· 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough 3270: Holiday Accommodation Park Cultural...

1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough 3270: Holiday Accommodation Park

Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790

Sponsor Tiny Away Great Ocean Road Pty Ltd

Heritage Advisor Keith Patton

Authors Jenny Fiddian and Keith Patton

Date 17 February 2020

Cultural Heritage Located

1518 Timboon – Peterborough Rd LDAD – VAHR7420-0062

AKWP Heritage Advisors Pty Ltd

PO Box 816, Werribee, Victoria 3030 Phone: 03 9731 0726 / 0439 825 489


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page i

Left Blank Intentionally


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page ii


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790

Activity Size Medium

Assessment Desktop, Standard, Complex

Sponsor Tiny Away Great Ocean Road Pty Ltd

Heritage Advisor Keith Patton

Authors Jenny Fiddian and Keith Patton

Date 17 February 2020

Cover Plate Dam: Facing south

Cultural Heritage Located 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Rd LDAD – VAHR7420-0062

AKWP Heritage Advisors Pty Ltd

PO BOX 816, Werribee, Victoria 3030

Phone: 03 9731 0726

Mobile: 0439 825 489

www.heritageadvisor.com.au

Email: [email protected]


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Compliance requirements are set out in Part 1 of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

Adrian Chia, on behalf of Tiny Away Great Ocean Road Pty Ltd, engaged AKWP Heritage Advisors on 9 September 2019 to conduct a mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plan prior to a proposed holiday accommodation park development.

There is currently no Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the region within which the activity area is located. As a result, the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet is evaluating the CHMP.

THE ACTIVITY

The proposed activity, accommodation park development, triggers a mandatory CHMP under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (r.7 (b)), as construction of a camping and caravan park is considered to be a high impact activity under the Act (r.46 (1) (b) (ii)) and is located in an area of sensitivity (r.34). The activity area is located on coastal lagoon deposits (Qg) which is identified in the regulations as Koo Wee Rup Plain.

THE LOCATION

The proposed activity is an accommodation development at 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria, 3270. The activity area is within the Parish of Narrawaturk and in the local government area of Corangamite Council. The cadastral details are Lot 3 LP220555.

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN

During the preparation of the CHMP, assessment was carried out to the level of desktop, standard and complex assessment.

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The desktop assessment identified that no Aboriginal cultural heritage places have been previously recorded within the activity area. Standard assessment did not identify any Aboriginal cultural heritage, but an area of archaeological potential was identified. This was the western half of the activity area which overlooks the estuary. As a result, under regulation 64, a complex assessment was required for the activity area in order to determine whether any cultural heritage is present, and to identify the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The complex assessment comprised a total of three 1m x 1m test pits, seventeen 50cm x 50cm shovel test pits including seven radial shovel test pits, and seven mechanically excavated 2m x 1m, 3m x 1m or 5m x 1m test pits.

Cultural material was located in two mechanically excavated test pits. The artefacts were all located in a disturbed context, the ground surface having been subjected to agricultural activity and evident episodes of flooding.

No former intact ground surface was detected within the activity area. It is considered unlikely that any cultural material is present.


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AKWP acknowledges the contribution of the following people and organisations in preparing this plan:

Greg Edwards and Joey Chatfield (KMAC)

Mundara Clarke-Leslie, Trent Clarke and Craig Edwards (EMAC)

Lucas Bannam, Brad Rose and Bill Bell (GMTOAC)

Myers Planning Group

Leigh Painter, Tania Newcome, Adam Lovett and Jenny Fiddian (AKWP Heritage Advisors)

ABBREVIATIONS

ACHRIS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register and Information System

AV Aboriginal Victoria

BP Before Present

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

CHP Cultural Heritage Permit

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System

DPC Department of Premier and Cabinet

EMAC Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation

GDA94 Geodetic Datum Australia 1994

GMTOAC Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation

HA Heritage Advisor

HV Heritage Victoria

ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Places

KMAC Kuuyung Maar Aboriginal Corporation

OAAV Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (Now AV)

RAP Registered Aboriginal Party

VAHC Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council

VAHR Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register

VAS Victoria Archaeological Survey (now part of AV and Heritage Victoria)


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page v

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iii

The Activity .................................................................................................................................. iii

The Location ................................................................................................................................ iii

Cultural Heritage Assessment Undertaken ................................................................................. iii

Cultural Heritage Assessment Results ......................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... iv

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... iv

Part 1 - Cultural Heritage Management Conditions ............................................................................... 1

Specific Cultural Heritage Management Conditions ........................................................... 1

1.1 Management Condition 1: Cultural Heritage Awareness Induction ........................ 1

1.2 Management Condition 2: A Hard Copy of the Approved CHMP Must be Held Onsite during Construction Phase ........................................................................... 1

1.3 Management Condition 3: AV Fact Sheet Series Must be Held Onsite during Construction Phase .................................................................................................. 1

1.4 Heritage Management during the Activity ............................................................. 1

1.5 Curation, Custody and Management of VAHR 7420-0062 ......................................... 2

Contingency Plans and Requirements Relating Custody and Management Of Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Dispute Resolution Principles................................................................................... 3

2.2 Discovery of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage during Works ......................................... 3

2.3 Suspected Human Remains ...................................................................................... 3

2.4 Unexpected Discovery of Isolated or Dispersed (less than five stone artefacts) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ..................................................................................... 4

2.5 Unexpected Discovery of Artefact Scatters (More Than Five Stone Artefacts) and Stratified Occupation Deposits ................................................................................ 6

Part 2 – The Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9

3.1 Preamble .................................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Reasons for Preparing the Management Plan ......................................................... 9

3.3 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Management Plan.............................................. 10

3.4 The Name of the Sponsor ...................................................................................... 10

3.5 Heritage Advisor (in accordance with Section 189 of the Act) .............................. 10

3.6 Location of the Activity Area .................................................................................. 11

3.7 The Names of Owners and or Occupiers of the Activity Area Land ....................... 11

3.8 Registered Aboriginal Parties with the Responsibility for the Activity Area .......... 11

3.9 Assessment Supervisor .......................................................................................... 11


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page vi

Activity Description ........................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Description of the Proposed Activity (in accordance with Clause 6.1, Schedule 2 of the Regulations) ..................................................................................................... 13

Documentation of Consultation ........................................................................................ 16

6.1 Consultation in Relation to the Assessment .......................................................... 16

6.2 Participation in the Conduct of the Assessment .................................................... 17

6.3 Consultation in Relation to the Management Conditions ..................................... 17

6.4 Summary of Outcomes of Consultation ................................................................. 17

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment.......................................................................... 17

