural heritage site are present within the project area, but are located outside of the road reserve boundary. A field survey was undertaken for the assessment which located one previously unrecorded Aboriginal heritage site within the project area and five small areas of PAD. The proposed use of the area will involve excavation of soils within road easement, construction of road batters and cut and fill sections, with machinery movements and storage of materials during construction. Any heritage sites located within the road reserve are at risk of damage through the proposed works. Discussions with project personnel and the placement of the historical and natural heritage sites (Weetangera Cemetery and Kama Woodlands) on the boundary of the road reserve allows for design of works to avoid all direct and indirect impacts to the registered sites curtilage and locations.

Several small artefact scatters are located on the southern bank of Deep Creek, these are located outside of the proposed road reserve. Works are not anticipated to extend into this area. The five small areas of PAD are located within the road reserve in the area of Deep Creek but not close to the proposed works impacts. Avoidance of these areas should be possible through the design process. If these areas cannot be avoided then a program of subsurface testing will need to be undertaken to determine the extent of any potential heritage impacts. As a result of the background review, assessment of landforms and heritage field survey no heritage impacts are anticipated from the proposed road duplication works if the management recommendations developed for the project and provided in the following section are implemented.

5.2 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations are based on the following information and considerations:

 Results of the ACT Heritage register search and locations of recorded sites in the vicinity of works  Consideration of results from other local archaeological studies  Results of the field survey  Appraisal of the proposed impact area and relationship to heritage listings  Consultation with RAOs  Legislative context for the development proposal.

As a result of the assessment completed for the project the following findings and recommendations apply:

35 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

 No identified heritage sites (Aboriginal, Historical or Natural) are located within the road reserve area.

 One Aboriginal heritage site is located within the project area (WHD1). This site is located at the rear of houses in the suburb of Hawker and can be avoided through design of the project. No impacts can occur to this site and the duplication must avoid impacting this area.

 One historical and one natural heritage listed sites are within the extended project area but not within the road reserve. No direct impacts are permitted to occur to heritage listings in the vicinity of works. Works in the vicinity of heritage listings must be contained within the existing road reserve.

 Barrier fencing must be installed to delineate the extent of construction in the vicinity of the Weetangera Cemetery and Kama Woodlands to prevent accidental impacts. The placement of barrier fencing must be on the exterior boundary of heritage curtilages.

 The location of heritage sites and requirements for impact avoidance shall be communicated to project manager and personnel engaged on the project. Heritage site information will be included in site inductions.

 Design should be undertaken to reduce the potential for indirect impacts due to higher visibility and visitor impacts to the Weetangera Cemetery. This could take the form of screening landscaping on the road verge.

 The five areas of PAD identified within the project area should be avoided by the proposed works. If these areas must be impacted then a program of subsurface testing of the impacted areas of PAD would be required to determine the presence of cultural material.

 If impacts cannot be avoided through design of works to any of the identified heritage sites then completion of a Statement of Heritage Effects and approval for works will be required from the ACT Heritage Council prior to works commencing.

 As all heritage impacts can be removed through design of works and avoidance of site impacts there are no known heritage impacts from the proposed project. As a result no submission of a Statement of Heritage Effects for approval to the ACT Heritage Council is required as long as all sites are avoided and these recommendations implemented. This CHA should be submitted to ACT Heritage Council for endorsement prior to works commencing.

 All Aboriginal objects and places are protected under the ACT Heritage Act 2004. It is an offence to disturb an Aboriginal site without approvals granted by the ACT Heritage Council. Should any Aboriginal objects be encountered during works then works must cease immediately in the vicinity of the find, and the find should not be moved until assessed by a qualified archaeologist with the participation of the RAOs. Adherence to the Unexpected Discovery Plan (UDP) attached at Appendix 2 is required.

36 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA References

ACT Heritage Council. (2018). Heritage Assessment Policy. Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, ACT Government. Australian Archaeological Survey Consultants . (2006). Molonglo Valley Heritage Review. Report to ACT Planning and Land Authority . Biosis Research. (2010). Molonglo Stage 2: Detailed Heritage Assessmnet - Aboriginal and Historical Heritage. Report for ACTPLA. Biosis Research. (2012). Molonglo Stage 3 Future Urban Release Areas: Detailed Heritage Assessment - Aboriginal and Historical Heritage. Report to EnvironmentRCMT1 and Sustainable Development Directorate. Biosis Research. (2012). Molonglo: Detailed Heritage Assessment - Aboriginal and Historical Heritage. Report for ACT Land Development Agency. Bulbeck, D and Boot, P. (1990). Stromlo Forest Cultural Resource Survey and Conservation Plan. Vols 1 and 2. Report for ACT Forests and ACT Parks and Conservation Service. Burke, H and Smith,C. (2004). The Archaeologists Field Handbook. Sydney NSW: Allen and Unwin. English, W.B. (1985). Where the Molonglo Runs. BA Hons Thesis ANU Canberra. Flood et al . (1987). Birrigai: a Pleistocene Site in the South Eastern Highlands. Archaeology in Oceania, 22: 9-26. Gillespie, L.L. (1992). Ginninderra: Forerunner to Canberra. Lyall L Gillespie, Canberra. Gott, B. (2008). Indigenous use of Plants in south-eastern Australia. Telopea 12 (2) 215-226. Heritage Solutions. (2005). Investigation of Aboriginal Heritage Places; Block 447 Mount Stromlo. Report for ACT Forests. Horton, D. (1994). The Encyclopidea of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture. Canberra: Aboriginal Press Studies. Howitt, A. (1996). The Native Tribes of South East Australia. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance . Australian ICOMOS. Jenkins, B. (2000). Soil Landscapes of the Canberra 1:100 000 Sheet. . Sydney: Department of Land and Water Conservation . Kabaila,P. (1997). Belconnen's Aboriginal Past: A glimpse into the archaeology of the Australian Capital Territory. Black Mountain Projects, Jamison ACT. Marquis-Kyle, P and Walker, M. (1992). The Illustrated Burra Charter: Making Good Decisions about the Care of Important Places. Brisbane.: Australian ICOMOS. Mulvaney, D.J and Kamminga, J. (1999). Prehistory of Australia. St Leonards, NSW.: Allen and Unwin. Navin Officer Heritage Consultants . (2003). Investigations of Aboriginal Heritae Places along Fire Trails in Canberra Nature Parks. . Report to ACT Heritage Unit . 37 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants. (2011). ACTEW Molonglo Liquid Waste Receival Point Block 1572 Belconnen ACT. Report to ACTEW AGL. Navin, K and Officer, K. (1991). West Belconnen Urban Release Area Archaeological Assessment. Report to Kinhill Pty Ltd. Past Traces . (2017). Cultural Heritage Assessment: Drake Brockman Drive Duplication, Holt, ACT. Report prepared for ISG Projects Pty Ltd. Saunders, P. (1995). Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey of Lower Molonglo Corridor ACT . Report to Department of Environment, Land and Planning. Stewart, K and Percival, B. (1997). Bush Foods of New South Wales. Sydney: Royal Botanic Gardens. Strahler, AN. (1952). Dynamic Base of Geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:923-938. Terry and Chillinger . (1955). Summary in 'Concering some additional aids in studying sediment function. in Shetsov, S.M. Journal of Sedimentary Research 25: 229-234. Tindale, N. (1974). Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. Canberra: ANU Press. White, E and McDonald,J. (2010). Lithic Artefact distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area Cumberland Plain. Australian Archaeology 70:29-38.

