AS1372-11 Report of a Desktop Aboriginal Heritage Assessment of Bushmead - Edited · 2018. 5....

Ethnosciences ABN 47 065 099 228

Aboriginal Heritage

PO Box 121, MELVILLE WA 6956

Phone (08) 9339 8431; Fax: (08) 9438 1717; Mobile: 0419 957 140 Email: [email protected]

Report of a Desktop Aboriginal Heritage Assessment of Bushmead, Lot 911 Midland Road, Hazelmere, Western Australia

Prepared for Cedar Woods Properties Limited

By Edward McDonald PhD & Lois Hall PhD

December 2011


Aboriginal Heritage

PO Box 121, MELVILLE WA 6956

Phone (08) 9339 8431; Fax: (08) 9438 1717; Mobile: 0419 957 140 Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer The results, conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are based on information available at the time of its preparation. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that all relevant data has been collated, the authors can take no responsibility for omissions and/or inconsistencies that may result from information becoming available subsequent to the report’s completion.

Abbreviations ACMC: Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee

AHA: Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972

AHIS: Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System

AHMP: Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan

ATSIHPA: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984)

DIA: Department of Indigenous affairs

ERM: Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd

© Ethnosciences & Cedar Woods Properties Limited 2011


Aboriginal Heritage

i

Summary and Recommendations

Cedar Woods Properties Limited (Cedar Woods) purchased of the 273 hectare former

Department of Defence Bushmead Rifle Range site, Lot 911 Midland Road,

Hazelmere, Western Australia, on which it hopes to develop to residential

subdivision cells.

As part of its due diligence in respect of necessary development approvals required

prior to subdivision, Cedar Woods commissioned Ethnosciences to undertake a

desktop assessment of the Aboriginal heritage values of the subject land.

The Bushmead land has been subject to significant enquiry between 1989 and 2007

with regards to its Aboriginal heritage values in respect of both State and

Commonwealth legislation.

The desktop search of the AHIS and hard copy site files reveals that there is one

Registered Aboriginal Site (DIA Site ID 3543 Bushmead Rifle Range) and eight ‘Other

Heritage Places’ located on the Bushmead land.

DIA Site ID 3543 Bushmead Rifle Range, which is listed as a ceremonial,

mythological and camp with possibly ‘other’ attributes, is located in the immediate

vicinity of the Army driver training facility and is understood to be outside the

proposed development areas on the Bushmead land.

The eight ‘Other Heritage Places’ do not constitute Aboriginal sites within the

meaning of the AHA and therefore are not impediments to the proposed

development should they be located within one of the proposed development cells.

However, it is understood that the majority will in fact be preserved within one of

the environmental zones that will be retained on the property.

We have indicated that Unless DIA Site ID 3543 Bushmead Rifle Range is to impact

upon, we would therefore conclude that further consultation or ethnographic

enquiry is not required at this stage.


Aboriginal Heritage

ii

However, the presence of a number of archaeological sites on the land indicates that

there is potential for further archaeological sites to be found. It is also possible that

any additional archaeological sites might be determined to be Aboriginal sites.

It is therefore advisable that a further archaeological inspection of the two proposed

development cells is undertaken. Should new archaeological sites be found and these

cannot be avoided by the development, then a Notice under Section 18 of the AHA

for Ministerial consent to use the land on which the sites are located would be

required. This being the case, further consultation with the relevant Aboriginal

people would also be required in order to assess the cultural — as opposed to the

scientific significance — of the archaeological sites. The ACMC requires this

information to assist with their deliberations.

Further, it would be appropriate to have in place an Aboriginal Heritage

Management Plan (AHMP) to manage the known archaeological sites and to deal

with the potential for material to be uncovered during earthworks.

Recommendations

1. It is recommended that at this stage no further ethnographic research or Aboriginal community consultation is required in respect of the proposed development of the Bushmead land.

2. It is recommended, however, that an archaeological inspection is undertaken of the two proposed development cells.

3. It is further recommended that should any new archaeological sites be discovered and it is not possible to avoid them, Cedar Woods should lodge a Section 18 Notice for Ministerial consent to use the land on which the sites are located.

4. It is also recommended that should a Section 18 Notice be required, further consultation with the relevant Aboriginal people, which focuses on the cultural significance of any archaeological sites, is undertaken.

5. It is further recommended that Cedar Woods prepare and implement an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (AHMP) in order to manage the known archaeological sites on the property and to deal with the potential for material to be uncovered during earthworks.