7.1 Search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register ............................................ 17

7.2 The Geographic Region .......................................................................................... 18

7.3 Aboriginal Places in the Geographic Region .......................................................... 18

7.4 Previous Work in the Geographic Region .............................................................. 20

7.5 Historical and Ethno‐Historical Accounts in the Geographic Region ..................... 22

7.6 Landforms and Geomorphology of the Geographic Region .................................. 23

7.7 Flora and Fauna of the Geographic Region ............................................................ 24

7.8 Land Use History .................................................................................................... 25

7.9 Conclusions from the Desktop Assessment ........................................................... 26

Standard Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 27

Standard Assessment ........................................................................................................ 27

8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 27

8.2 Survey Methodology .............................................................................................. 27

8.3 Results Ground Survey ........................................................................................... 28

8.4 Names of Those Taking Part in Ground Survey ...................................................... 32

8.5 Ground Surface Visibility ........................................................................................ 32

8.6 Aboriginal Archaeological Places Recorded ........................................................... 32

8.7 Obstacles Encountered .......................................................................................... 32

8.8 Conclusions from the Ground Survey .................................................................... 32

Complex Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 33

Complex Assessment ........................................................................................................ 33

9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 33

9.2 Aims of the Complex Assessment .......................................................................... 33

Complex Assessment Methodology .................................................................................. 33

10.1 Methodology of the Complex Assessment ............................................................ 34

10.2 Location of Complex Assessment........................................................................... 34

10.3 Scaled Photographs (J. Fiddian) ............................................................................. 37

10.4 Names of Those Taking Part in Complex Assessment ............................................ 40


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page vii

10.5 Name of Person Responsible ................................................................................. 40

10.6 Obstacles in Complex Assessment ......................................................................... 40

10.7 Results and Conclusions of Complex Assessment .................................................. 40

10.8 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................ 40

Details of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage within the Activity ............................................... 51

11.1 Assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage .................................................... 51

Significance Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 55

Significance Assessment ................................................................................................... 55

Consideration of Section 61 Matters (Impact Assessment) ................................................................. 56

Consideration of Section 61 Matters (Impact Assessment) 1 ........................................... 56

13.1 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts .................................................................... 56

13.2 Section 61 – Harm Avoidance/Minimisation ......................................................... 56

13.3 Specific Management Measures ............................................................................ 57

13.4 CHMP Compliance Check List ................................................................................. 57

Appendix A – NOI Map .......................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix B – Draft Design Plan (Original) ........................................................................................... 60

Appendix B1 - Latest Design Plan .......................................................................................................... 61

Appendix C – Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................... 68

Appendix D – Notice of Intention to Prepare a Management Plan ...................................................... 77

Appendix E – Site Gazetteer and Database VAHR7420-0062 ............................................................... 80

Appendix F- Artefact Reburial Area ...................................................................................................... 81

Appendix G – Schedule To The Planning Scheme ................................................................................. 82

Appendix H – Provisions To The Planning Scheme ............................................................................... 83

Appendix I – Planning Properly Report ................................................................................................. 89

APPENDIX J – Engineering Services Report ........................................................................................... 94

References .......................................................................................................................................... 106

Maps

Map 1: Activity Area Location ............................................................................................................... 12

Map 2: Extent and Existing Conditions of Activity Area........................................................................ 15

Map 3: Geographic Region Including Previously Recorded Sites ......................................................... 19

Map 4: Standard Assessment ............................................................................................................... 31

Map 5: Complex Assessment ................................................................................................................ 50

Map 6: Location of VAHR 7420-0062 .................................................................................................... 54

Plates

Plate 1: Activity Area Facing East .......................................................................................................... 28


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page viii

Plate 2: Activity Area Facing South-West .............................................................................................. 28

Plate 3: Activity Area Facing West ........................................................................................................ 28

Plate 4: Activity Area Facing North-East ............................................................................................... 28

Plate 5: Facing West to Curdies Inlet .................................................................................................... 29

Plate 6: West End Facing East ............................................................................................................... 29

Plate 7: East End Facing South: High GSV ............................................................................................. 29

Plate 8: East Section Facing West Towards House ............................................................................... 29

Plate 9: Driveway and Garage Facing West .......................................................................................... 30

Plate 10: Infrastructure East End Facing North East ............................................................................. 30

Plate 11: Stockyard Facing North .......................................................................................................... 30

Plate 12: Substation Facing North ........................................................................................................ 30

Plate 13: Test Pit 1 at 30cm Facing East ................................................................................................ 37

Plate 14: Test Pit 2 at 30cm Facing North ............................................................................................. 37

Plate 15: Test Pit 3 at 40cm Facing North ............................................................................................. 37

Plate 16: ME 1 Facing North ................................................................................................................. 37


Plate 18: ME 5 at 135cm Facing North ................................................................................................. 38


Plate 20: STP 4 Facing North ................................................................................................................. 38



Plate 23: STP 10 Facing North ............................................................................................................... 39

Plate 24: ME 4 RSTP 3 Facing West ....................................................................................................... 39

Plate 25: ME 7 RSTP 2 Facing North ...................................................................................................... 39

Plate 26: ME 7 RSTP 3 Facing North ...................................................................................................... 39

Plate 27: Flakes from ME 4 ................................................................................................................... 52

Plate 28: Geometric microlith from ME 7 ............................................................................................. 52

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Details for Activity Area............................................................................................................. 9

Table 2: Sponsor Details ........................................................................................................................ 10

Table 3: Cadastral Description .............................................................................................................. 11

Table 4: Consultation ............................................................................................................................ 16

Table 5: Previously Recorded Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places in the Geographic Region ............. 18

Table 6: Locations and Attributes of Test Pit and Shovel Test Pits ....................................................... 37

Table 7: Test Pit 1 (1m x 1m) ................................................................................................................ 41




Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page ix

Figure 1: Test Pit 1 Soil Profile .............................................................................................................. 42



Table 10: Mechanically Excavated Test Pits 1 – 7 ................................................................................. 44

Table 11: Shovel test pits including radial shovel test pits ................................................................... 48

Table 12: Significance of Site VAHR7420-0062 ..................................................................................... 55


Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 16790 Page 1

PART 1 - CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

CONDITIONS

Please Note: These Conditions become compliance requirements once the Cultural Heritage Management Plan is approved. Failure to comply with a condition is an offence under section 67A of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

The Cultural Heritage Management Plan must be readily accessible to the Sponsor and their employees and contractors when carrying out the activity.

SPECIFIC CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS

1.1 Management Condition 1: Cultural Heritage Awareness Induction

The sponsor must provide an appropriate cultural heritage awareness induction for all persons involved in ground disturbance works regarding Aboriginal cultural heritage prior to the commencement of ground disturbance. Prior to the commencement of construction works a heritage advisor (HA) must be engaged to conduct a Cultural Heritage Induction for all site workers/contractors prior to, or at the commencement of the construction ground works. Members of the relevant Traditional Owner groups should be invited to participate in the induction. The cost of the CH induction will be borne by the sponsor.