38 William Hovell Drive Duplication - CHA

APPENDIX 1. ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

RAO Date and type of contact Response

All RAOs 15th March 2018 – phone call to all RAOs to Paul House – will send rep arrange participation in field work for 12th James Mundy – will send rep April Carl Brown – will send rep Follow up email to Wally Bell and Matilda House Wally Bell - will send rep

All RAOs 12th April 2018 – field survey and on site Reuben house meeting Karen Denny

Robert Mundy. All agreed with recommendations – one site found and low significance of area – no further work required

All RAOs 16th April 2018 – field survey and on site Karen Denny meeting Reuben House Robert Mundy Justin Brown No sites or areas of PAD, Work to be confined to within road corridor.

All RAOs 17/4/2018 - Draft Report emailed/circulated for comments

A-1 William Hovell Drive Duplication CHA

APPENDIX 2. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY PLAN

The process outlined in the unanticipated discovery provides guidance to project personnel so that obligations in accordance with the Heritage Act 2004 can be met. If any items are uncovered during the course of works, which are considered to possibly be of Aboriginal or historical significance the following unanticipated discovery plan should be implemented. All Aboriginal and significant historical heritage places or objects are protected under the Heritage Act 2004. Offence provisions (Section 74 and Section 75) of the Act apply to impacting heritage sites. Any unanticipated find of potential heritage value should follow the process outlined below to avoid breaching obligations under the Act.

1. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

If suspected Aboriginal Heritage items (isolated stone artefacts, artefact scatters, archaeological deposits or scarred trees) are found then the following management process must be implemented:

1. Work must immediately stop in the area within a buffer zone of 10 metres from the primary grid coordinate.

2. ACT Heritage (132281) must be informed of the suspected find asap and within 5 working days.

3. A suitably qualified heritage advisor and the Representative Aboriginal Organisation (RAOs) must be engaged to assess the potential site.

4. If the items are not considered to be Aboriginal, activity may recommence.

5. If the items are considered to be Aboriginal, the Proponent, RAOs and the Cultural Heritage Advisor, will discuss the possibility of avoiding and minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, and the Proponent must avoid or minimise harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible.

6. If the items are considered to be Aboriginal, an assessment report will need to be prepared and submitted to the ACT Heritage Council. After approval from the ACT Heritage Council, the artefacts should be recorded and salvaged in accordance with the approved methodology.

7. After approval of the salvage report, works can recommence.

2. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

If suspected historical items are found then the following management process must be followed:

1. Work must immediately stop in the area within a buffer zone of 10 metres from the primary grid coordinate.

2. ACT Heritage must be contacted on 13 22 81 for advice.

3. A suitably qualified heritage advisor needs to be engaged to assess the potential site.

4. If the items are not considered to be historically significant, activity may recommence.

A-1 William Hovell Drive Duplication CHA

5. If the items are considered to be historically significant, a management recommendation should be given by the heritage advisor.

6. Following approval by ACT Heritage Council and completion of the management recommendation, the activity may then recommence.

3. UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

If any suspected human remains are discovered during any works, all activity in the areas must cease immediately. The following contingency plan describes the actions that must be taken in instances where human remains or suspected human remains are discovered. Any such discovery at the activity area must follow these steps.

Discovery:

 If any suspected human remains are found during any activity, works in the vicinity must cease.  All personnel should leave the area immediately  The remains must be left in place, and protected from harm or damage.

Notification:

 The ACT Federal Police must be notified immediately. All details of the location and nature of the human remains must be provided to the relevant authorities.  If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the remains are Aboriginal, ACT Heritage must be contacted immediately on 13 22 81.  The Project Manger must be contacted immediately.

Process:

 If the remains are considered to be Aboriginal by the AFP an appropriate management and mitigation, or salvage strategy will be implemented following consultation with the RAOs and ACT Heritage Council through ACT Heritage.

A-1 William Hovell Drive Duplication CHA