Aboriginal Heritage

iii

Table of Contents

Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................................... i

Recommendations ............................................................................................................... i

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Aboriginal Heritage & Related Legislation......................................................................... 2

Desktop Study Methods ........................................................................................................ 4

Desktop Study Results ........................................................................................................... 6

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 12

Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 13

References .............................................................................................................................. 14

Figures .................................................................................................................................... 15

List of Figures Figure 1: Overall concept plan Bushmead land, showing proposed development cells (Source: Cedar woods) ............................................................................................................ 16 Figure 2: Aboriginal sites and ‘Other Heritage Places’ listed on or overlapping the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS) .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Registered Aboriginal Sites listed on or overlapping the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS) ....................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4: Site ID 3543 as mapped on AHIS (green polygon) compared with given coordinates (red flag) (Source: AHIS) ................................................................................ 19 Figure 5: ‘Other Heritage Places’ listed on the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS) ......... 20

List of Tables Table 1: Aboriginal Sites shown on the AHIS as overlapping the Bushmead land (Source AHIS) .......................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2: ‘Other Heritage Places’ shown on the AHIS as being located on the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS) ............................................................................................ 9

Table 3: Assessment of the archaeological sites inspected by ERM 2006 (Source: ERM 2007) ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Ethnosciences When Heritage Matters


1

Introduction

Cedar Woods Properties Limited (Cedar Woods) successfully bid in May 2011 for the

purchase of the 273 hectare former Department of Defence Bushmead Rifle Range

site, Lot 911 Midland Road, Hazelmere, Western Australia.

The land, which is located 16km northeast of the Perth CBD, is currently largely

zoned for public purposes under both the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the City

of Swan Local Planning Scheme. Cedar Woods hopes to have a portion of the land

rezoned for residential development and will seek planning, environmental and

development approvals prior to subdivision. Depending on determined lot sizes and

planning outcomes, the Bushmead land is expected to yield between 600 and 900

residential lots in two development cells (Figure 1). The balance land includes

Conservation and Habitat Tree Protection Zones, which will be maintained.

As part of its due diligence in respect of necessary development approvals required

prior to subdivision, Cedar Woods sought to clarify the known and potential

Aboriginal heritage values of the land and related heritage requirements. In October

2011, Ethnosciences was commissioned by Cedar Woods to undertake a desktop

assessment of the Aboriginal heritage values of the subject land.

The purpose of the desktop assessment was to determine whether the proposed

development will impact on any Aboriginal sites or other heritage values and to

provide advice regarding any further investigations or other measures that might be

required in order to ensure that the proponent’s obligations under the Aboriginal

Heritage Act (1972) (AHA) are met.



2

Aboriginal Heritage & Related Legislation

Relevant legislation for the purpose of this assessment includes:

WA Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972);

WA Environmental Protection Act (1986);

Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984) (ATSIHPA); and

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA) is the primary legislation covering

Aboriginal heritage in Western Australia. An ‘Aboriginal site’ is defined by Section 4

of the AHA as “a place to which this Act applies by the operation of section 5”.

Section 5 of the AHA defines the places to which the Act applies as follows:

a) any place of importance and significance where persons of Aboriginal descent have, or appear to have, left any object, natural or artificial, used for, or made or adapted for use for, any purpose connected with the traditional cultural life of the Aboriginal people, past or present;

b) any sacred, ritual or ceremonial site, which is of importance and special significance to persons of Aboriginal descent;

c) any place which, in the opinion of the Committee, is or was associated with the Aboriginal people and which is of historical, anthropological, archaeological or ethnographic interest and should be preserved because of its importance and significance to the cultural heritage of the State;

d) any place where objects to which this Act applies are traditionally stored, or to which, under the provisions of this Act, such objects have been taken or removed.

Under section 17 of the AHA, it is an offence to:

a) Excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter any Aboriginal site;

b) In any way alter, damage, remove, destroy, conceal, or deal with in a manner not sanctioned by relevant custom, or assume possession, custody or control of, any object on or under an Aboriginal site;

unless it has been authorised by the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites under section 16 or by the Minister under section 18 of the AHA.



3

The Environmental Protection Act (1986) may give attention to Aboriginal matters of a

social nature (such as traditional hunting activities) by providing for the retention of

habitat for native fauna to enable those activities to continue (EPA 2004:2–3).

The Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984)

(ATSIHPA) protects places of significance to Indigenous Australians and is

administered through the Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and

the Arts. The Act offers protection for significant places or objects through ministerial

decision. Aboriginal people who believe that a place or object is threatened and that

State Government processes offer inadequate protection can apply to the Australian

Government Environment Minister to protect the place or object.

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

protects the environment, particularly matters of National Environmental

Significance. It streamlines the national environmental assessment and approvals

process, protects Australian biodiversity and integrates management of important

natural and cultural places.



4

Desktop Study Methods

The desktop assessment was undertaken broadly within the parameters set out by

the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA). The primary objectives of the study

were to:

Review the relevant heritage records held by the DIA and other available ethnographic and archaeological resources in relation to the Bushmead land;

Identify any Aboriginal sites and other heritage values that may be affected by the proposed development and assess the potential impact of the proposed development upon them;

Make recommendations regarding the management of any Aboriginal sites that are identified;

Identify whether any further investigations and/or consultation will be required in order to meet the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972; and

Make recommendations regarding the scope of any further investigations and/or consultation that may be required.

The desktop study included in the first instance an examination of the Register of

Aboriginal Sites using the online Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS)

maintained by the DIA. The relevant hard copy site files were also examined and

particular attention paid to the status of places listed viz a viz the AHA and

associated spatial data. A range of pertinent published and unpublished

ethnographic and archaeological material relating to the Aboriginal heritage values

of the study area and its environs was also reviewed.

The Bushmead land has been assessed with respect to Aboriginal heritage values a

number of times, including both desktop and field research and community

consultation. Previous heritage assessments have included extensive archaeological

and ethnographic surveys undertaken by and on behalf of McDonald, Hales and

Associates between 1989 and 1991:

Pocock and Strawbridge’s 1989 archaeological survey;

McDonald, Hales and Associates’ 1989 ethnographic survey and community consultation (two reports);



5

McDonald, Murphy and Locke’s 1991 ethnographic survey, community consultation and archaeological inspection; and

Blandford’s 1991 community consultation (Blandford 1991; see also Halpern Glick Maunsell 1991 & 1992)

Additional assessments include the review and community consultation undertaken

by Peter Marks under Section 10 of the ATSIHPA; a due diligence review conducted

by Clayton Utz (2004; see ERM 2007); and a due diligence review and archaeological

assessment undertaken in 2006 by Environmental Resources Management Australia

Pty Ltd (ERM) (see ERM 2007).

An important issue that needs to be clearly understood in respect of this assessment

is the meaning of the term ‘Aboriginal site’. In this report, we use the term to refer to

a place which the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) has determined

is an ‘Aboriginal site’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the AHA and is therefore

Registered. While other places may be listed on the AHIS and in other sources, they

are not Aboriginal sites within the meaning of the Act. For example, there are places

previously listed on the ‘Interim Register’— which are now referred to as ‘Other

Heritage Places’ — which may simply be lodged on the system or for which it has

been determined that there is insufficient information to assess them as being

Aboriginal sites and therefore are not technically Aboriginal sites. However, there is

a potential that they might later be determined to be Aboriginal sites. Consequently,

it is prudent to treat these places as if they are Aboriginal sites until a determination

has been made.

Another category of listing which frequently is the source of confusion is that

relating to places about which information is archived in ‘Stored Data’. Typically,

these are places for which a determination has been made and the ACMC has

decided that they do not meet the criteria set out in Section 5 of the AHA and are

therefore not Aboriginal sites. Confusion regarding such places on the Bushmead

land is evident in some of the more recent assessments.



6

Desktop Study Results

As Figure 2 shows, a search of the AHIS revealed that there are four (4) Registered

Aboriginal Sites and eight (8) ‘Other heritage Places’ depicted as being located on or

overlapping with the Bushmead land. The four Registered Aboriginal Sites — two

‘ceremonial/mythological’ sites and two archaeological sites (artefact scatters) — are

listed in Table 1 below (see also Figure 3).

An examination of the site files and associated spatial data shows that the two

archaeological sites (DIA Site ID 3905 Larwood Paddock 1 - 3 and DIA Site ID 3966

Holding Paddock 1-4) are located outside to the south-east and north of the

Bushmead land respectively. Additionally, information provided by the DIA also

shows that though the Helena River (DIA Site ID 3758) is mapped as a large irregular

polygon (approximately 60km x 20km), the actual boundary of the site, according to

advice from the DIA, follows the river’s contours. Consequently, no part of the site is

actually located on the Bushmead land and will not be impacted upon by the

proposed development.