1.2 Management Condition 2: A Hard Copy of the Approved CHMP Must be Held Onsite during Construction Phase

A hard copy of the approved CHMP including the compliance check list (Section 13.4) must be held on site during the activity.

1.3 Management Condition 3: AV Fact Sheet Series Must be Held Onsite during Construction Phase

AV Fact Sheet series must be held on site during the course of the activity.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Fact Sheet series is downloadable free of charge from https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-places-and-objects.

1.4 Heritage Management during the Activity

If artefacts are recovered during the works activity, a HA must be contacted to analyse and catalogue, label and package with reference to provenance and then return to the Traditional Owners (refer to contingencies below for the custody of cultural material). This cost will be at the expense of the sponsor. The sponsor must ensure that all appropriate documentation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage is completed and submitted to VAHR.

In the event that cultural material is found during works, the contingencies detailed below will determine the course of action that must be undertaken.

https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-places-and-objects



a) All future works in regards to the activity covered by this CHMP are to be restricted to the extent of the activity area as this is shown in Map 1;

b) In the case of the discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage, the provisions outlined in the Contingency Plans must be followed; and c) If any human skeletal remains are discovered, then the provisions outlined in the Contingency Plans must be followed.

1.5 Curation, Custody and Management of VAHR 7420-0062

Following the repatriation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage to Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and / or Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation and /or Kuuyung Maar Aboriginal Corporation, should any of these organisations (other than the landowner or the Museum of Victoria) wish to rebury the Aboriginal cultural heritage, then the following must occur:

a) Any such reburial should only occur with the consent of any and all relevant RAP/s and/or Traditional Owner groups;

b) The cultural material that constitutes VAHR7420-0062 is to be returned to the Traditional Owners who request and will decide whether to rebury the material or retain it in their custody. c) If they choose to rebury the Aboriginal cultural heritage material within the activity area, a safe location within the activity area that will not be disturbed in future must be made available (See Appendix F);

d) The relevant VAHR site record card must be updated and an ‘object collection’ component form must be completed;

e) Artefacts must be reburied in a durable container which may or may not be partially open to allow contact between the artefacts and the soil whilst allowing the reburied material to be readily identified as such;

f) The location of the reburied artefacts must be recorded using a differential GPS;

g) An additional sealed durable container must be buried next to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, containing copies of all documentation relating to the reburied Aboriginal cultural heritage;

h) Any reburial site(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to the VAHR.

i) Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure that the remains are not disturbed in the future and:

The cost of any such reburial must be borne by the Sponsor or an agent of the sponsor.



CONTINGENCY PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING

CUSTODY AND MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

The contingency plans presented in this section are specific to the activity area and the activity described within this CHMP. If following the approval of this CHMP any changes occur to the activity or activity area, regardless of statutory authorisations issued, or which require any changes to the management conditions contained within the approved CHMP occur, the Sponsor must either apply to amend the approved CHMP (within 5 years) or prepare and submit for evaluation a new CHMP which takes any such changes into account.

If Aboriginal cultural heritage is unexpectedly discovered during the activity, the following contingencies (which take into account matters referred to in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 [s. 61] with regards to avoidance and minimisation of harm) must be implemented by the Sponsor or the agent of the Sponsor as appropriate. The works supervisor must immediately contact and notify the sponsor of the identification of the cultural heritage material.

In accordance with the requirements of Section 24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016), the person in charge of the activity must ensure that the Secretary is notified of the discovery of any Aboriginal cultural heritage, by providing the Secretary with completed site record cards (completed by a HA) as soon as is practicable but within 14 working days. Contingency Plans that are relevant for this activity area are detailed below in this report. They include the following:

2.1 Dispute Resolution Principles

As the Secretary is evaluating the CHMP there is no requirement for a dispute resolution between a RAP and the sponsor at this stage.

2.2 Discovery of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage during Works

The procedure for managing any previously unknown sites, places and objects identified during construction activities will be:

For any Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during the activity, the sponsor must attempt to avoid harm to them or, if this is not possible, to minimise harm. In the event that it is not possible to avoid or minimise harm, the following will apply:

2.3 Suspected Human Remains

If any suspected human remains are found during any activity, works must cease. The Victoria Police and the State Coroner’s Office should be notified immediately. If there are reasonable grounds to believe the remains are Aboriginal, the Coronial Admissions and Enquiries hotline must be contacted immediately on 1300 888 544. This advice has been developed further and is described in the following 5-step contingency plan.

Any such discovery at the activity area must follow these steps.

1 Discovery

If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must stop; and,

The remains must be left in place and protected from harm or damage.



2 Notification

If suspected human remains have been found, the State Coroner’s Office and the Victoria Police must be notified immediately;

If there are reasonable grounds to believe the remains are Aboriginal ancestral remains, the Coronial Admissions and Enquiries hotline must be immediately notified on 1300 888 544;

All details of the location and nature of the human remains must be provided to the relevant authorities;

If it is confirmed by these authorities the discovered remains are Aboriginal ancestral remains, the person responsible for the activity must report the existence of them to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council in accordance with section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

3 Impact Mitigation or Salvage

The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, after taking reasonable steps to consult with any Aboriginal person or body with an interest in the Aboriginal ancestral remains, will determine the appropriate course of action as required by section 18(2)(b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

An appropriate impact mitigation or salvage strategy as determined by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council must be implemented by the sponsor.

4 Curation and further analysis

The treatment of salvaged Aboriginal ancestral remains must be in accordance with the direction of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council.

5 Reburial

Any reburial site(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to Aboriginal Victoria;

Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure the Aboriginal ancestral remains are not disturbed in the future.

2.4 Unexpected Discovery of Isolated or Dispersed (less than five stone artefacts) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

1 Discovery

A person who discovers Aboriginal cultural heritage during the activity must immediately notify the site supervisor and suspend any relevant works at the location of the discovery. An appropriate buffer (i.e. 5m) would be established of the relevant site extent (the “area of exclusion”). Works shall be immediately suspended in this area until the appropriate investigation outlined below is completed.

2 Notification

The supervisor must immediately contact and notify the sponsor of the identification of the cultural heritage material.

Traditional Owner representatives and a heritage advisor would be contacted to evaluate and record the Aboriginal cultural heritage and advise on possible management strategies.

In accordance with the requirements of Section 24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016), the person in charge of the activity must ensure that the Secretary is notified



of the discovery of any Aboriginal cultural heritage, by providing the Secretary with completed site record cards (completed by a HA) as soon as is practicable but within 14 days.


Within a period not exceeding three working days a decision/recommendation must be made by the RAP representative (if appointed) in consultation with the sponsor and the HA, as to the process to be followed to manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a culturally appropriate manner, and how to proceed with the works. Such management may include salvage operations.