Hence, the only Aboriginal site actually located on the Bushmead land is DIA Site ID

3543 Bushmead Rifle Range. This site was reported to McDonald in 1989 during the

ethnographic survey of the Bushmead land (McDonald, Hales and Associates 1989a

and 1989b; McDonald, Murphy and Locke 1991; see also comments on marks

findings in ERM 2007). However, the person who reported the site was uncertain

about the accuracy of her information and requested that others be consulted in

order to verify its existence and location. Indeed, the woman concerned was so

uncertain at the time about the existence of the site that she requested her name not

be associated with its reporting. As it transpired, no other Aboriginal person

consulted could verify the place’s existence (McDonald, Hales and Associates 1989a,

1989b and McDonald, Murphy and Locke 1991). While generalised comments were

later made about the significance of the Bushmead land in its entirety as part of the

wider Helena Valley landscape, such comments did not provide any further detail

regarding DIA Site ID 3543 (see, for example, Midland Reporter, cited in Native Title



7

Newsletter 2002:11; see also McDonald, Murphy and Locke 1991; Halpern Glick

Maunsell 1992; and Marks cited in ERM 2007). Marks concluded his review with the

comment “I report that while the Bushmead land is of interest to Aboriginals, it is as

an example of what the whole Helena Valley used to be, rather than of particular

significance itself. There are no identified sites on the land” (Marks 2002:5 cited in

ERM 2007:64, emphasis added). Nevertheless, DIA Site ID 3543 was subsequently

Registered and its attributed heritage values as listed on the Register have grown

from ‘ceremonial’ to include ‘mythological’, ‘camp’, and ‘other:?’ attributes.1

DIA Site ID 3543 was reported to be located opposite the caravan park on Midland

Road and in the immediate vicinity of and probably under the Army transport depot

and driver training unit complex. While the coordinates given by the AHIS place the

site approximately 200m northeast of the driver training unit in the bush, the spatial

data on the site file shows it as being located at the driver training unit facility

(Figure 4). Consequently, if the proposed development cell does not impact on the

driver training unit, then we can conclude that DIA Site ID 3543 will not be impacted

upon.

As noted, eight ‘Other Heritage Places’ — seven artefact scatters and one place

comprising two scarred or modified tress — are also listed on the land (see Table 2

below; see also Figure 5). It is important to note that these places have been

determined by the ACMC not to be Aboriginal sites within the meaning of Section 5

of the AHA and information about the places are archived in what is referred to as

‘Stored Data’.

A search of earlier AHIS datasets ranging from September 1999 indicates that all of

the places listed in Table 2 — apart from DIA Site ID 23300 Helena Valley Scarred

Trees, which is a relatively recent listing — were determined not to be Aboriginal

sites some time before October 2004. Prior to that, they were listed on what was then

1 It is not unusual for additional heritage attributes to be added to the Register as a result of subsequent research or consultation. However, it is also the case that DIA staff sometimes include additional attributes based on assumptions which are not necessarily supposed ethnographically. Indeed, there are quite a few cases where sites have been added to the Register based on a complete misreading of ethnographic reports.



8

referred to as the ‘Interim Register’. That is, DIA Site IDs 3395, 3628, 3857, 3859, 3860,

3970 and 4013 were technically never Aboriginal sites within the meaning of the

AHA. Clearly, however, they are Aboriginal archaeological sites.

Confusion on this point seems to have been an issue in earlier reviews of the

Aboriginal heritage values of the Bushmead land. For example, the otherwise useful

discussion of the archaeological sites on the Bushmead land by ERM (2007) is limited

by the confusion Registered Aboriginal sites and other heritage places. They

(2007:64), for example, note that the “inference [in the Marks’ Report] “that there are

no Aboriginal sites in terms of the State Act appears to be incorrect, as clearly there

are large, and possibly complex, Aboriginal sites located within Bushmead”. Later

they (2007: 67) report that their personnel visited “all recorded Aboriginal sites

within the Bushmead site”. However, as noted at the time of their site inspection,

these places, apart from Sit ID 3543, were not Aboriginal sites within the meaning of

the Act.

It is unclear whether the site files were actually examined by ERM or only the online

AHIS was examined. More importantly, the report would seem to confuse the nature

of DIA Site ID 3543 Bushmead Rifle Range, which it describes as “the most

contentious of all the archaeological sites at Bushmead” and continues “the site could

not be located by anyone; archaeologists or Aboriginal people, but it existed in the

area near the driver training unit”. The site is, of course, ethnographic and not

archaeological. That is, it was reported by a participant in an ethnographic survey

and not physically discovered. As noted already, the person reporting was actually

unsure of the provenance of the information she had. ERM (2007:79) notes that two

‘earthen mounds’ were observed near a drainage channel that flows into Kardina

Creek, and speculates that these mounds might have something to do with the

reported site, though also notes that “there is no direct evidence that these mounds

are Aboriginal in origin”. However, there is nothing in the original report about the

site regarding any earthen mounds and these are likely to relate to the activities of

the Army Transport Unit.



9

SITE ID

Site Name Site Type Register status

3543 Bushmead Rifle Range Ceremonial, Mythological, Camp, [Other:?]

Registered

3758 Helena River Ceremonial, Mythological, Repository/cache

Registered

3905 Larwood Paddock 1 - 3 Artefact scatter Registered 3966 Holding Paddock 1-4 Artefact scatter Registered

Table 1: Aboriginal Sites shown on the AHIS as overlapping the Bushmead land (Source AHIS)

SITE ID Site Name Site Type Register status

3395 Sadler Drive Creek Artefact Scatter Stored data 3628 Elders Sand Pit Artefact Scatter Stored data 3857 Midland Road Sandpit A & B Artefact Scatter Stored data 3859 Ridge Hill Gully East Artefact Scatter Stored data 3860 Ridge Hill Gully West Artefact Scatter Stored data 3970 Wild Horse Hill A-D Artefacts Artefact Scatter Stored data 4013 Adelaide Street Sand Quarry Artefact Scatter Stored data 23300 Helena Valley Scarred Trees Modified Trees Stored data

Table 2: ‘Other Heritage Places’ shown on the AHIS as being located on the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS)

ERM (2007) provides an assessment of the condition and significance of those

archaeological sites that were inspected in February 2006 and Table 3 summarise the

review. The authors note (2007:85) that apart from DIA Site ID 3970 Wild Horse Hill

A-D (formerly S01456), the archaeological sites are of low significance and require no

further archaeological research. The authors highlight the ongoing disturbance to the

area which is impacting on the archaeological record. However, they also note

(2007:86) that the majority of the archaeological sites are located within conservation

zones, e.g., the Bush Forever Site 213. ERM (2007) does, however, suggest inter alia



10

that further consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders might be required to

“confirm the condition” or absence of a number of the archaeological sites. 2

ERM (2007:85) concludes that at the time of writing (May 2007) the Bushmead land

“does not have heritage values (Aboriginal or historical) which would cross the

threshold for assessment under the EPBC CHOL assessment criteria”. While noting

that the artefact scatters are an aspect of the environment subject to the general

environmental protection of the EPBC Act, ERM concludes that “[N]o further action

is required under Section 10 of the ATSIHP Act.” ERM (2007:86) makes three

recommendations regarding Aboriginal heritage, which can be summarised as

follows:

1) All known ‘Aboriginal sites’ [sic] should be avoided to prevent further degradation to their condition;

2) When Defence disposed of the Bushmead land, the new owner of the land will need to consult with Aboriginal stakeholders to finalise the assessment of cultural significance and determine the appropriate measures to mitigate potential future impacts in accordance with the assessed significance;

3) When Defence disposed of the Bushmead land, all of the ‘Aboriginal sites’ [sic] will be protected by the AHA and S18 will be required to impact upon them and in the case of Site ID 3970, Wild Horse Hill A-D, (formerly S01456) any impact will need to be through archaeological excavation, which will require further consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders.

As we have highlighted above, the ERM assessment is based on confusion between

places which are ‘Aboriginal sites’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the AHA and

places which might have heritage value, e.g., the archaeological value of artefact

scatters that have been deemed not to be Aboriginal sites as they do not meet the

criteria set out in Section 5 of the Act. For example, in the case of archaeological sites

they must be a place of ‘place of importance and significance’.

2 These suggested activities, however, would seem to us to be a purely archaeological exercise in comparison to an Aboriginal assessment of the cultural as opposed scientific significance of archaeological sites, which we refer to below.