Mitigation may take the following action:

The surface collection of the Aboriginal cultural heritage; and/or

As briefing to contractors on this heritage by the RAP or Traditional Owner representative/s (if they choose to participate) and the HA; and/or

The excavation of a 1m x 1m test pit to determine the nature of the Aboriginal place. Additional hand excavated test pits (such as 50cm x 50cm test pits) may be required if the place is found to have a subsurface component; and/or

Protective fencing during works; or

No further action required.

Work may recommence within the area of exclusion:

When an appropriate course of action has been agreed between the sponsor, RAP/Traditional Owner representative/s (if they choose to participate) and the HA;

The appropriate protective measures have been taken; and

All parties agree there is no alternative prudent or feasible course of action.

The sponsor must ensure that the above steps are followed and the legal obligations and requirements are complied with at all times.

The sponsor must ensure that all appropriate documentation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage is completed and submitted to Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

4 Custody

Custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage.

In circumstances where the Secretary has the responsibility for deciding whether or not to approve a management plan, the custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage (with the exception of Aboriginal ancestral remains or secret or sacred objects) discovered during or after an activity should comply with the requirements established by the Act and be assigned according to the following order of priority, as appropriate:

Any relevant RAP for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant registered native title holder for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant native title party (as defined in the Act) for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant Traditional Owner or Owners of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant Aboriginal body or organisation which has historical or contemporary interests in Aboriginal heritage relating to the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

The owner of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Museum Victoria.



AV encourages sponsors to take into account the willingness and the capacity of the proposed custodian to adequately and appropriately manage, protect or dispose of, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, salvaged Aboriginal heritage material, in preparing a management plan.

2.5 Unexpected Discovery of Artefact Scatters (More Than Five Stone Artefacts) and Stratified Occupation Deposits

1 Discovery

A person who discovers Aboriginal cultural heritage during the activity must immediately notify the site supervisor and suspend any relevant works at the location of the discovery. An appropriate buffer zone (i.e. 5m) would be established of the relevant site extent (the “area of exclusion”). ‘No Go’ signage must be established. Construction works shall be immediately suspended until the appropriate investigation outlined below is completed.

2 Notification

The supervisor must immediately contact the sponsor of the identification of the cultural heritage.

A RAP representative (if appointed) or Traditional Owner representative/s (if they choose to participate) and a HA would be contacted to evaluate and record the Aboriginal cultural heritage and advise on possible management strategies.

In accordance with the requirements of Section 24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the person in charge of the activity must ensure that the Secretary is notified of the discovery of any Aboriginal cultural heritage, by providing the Secretary with completed site record cards (completed by a HA) as soon as is practicable but within 14 days.


Within a period not exceeding three working days a decision/recommendation must be made by the RAP representative (if appointed) in consultation with the sponsor and the HA, as to the process to be followed to manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a culturally appropriate manner, and how to proceed with the works. Such management may include investigation strategies, salvage operations or in situ retention of the Aboriginal place.

In situ retention may involve:

The preservation of an area of land encompassing the Aboriginal cultural heritage that is not disturbed by development. This may be an outcome if the cultural heritage is assessed by the HA/archaeologist and the RAP representative (if appointed) to have high significance and good contextual integrity;

Change in construction methods to a process that does not impact or that reduces the impact of the construction works on the cultural heritage possible investigation strategy might be:

The surface collection of the Aboriginal cultural heritage.

A briefing to contractors on this heritage by the RAP (if appointed) and the HA.

The hand excavation of test pits (2m x 1m, 1m x 1m or other size as determined) to determine the nature of the Aboriginal place. Additional hand excavated test pits (such as 50cm x 50cm test pits) may be required if the place is found to have a stratified subsurface component.

Samples would be taken for dating analysis (if identified).

The condition that salvage of the cultural heritage should occur.



Work may recommence within the area of exclusion:

When an appropriate course of action has been agreed between the sponsor, RAP or RAP applicant/s representative/s and the HA;

The appropriate protective measures have been taken; and

All parties agree there is no alternative prudent or feasible course of action.

The Sponsor must ensure that the above steps are followed and the legal obligations and requirements are complied with at all times.

The Sponsor must ensure that all appropriate documentation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage is completed and submitted to the VAHR.

If any Aboriginal cultural heritage was to be identified during the completion of the activity it would be the responsibility of the sponsor to arrange for an appropriately qualified HA to process, catalogue and assess the material.

Following this, the Traditional Owners would assume responsibility for the custody of this material. The VAHR must be notified by the sponsor of the discovery of all Aboriginal cultural heritage. Completing and submitting any necessary records to the VAHR by the heritage advisor will meet the requirements of s.24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006*.

* In the case of the discovery of human remains, separate provisions relating to the discovery of human remains must be followed.

4 Custody of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

In circumstances where the Secretary has the responsibility for deciding whether or not to approve a management plan, the custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage (with the exception of Aboriginal ancestral remains or secret or sacred objects) discovered during or after an activity should comply with the requirements established by the Act and be assigned according to the following order of priority, as appropriate;

Any relevant RAP for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant registered native title holder for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant native title party (as defined in the Act) for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant Traditional Owner or Owners of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Any relevant Aboriginal body or organisation which has historical or contemporary interests in Aboriginal heritage relating to the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

The owner of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged;

Museum Victoria.

AV encourages sponsors to take into account the willingness and the capacity of the proposed custodian to adequately and appropriately manage, protect or dispose of in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, salvaged Aboriginal heritage material, in preparing a management plan.

5 Statement to Ensure Schedule 2 13(2) Requirements Are Met

The schedule to the relevant Planning Scheme is included in Appendix F. The relevant planning scheme Corangamite. The relevant planning scheme zoning is Rural Conservation Zone on the Planning Property Report (Appendices G and H).



6 Reviewing Compliance

In order to ensure that all work carried out is in compliance with the conditions of the CHMP, a copy of the approved CHMP, including the compliance checklist (Section 13.4) must be present on site during the activity.

This list should be used as a reference in the event that compliance with the plan is questioned. Part 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016) makes provision for the conduct of cultural heritage audits.

The Minister may require an audit if the Sponsor of a management plan has or is likely to contravene the conditions of the plan or the conditions of a permit; or if the impact of the activity on cultural heritage is deemed to be greater than determined at the time the plan was prepared. The audit must be conducted by, or under the direction of, an authorised officer. Under Section 88 of the Act, if an audit is ordered, a stop order for the activity area will be issued until the audit has been completed.

Compliance with the conditions of an approved CHMP is mandatory under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). Non-compliance that results in harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage is an offence under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the sponsor may be charged accordingly.

Should the conditions of the approved CHMP not be followed and harm has occurred to Aboriginal cultural heritage, then AV and the RAP (if appointed) must be contacted immediately.

When non-compliance is suspected that has resulted in harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, the Minister for Aboriginal Victoria may order a Cultural Heritage Audit under Section 81. An audit may be undertaken independently of an order from the Minister in order to ensure compliance.

Where AV finds that a breach of the CHMP, resulting in the harming of Aboriginal cultural heritage, the sponsor will be directed to remedy the harm.



PART 2 – THE ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

3.1 Preamble

Tiny Away Great Ocean Road Pty Ltd engaged AKWP Heritage Advisors Pty Ltd to prepare a mandatory CHMP prior to development of an accommodation park.

The project consists of a proposed holiday accommodation park of up to forty six (46) units and associated ground works at 1516 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria 3270. The activity area is within the Parish of Narrawaturk and in the local government area of Corangamite Shire Council. The cadastral details for the activity area are Lot 3 LP220555.

The proposed activity area is located in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (r.34 (1) Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018), and despite ground modification to the area in question there is still the potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage to occur within the activity area, however this potential is likely to be low due to the extent of previous ground disturbance. The activity area is located on coastal lagoon deposits (Qg) which are considered to be part of the Koo Wee Rup Plain. The proposed activity entailing the construction of a short stay accommodation park is considered to be a high impact activity under the Act (r.46 (1)(b)(ii)) and therefore triggers a mandatory CHMP at the time of writing, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (r.7 (b)).

There is currently no RAP for the region within which the activity area is located. The cadastral details for the activity area are summarised in the table below:

Address Land Parcel Number Parish

1518 Timboon – Peterborough Rd, Peterborough, Victoria 3270

Lot 3 LP220555 Narrawaturk

Table 1: Details for Activity Area

3.2 Reasons for Preparing the Management Plan

The proposed activity requires the preparation of a mandatory CHMP as it qualifies as a high impact activity and will take place within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity.

Specifically, Part 2 Division 1 r.7 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 states that a CHMP is required if:

(a) All or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and

(b) All or part of the activity is a high impact activity.

Division 3 specifies ‘areas of cultural heritage sensitivity’. Regulation 34 lists the Koo Wee Rup Plain as being an area of cultural heritage sensitivity at the time of writing the CHMP. Regulation 34 states:

(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the Koo Wee Rup Plain is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity.

(2) If part of the Koo Wee Rup Plain has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity.



(3) In this regulation, Koo Wee Rup Plain means an area identified as "Qg" and "Qm1" in the Surface Geology of Victoria 1:250 000 map book.

The activity area is located on coastal lagoon deposits (Qg) (Map 3).

Division 5 specifies ‘high impact activities’. Regulation 46 states:

(1) The construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works on land is a high impact activity if the construction of the building or the construction or carrying out of the works – a. would result in significant ground disturbance; and b. is for, or associated with, the use of the land for any one or more of the following

purposes: (ii) a camping and caravan park. (iii) a car park

Therefore, at the time of writing, this is a mandatory CHMP as required under s.46 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (the Act).

3.3 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Management Plan

Under Section 54 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Management Plan was submitted on behalf of the Sponsor, the Secretary, DPC, on 6 September 2019, before commencement of the plan. A copy of this notice is attached in Appendix D.

As there is no RAP for the Peterborough area, the CHMP will be assessed by AV on behalf of the Secretary, DPC. Aboriginal Victoria (AV) has allocated 16790 as a number for this plan.

3.4 The Name of the Sponsor

The Sponsor of this CHMP is: Tiny Away Great Ocean Road Pty Ltd.

ABN: 633812469

Address: 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough Victoria 3270

Contact Name: Adrian Chia

Phone: +6597970804

Email: [email protected]

Table 2: Sponsor Details

3.5 Heritage Advisor (in accordance with Section 189 of the Act)

The Heritage Advisor (HA) for this CHMP is Keith Patton. Keith holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology (Honours) and Geography from University College Cork, Ireland and a Master’s degree in Cultural Heritage from Deakin University Melbourne. Keith has over 14 years consulting experience in cultural heritage management, working as an archaeologist and heritage advisor in the states of Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, and in Ireland.

Professional Affiliations and Memberships:

• Australian Archaeological Association Inc. (AAA) • Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology (ASHA) • Australian International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS –Full Member).



3.6 Location of the Activity Area

The activity area covers an area of 57,144m² (5.7ha) approximately 235km south-west of the Melbourne CBD. The extent of and features within the activity area are indicated in Maps 1 and 2.

Location Description

Address: 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria 3270

SPI (Standard Parcel Identifier): 3 / LP220555

LGA: Corangamite Shire Council

Locality: Peterborough

Lot: Lot 3 LP220555

VicRoads: 100 E9

Table 3: Cadastral Description

3.7 The Names of Owners and or Occupiers of the Activity Area Land

The current owner of the activity area is Adrian Chia.

Address: 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria 3270.

3.8 Registered Aboriginal Parties with the Responsibility for the Activity Area

There is currently no RAP for the region within which the activity area is located at the time of writing. The EMAC and KMAC have previously lodged a RAP application for the Peterborough – Timboon area but these applications were declined.

In accordance with legislative requirements and best practice standards, the sponsor has elected to consult with EMAC, GMTOAC and KMAC who all have an interest in the Peterborough region.

3.9 Assessment Supervisor

Jenny Fiddian supervised the assessment. Jenny has a Master’s degree in Australian Aboriginal archaeology from La Trobe University. She has over 20 years’ experience working as an archaeologist and heritage advisor.



Map 1: Activity Area Location



ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

4.1 Description of the Proposed Activity (in accordance with Clause 6.1, Schedule 2 of the Regulations)

4.1.1 Existing Conditions

The activity area is located at 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria 3270. The extent of and features within the activity area are indicated in Map 1 and 2. It covers an area of 57,144m² (5.7ha). The activity area is a rural block that has been farmed. The property has an existing house with sheds, garage, and driveway and associated services in the eastern section of the property. There is a dam in the south-east corner, and power poles, water tanks, a radio transmission tower, fences, stockyard and electrical substation located in the eastern section. Much of the property has been cleared of all native vegetation, and exotic and native trees have been planted. The property is currently used for grazing cattle.

There are rural properties to the east, north and south, coastal reserve and Curdies Inlet estuary is on the west side and Timboon – Peterborough Road is located to the south and east (Map 2).

An enquiry to Dial Before You Dig was made on 15 October 2019. This indicated that low voltage cables, a substation and power pole are also present in the eastern section of the activity area.

4.1.2 Proposed Activity

The proposed activity at 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria 3270, is for development of a holiday accommodation park of up to 46 units. The draft concept design plan at the time of commission in September 2019 (Appendix B) for the development described the anticipated construction activities and works to be carried out.