11

SITE ID

Site Name Site Type Artefacts Recorded Site Condition Archaeological Significance

Additional Archaeological Research

3395 Sadler Drive Creek Artefact Scatter Nil Not relocated Low Nil 3628 Elders Sand Pit Artefact Scatter Nil Highly disturbed Low Nil 3857 Midland Road Sandpit A

& B Artefact Scatter Single quartz artefact Severe erosion &

vehicular impact Low Nil

3859 Ridge Hill Gully East Artefact Scatter Single quartz chip Heavily eroded Nil – preserve in situ

3860 Ridge Hill Gully West Artefact Scatter Nil Not relocated Low 3970 Wild Horse Hill A-D Artefact Scatter Artefact density range

from 2–3/m2 to 20/m

2 @ exposure C

Heavy disturbance with no artefacts evident in original locations but rather between those areas

Moderate Preserve – test excavation if area is to be developed

4013 Adelaide Street Sand Quarry

Artefact Scatter Nil Highly disturbed Low Nil

23300 Helena Valley Scarred Trees

Modified Trees Not inspected N/A N/A N/A

Table 3: Assessment of the archaeological sites inspected by ERM 2006 (Source: ERM 2007)



12

Conclusions

The desktop assessment of the Aboriginal heritage values of the Bushmead land

aimed to determine whether the proposed development will impact on any

Aboriginal sites or other heritage values and to provide advice regarding any further

investigations or other measures that might be required in order to ensure that Cedar

Woods meets its obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) (AHA). The

desktop involved an examination of the online AHIS, relevant hard copy site files,

relevant heritage reports and other relevant documentation.

The search of the AHIS and site files reveals that there is one Registered Aboriginal

Site (DIA Site ID 3543 Bushmead Rifle Range) and eight ‘Other Heritage Places’

located on the Bushmead land. The former is located in the immediate vicinity of the

Army driver training facility and is understood to be outside the proposed

development areas on the Bushmead land. The latter do not constitute Aboriginal

sites within the meaning of the AHA and therefore are not impediments to the

proposed development should they be located within one of the proposed

development cells. However, it is understood that the majority will in fact be

preserved within one of the environmental zones that will be retained on the

property.

The search of the AHIS also shows that three other Aboriginal sites (DIA Site IDs

3758 Helena River; 3905 Larwood Paddock 1 – 3 and 3966 Holding Paddock 1-4) —

the first mentioned mythological and the other two archaeological — are mapped as

overlapping with the Bushmead land. However, an examination of the site files

indicates that these are actually located outside of the property and therefore will not

be impacted by any proposed development of the Bushmead land.

We have indicated that the Bushmead land has been subject to significant enquiry

with regards to its Aboriginal heritage values in respect of both State and

Commonwealth legislation. Unless DIA Site ID 3543 Bushmead Rifle Range is too

impacted upon, we would therefore conclude that further consultation or

ethnographic enquiry is not required at this stage.



13

However, the presence of a number of archaeological sites on the land, albeit

determined not to be Aboriginal sites within the meaning of Section 5 of the AHA,

indicates that there is potential for further archaeological sites to be found. It is also

possible that any additional archaeological sites might be determined to be

Aboriginal sites. It is therefore advisable, in our view, that a further archaeological

inspection of the two proposed development cells is undertaken. Should new

archaeological sites be found and these cannot be avoided by the development, then

a Notice under Section 18 of the AHA for Ministerial consent to use the land on

which the sites are located would be required. This being the case, further

consultation with the relevant Aboriginal people would also be required in order to

assess the cultural — as opposed to the scientific significance — of the archaeological

sites. The ACMC requires this information to assist with their deliberations.

Further, it would be appropriate to have in place an Aboriginal Heritage

Management Plan (AHMP) to manage the known archaeological sites and to deal

with the potential for material to be uncovered during earthworks.

Recommendations

1. It is recommended that at this stage no further ethnographic research or Aboriginal community consultation is required in respect of the proposed development of the Bushmead land.

2. It is recommended, however, that an archaeological inspection is undertaken of the two proposed development cells.

3. It is further recommended that should any new archaeological sites be discovered and it is not possible to avoid them, Cedar Woods should lodge a Section 18 Notice for Ministerial consent to use the land on which the sites are located.

4. It is also recommended that should a Section 18 Notice be required, further consultation with the relevant Aboriginal people, which focuses on the cultural significance of any archaeological sites, is undertaken.

5. It is further recommended that Cedar Woods prepare and implement an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (AHMP) in order to manage the known archaeological sites on the property and to deal with the potential for material to be uncovered during earthworks.



14

References

AIATSIS Native Title Unit (2002) Native Title Newsletter No. 3 (May/June) @ http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/newsletter.html#2002.

Blandford, N (1991) Bushmead Rifle Range Consultative Meetings August 6 and September 10 1991 ; Notes prepared for Halpern Glick Maunsell by Voran Consultants.

Environmental Protection Authority (2004) Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage Guidance Statement No. 41 Guidance Statement for the Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage.

ERM (2007) Bushmead Defence Establishment Property Disposal Due Diligence, Final Report Volume 1.

Halpern Glick Maunsell (1991) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Sale of Commonwealth Land at the Bushmead Rifle Range Site Western Australia. Report for Australian Estate Management Department of Administrative Services.

Halpern Glick Maunsell (1992) Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Sale of Commonwealth Land at the Bushmead Rifle Range Site Western Australia. Report for Australian Estate Management Department of Administrative Services.

McDonald, Hales and Associates (1989a) An Aboriginal Site Survey of the Bushmead Rifle Range, Helena Valley. Unpublished report prepared by McDonald, Hales and Associates for the Australian Property Group, Department of Administrative Services.

McDonald, Hales and Associates (1989b) An Aboriginal Site Survey of the Bushmead Rifle Range, Helena Valley, A Supplementary Report. Unpublished report prepared by McDonald, Hales and Associates for the Australian Property Group, Department of Administrative Services.

McDonald, E. M., Murphy, A. M. and Locke, R. G. (1991) Report of a Survey for Aboriginal Sites the Bushmead Rifle Range, Helena Valley, Stage 2. Unpublished report prepared by McDonald, Hales and Associates for Halpern Glick Maunsell.

Pocock, C. and Strawbridge, L. (1989) An Archaeological Survey for Aboriginal Sites on the Bushmead Rifle Range, Helena Valley. Unpublished report prepared by the Centre for Prehistory, UWA for McDonald, Hales and Associates.



15

Figures



16

Figure 1: Overall concept plan Bushmead land, showing proposed development cells (Source: Cedar woods)

H E L E N A R I V E R

K A D I N A B R O O K

INDICATIVE DESIGN SUBJECT TOLIFTING OF URBAN DEFERMENT

STRUCTURE PLAN AREA

3543

REGISTERED ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITE

BEE EATER CREEK

KADINA BROOK

ROE HWY

HELENA VALLEY ROAD

MIDLAND ROAD

SADLER DRIVE

RIDGE HILL ROAD

200 600 800400

CWPBUS RD 3029A PLAN SERIES BASE

SUBJECT SITE BOUNDARY

Aboriginal Sites Database

Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry SystemMap Showing Registered Aboriginal Sites and Other Heritage Places

Copyright for base map information shall at all times remain the property of the Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia - National Mapping Division. All rights reserved.

Cadastre, Local Government Authority, Native Title boundary data copyright © Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2011).

Geothermal Application, Geothermal Title, Mining Tenement, Petroleum Application, Petroleum Title boundary data copyright © the State of Western Australia (DMP) (2011.11).

For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Indigenous Affairs’ Terms of Use statement at http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/Terms-Of-Use/

Selected Heritage Sites

Registered Sites

Other Heritage Places

Town

Map Area

Search Area

Legend

© Government of Western Australia Report created 23 Nov 2011 12:53:29. Identifier: 861129. Page 8

Eddie

Text Box

Figure 2: Aboriginal sites and `Other Heritage Places' listed on or overlapping the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS)


Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System






Registered Sites

Town

Map Area

Search Area

Legend


Eddie

Text Box

Figure 3: Registered Aboriginal Sites listed on or overlapping the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS)

3,543

Eddie

Text Box

Ethnosciences Fig 4: Site ID 3543 as mapped on AHIS (green polygon) compared with given coordinates (red flag) (Source: AHIS)


Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System






Other Heritage Places

Town

Map Area

Search Area

Legend


Eddie

Text Box

Figure 5: ‘Other Heritage Places’ listed on the Bushmead land (Source: AHIS)

Date post:	13-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

AS1372-11 Report of a Desktop Aboriginal Heritage Assessment of Bushmead - Edited · 2018. 5....

Documents