Items of park infrastructure will include:

Reception office and reception gravel car park

Playground

Activity room

Bintan accommodation units

Minimalist accommodation units

Accommodation unit car parking spaces

Accommodation unit pathways

Gravel track roads

Sewer main extension and pump station

Internal pedestrian footpaths

Outdoor decking

Myers Planning Group acting on behalf of the sponsor informed AKWP in February 2020 that the concept design plan had changed and that the original three effluent zones associated with the accommodation park would not now be constructed and the effluent waste would now connect to the mains sewer waste water easement outside of the property in the south west corner (Appendix B 1). In order to service the development for the sewer, a privately owned sewer pump station (PS) and rising main (RM) is therefore proposed for the site. Shown conceptually in Figure 3 of the Engineering Services report attached (Appendix J), the PS would need to be constructed in the south western corner of the activity area, with the RM extending from the proposed PS, through to the Great Ocean Rd, across the Curdies River via the bridge, and into the existing Wannon Water managed PS adjacent to the hotel.



These are likely to include the following impacts on the ground surface and former buried surfaces within the activity area:

Disturbance of the current ground surface through the traffic of vehicles;

Tracked machinery during the course of all works;

Full ground disturbance to an anticipated depth of no less than 200mm, no more than 6m during the use of mechanical excavation cut-and-fill techniques to prepare the land for development; and its associated sub surface services.

With regard to the depth of the sewer services, the deepest excavated section will be the construction of the pump station in the south west corner of the activity area, as it typically requires storage capacity (wet well) below the invert of the sewer pipe (Appendix J).

Figure 1: Proposed Sewer Pump Location (Taken From Engineers Services Report - Appendix J)

The property of 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria 3270 is zoned Rural Conservation Zone on the Planning Property Report. A copy of the provisions under the planning scheme is included (Appendix H).

4.1.3 Possible Impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The likely impacts on the ground surface would likely remove or harm any Aboriginal cultural heritage throughout the extent of the activity area up to 6m in depth in the south west section of the activity area .



Map 2: Extent and Existing Conditions of Activity Area



DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION

6.1 Consultation in Relation to the Assessment

The sponsor has elected to consult with the GMTOAC, EMAC and KMAC. The following table provides details of any consultation in relation to the assessment of the activity area for the purposes of the management plan.

Date Participants Consultation Type

6 September 2019 Keith Patton (HA)

VAHR

NOI submitted to VAHR

CHMP ID number received

6 September 2019 Keith Patton Corangamite Shire Council notified

15 October 2019 Keith Patton

Bill Bell (GMTOAC)

Craig Edwards (EMAC)

Joey Chatfield (KMAC)

Notification of CHMP and Field Request forms sent to the GMTOAC, EMAC & KMAC

23 – 24 October 2019

Stage 1

28 – 29 November 2019

Stage 2

Keith Patton, Leigh Painter, Adam Lovett, Jenny Fiddian (AKWP)

Mundara Clarke-Leslie (EMAC)

Greg Edwards (KMAC)

Lucas Bannam (GMTOAC)

Leigh Painter, Adam Lovett, Jenny Fiddian (AKWP)

Brad Rose (GMTOAC)

Trent Clarke (EMAC)

Standard and Complex Assessment Stage 1

Standard and Complex Assessment Stage 2

18 November 2019

Keith Patton (HA)

Bill Bell (GMTOAC)



Results of standard and Complex Assessment emailed to GMTOAC, EMAC & KMAC

20 December 2019 VAHR

Keith Patton

Application to register Aboriginal place 7420-0062 LDAD approved.

16 January 2020 Keith Patton (HA)

Bill Bell (GMTOAC)



Further update/conditions prior to submission

Table 4: Consultation

The geomorphology, historical background and the results of the ACHRIS search were discussed with each organisation prior to fieldwork. A proposed methodology for the standard and



complex assessment was discussed and it was agreed that subsurface investigation should take place across the entire activity area with a 1m x 1m test placed on the north side, west side and east side (west of the house) of the property in the least disturbed areas, and a combination of shovel test pits and mechanical excavations at regular intervals across the property.

6.2 Participation in the Conduct of the Assessment

Fieldwork was conducted on 23 - 24 October 2019 as Stage 1, and 28 – 29 November 2019 as Stage 2, pursuant to s.60(c) of the Act. Jenny Fiddian (MA Archaeology) supervised the assessment. GMTOAC, EMAC and KMAC all participated in the assessment.

6.3 Consultation in Relation to the Management Conditions

Consultation in regard to the management conditions took place via email and telephone conversations as per Table 4 above. Consultation with the field representatives for the GMTOAC, EMAC and KMAC was ongoing throughout the standard and complex assessments, and results and management conditions were discussed with the representatives at the conclusion of the complex assessment.

6.4 Summary of Outcomes of Consultation

The GMTOAC, EMAC and KMAC were all consulted throughout the assessment and on completion. Confirmation of the results were emailed by the HA to all participants on 18 November 2019. No reply was received in return. On the 16 January 2020, Keith Patton (HA) updated the GMTOAC, EMAC and KMAC regarding the results and management conditions prior to submission of the CHMP. No reply was received in return.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

7.1 Search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register

The following section of the management plan contains the results of the desk-based assessment. There were no obstacles in completing the desktop assessment. The background research and searches associated with the desktop assessment were completed by Jenny Fiddian. The historical information and relevant background was obtained from published and unpublished documents and statutory registers were accessed, and environmental information assessed.

Aboriginal Victoria (AV) maintains a register (VAHR) of all recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites and a library of all published and unpublished reports describing investigations of Aboriginal archaeological sites in Victoria.

A search of the VAHR was undertaken by Jenny Fiddian on 14 October 2019 for information relating to the activity area. A search of the database identified that no previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological places were located within the activity area. Places were recorded within 2km of the activity area and a map generated showing the location and type of locally registered place (Map 3) s. The site cards were copied and checked against the relevant report and associated maps. A 2km radius of the activity area was searched.



7.2 The Geographic Region

The geographic region is largely characterised by Port Campbell Limestone (Nhp) on the eastern side, including the eastern half of activity area, and Coastal Lagoon Deposits (Qg) on the western side, including the western half of the activity area. The northern most section of the geographic region is mapped as Brighton Group (Nb), while the south western portion along the coast is Coastal Dune Deposits (Qdl1) and south-east along the coast is Bridgewater Formation (Qxr). The western portion of the activity area, located on coastal lagoon deposits, is identified as an area of cultural heritage sensitivity as part of the Koo Wee Rup Plain (r. 34).

The activity area is adjacent to the coastal reserve on the east side of Curdies Inlet. The soil deposits bordering the Curdies River and inlet are estuarine sedimentary deposits, made up of clay, silt, and sand, and is locally calcareous in nature. These deposits range from Pleistocene (1.6 million years ago) to recent in age (Edwards et al, 1994).

The eastern half of the activity area is part of the dissected plains of the Heytesbury Group and is defined by the Port Campbell Limestone and Gellibrand marl formations.

The geographic region discussed in this CHMP includes all land within 2km of the activity area as representative of the wider geographic region environmental conditions, geomorphology and site representation (Map 3).

7.3 Aboriginal Places in the Geographic Region

There are no Aboriginal cultural heritage places on the AV register located within the activity area (Map 3). The Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region are summarised in the table below:

VAHR Number

Place Name Place Type Proximity to Activity Area

7420-0003 Fishing Track Earth feature, shell

midden 1.5km south-east

7420-0005 Crown of Thorns Burial

Aboriginal Ancestral Remains (burial)

550m south

7420-0010 Peterborough Midden 1 Shell midden 1.2km south-east

7420-0011 Peterborough Midden 1 Shell midden 900m south-east

7420-0050 1558 Timboon Peterborough Rd Object Collection

Object collection 250m south

7420-0057 Peterborough LDAD Unprovenanced

Low density artefact distribution

1.25km west south-west

Table 5: Previously Recorded Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places in the Geographic Region



Map 3: Geographic Region Including Previously Recorded Sites



7.4 Previous Work in the Geographic Region

A search of the ACHRIS was carried out by Jenny Fiddian (HA) on 14 October 2019. The following is a summary of archaeological reports held at Aboriginal Victoria relevant to this assessment especially those reports dealing with assessments of land within the geographic region relevant to the activity area.

7.4.1 Regional Studies

Regional studies undertaken in the vicinity of the study area will assist in determining a regional site pattern.

Bird and Frankel (1991) wrote a paper questioning the theory of “intensification” manifested by an increased number of late Holocene sites and the appearance of what were perceived to be new site types. The paper discusses archaeological sites from south-west Victoria, amongst others, but focussed on this region as a range of site types (e.g. fish traps, mounds) are more prolific in this region than some other regions of south-eastern Australia. They concluded that, in their opinion, the archaeological evidence from late Holocene south-west Victoria and south-east Australia in general reflects the variability and complexity of “hunter-gatherer societies” rather than social changes leading to “intensification”. They also conclude that similar variability was likely to have occurred in response to environmental changes during the early Holocene and Pleistocene as well, but at the time of writing such evidence had not yet been revealed.

Coutts et al (1977) undertook a study designed to assess the impact of European settlement on Aboriginal society. Their approach was to outline the available evidence and present hypotheses to be tested. As part of their approach, they excavated 14 sites across the Western District of Victoria. These included three rock shelters and one mound site on the western side of the Grampians (Gariwerd), five mound sites in the central western district, three house sites south of Hamilton, and two camp sites on sandy soils beside the Hopkins River. They found that in general mound sites were clustered along major drainage systems; contained a variety of faunal remains; stone implements were mainly made from locally available stone and few formal tools were present: those that were present were generally made from imported stone. This suggested that the sites were for general use, rather than special purpose sites. They noted that the mounds had been occupied after most of the soil had been deposited. They considered that no function for the mounds could be suggested but noted that the reworked soil would have facilitated excavation of pits for burials or ovens.

The excavated rock shelters contained lithics, ovens and ochre. Analysis suggested that rock shelters were not used as intensively as the mounds. There was no evidence of large pits or burials, and it was evident that the occupants were hunting small animals and gathering locally available plants.

An artefact scatter on the banks of the Hopkins River was excavated. The assemblage was similar to those in the mounds. The report also discussed a canal system near Toolondo, rock arrangement and fish trap complex near Lake Bolac, and the stone weirs near Lake Condah.

In doing a comparison between pre-contact and post-contact sites in order to investigate settlement patterns, the authors noted that the literary sources give cursory information only regarding shelters, for example, and the more detailed descriptions are recorded later. Little information is available regarding the size and structure of camps. They conclude that there is some continuity between pre-contact and post-contact sites – traditional burial practices were maintained, stone tools continued to be made, albeit with decreasing frequency, and ochre, pits, ovens and the like were still being used. Continuity is also evident in some aspects of the lithic manufacturing industry.



7.4.2 Local Studies

A number of local studies have been undertaken in close proximity to the activity area, which will assist in determining local site patterns.

Sonego (2019) prepared a CHMP (16313) for the upgrade of the Peterborough aerodrome at 1577 Timboon – Peterborough Road, 400m south and south-east of the current activity area at its’ closest point. Ground surface visibility was poor due to thick grass coverage. The landform was a gently inclined plain that had been partially disturbed by stock trampling. No Aboriginal cultural material was located during standard assessment. Complex assessment indicated dark brown sandy silt with grass rootlets to 10cm, overlying dark brown sandy silt with increased gravel content to 44cm which in turn overlay compact dry dark brown sterile basal clay. The majority of STPs and the test pit consistently exhibited this soil profile, while four STPs on the west side of the activity area indicated no sand content but contained dark brown silt topsoil with grass rootlets overlying dark brown silt with no gravel or inclusions. Sonego noted that these soil profiles were consistent with soil profiles detailed for the Heytesbury Group, rather than the calcareous dune deposits that were expected, and she concluded that the geomorphological and geological mapping for the activity area is relatively inaccurate. No Aboriginal cultural material was located during complex assessment.

Timms (2017) completed a CHMP (14691) for a retail premises and car park at 8 Hamilton Street, Peterborough, 1km west south-west of the current activity area. The activity area was divided into two sections, A and B. Section A ran north-south on the east side and Section B ran east – west on the west side. The land slopes down gently to the north, east and west. GSV was zero across most of the activity area, and evidence of past land use included sewer pits and concrete blocks. Members of the field team recalled a house and cypress trees being present. The land surface was noted as being significantly higher than the neighbouring properties, supporting the claim that fill had been brought in to the property. Section B of the activity area incorporated the lowest point and was evidently swampy, consistent with the swampy area adjoining the wetland immediately north of the activity area. No Aboriginal cultural material was located during standard assessment. Soil profiles revealed during complex assessment indicated silty sand overlying sandy silt which became increasingly clayey. Excavation confirmed the presence of fill across the entire Section A to at least 30cm depth. One silcrete flake was located during complex assessment (VAHR7420-0057). This was located 10-20cm in depth and was located in imported fill. Timms considered it unlikely that any in situ cultural material was present.

Rhodes and Catrice (1995) completed an archaeological heritage inception report for the proposed Minerva gas field development near Port Campbell. The study area incorporated land within 2km of the current activity area. The report described Stage 1 of the study for Aboriginal and historical archaeological sites during which a field inspection was carried out. This was not a survey, but rather to verify previously recorded sites and identify areas of archaeological sensitivity. Four previously recorded Aboriginal places that were inspected by Rhodes and Catrice are within 1.5km of the current activity area (VAHR7420-0003, VAHR7421-0005, VAHR7420-0010 and VAHR7420-0011). VAHR7420-0003 and VAHR7420-0005 were able to be located but VAHR7420-0010 and VAHR7420-0011 had been destroyed. Four new places were noted but not recorded. During the field inspection eight land sample units were selected for testing, and they noted that GSV was poor due to dense grass growth. The coastline was considered to be sensitive for shell middens, artefact scatters and burials. Port Campbell National Park was identified as sensitive as it had undergone less disturbance from farming practices. Land in the vicinity of creeks, swamps and soaks was also considered to be archaeologically sensitive, and site types were likely to include surface artefact scatters. Further archaeological assessment was recommended, and it was also recommended that the pipeline



avoid areas of archaeological sensitivity wherever possible. A further recommendation was made for monitoring of ground works during construction of the pipeline.

Discussion

A site prediction model for Aboriginal archaeological sites can be developed from the information gained from the previous assessments described above. Likely site types to be found within 200m of the Curdies Inlet estuary are shell middens and low density artefact distributions , while ancestral remains may be present in sand dune locations

Further away from the estuary, shell middens will decrease in number as will low-density artefact distributions as increased levels of development occur and ground disturbance increases as a result of agricultural activity over a longer period of time will have occurred. Timboon – Peterborough Road is a busy road, and the ever growing tourism industry and traffic has resulted in increased and accelerated infrastructural development throughout the Peterborough region.

7.5 Historical and Ethno‐Historical Accounts in the Geographic Region

The desktop assessment includes a review of any relevant documentation on Aboriginal archaeology and history of the region. This is used together with information on previously recorded archaeological site locations and areas of the cultural heritage sensitivity in the surrounding region to formulate a predictive model on where Aboriginal cultural heritage sites are most likely to occur within the activity area and what site types can be reasonably expected.

Please note that the information provided here does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Girai wurrung people.

According to Dawson (1881:2 cited in Clark 1990: 209), Girrai wurrung lands commenced at the Hopkins Hill sheepwash on the Hopkins River, extended to Mount Fyans, Mount Elephant, Cloven Hills, Minninguurt, Mount Noorat, Keilambete Lake, Framlingham Aboriginal Station and up the east of the Hopkins River to Hopkins Hill.

According to Clark (1990: 208-209), the clans likely to have inhabited the Curdies River inlet area, including the activity area, were the Baradh gundidj, who were located at the mouth of the Curdies River and on the west side, and the Ngaragurd gundidj, who lived east of the Curdies River. “Ngaragurd means ‘belonging to Ngaragurd’, a locality name, either ‘Narroget’, a hill near lake Elingamite or ‘Narro gote’, the first river past the Hopkins 12 miles E. of Moonlight Head” (Clark 1990: 217).

Post-Contact Aboriginal History

According to Clark (1990: 193), who quotes J.M. Allan (Vic. 1859), when the Girai wurrung first sighted a European ship at sea they considered it a monster of the deep, named a ‘koorong’, and fled the coast. The squatting invasion of Girai wurrung land began in 1838 when William Hamilton and Watson occupied ‘Yalloak’, 40,000 acres south-west of Terang. In 1839 at least three stations were formed including ‘Mount Shadwell’ on the Hopkins River adjoining Mortlake to the west, John and William O. Allan occupied ‘Allandale’ on the Hopkins River east of Warrnambool and John M. Allan was at ‘Tooram’ on the Hopkins River from Panmure to the coast. Clark commented that during the drought years of 1838-39 and throughout the early 1840s organised groups of ‘Kirrae’, ‘Gunditjmara’ and ‘Tjapwurong’ tribes fought a sustained guerrilla war against the pastoralists.

During the 1840s, G.A. Robinson allocated protectorate districts to four assistants, and Girai wurrung lands were under Sievwright’s district. The Central Board for the Protection of the Aborigines was founded in 1860 to provide an administrative structure to manage Aboriginal



people in Victoria. Under their direction a series of missions and government stations were set up throughout Victoria where Aboriginal people could live (Department for Victorian Communities, AV Website).

Aboriginal people living on the fringes of Warrnambool went to live at the Framlingham Aboriginal Mission when it opened in 1861. The reserve is located near the Hopkins River, and included 1400ha, and included the only forested area in the region, Framlingham forest. In 1867, the Board decided to close Framlingham and move the inhabitants to the new station at Lake Condah. However, the people living on the mission refused to leave and successfully protested. Framlingham was reopened in 1869.

In 1877, a census conducted by the police listed 69 Aboriginal people at the Framlingham Aboriginal Station (Barwick 1971: Table 20). This represents the gathering together of people at the station rather than an increase in population as the total Aboriginal population of south-western Victoria decreased from 727 in 1863 to 236 in 1877. By 1863, the Aboriginal population of Victoria was less than 2000, or 13% of the estimated pre-European Aboriginal population (Barwick 1971: 288). The decline of the Aboriginal population in the area following European contact can be attributed to a number of causes: racial conflict, disease, dispossession of land and depletion of traditional food sources (Lourandos 1980: 89).

While many Aboriginal people lived on the missions and government stations, a significant number of people worked and lived on farms and pastoral stations. Some Aboriginal people farmed the land on smallholdings, or worked in industries such as fishing, gold mining, and in timber industries. People outside the reserves sometimes gathered together in camp sites on the outskirts of towns.

By the turn of the century, only a small population of Aboriginal people lived on the missions and government stations, with most living and working in the same general area. The last missions and stations were phased out in the 1920s (Department of Premier and Cabinet, AV Website).

Since the 1920s, Aboriginal people have continued to live in most areas of Victoria, often with strong ties to their original clan and tribal areas. Aboriginal history this century has been marked by peoples' efforts to maintain their collective identity and culture (Department of Premier and Cabinet, AV Website).

7.6 Landforms and Geomorphology of the Geographic Region

It is important to understand the environmental context of the activity area in order to gain a better understanding of the possible resources available to pre-contact Aboriginal people and European settlers which may have influenced past human activity. In addition, this information assists in determining the degree to which environmental (e.g. natural erosion of landforms) and/or human processes (e.g. land clearance, cultivation) would have impacted on archaeological sites.

The activity area is situated roughly 235km south-west of the Melbourne CBD and specifically is situated adjacent to the Peterborough coastal reserve, which is immediately east of the Curdies River. This landform is described geographically as Coastal Lagoon Deposits (Qg) which is identified as part of the Koo Wee Rup Plain. The activity area is located on coastal lagoon deposits (Qg) in the western half, and Port Campbell limestone (Nhp) in the eastern half (Map 3)

Coastal Lagoon Deposits are found on Quaternary alluvium predominantly within the volcanic plains and are found mainly in low-lying areas such as swamps. These soils have either self-mulching or at least strongly pedal surfaces of fine clay aggregates which grade into coarse and



fine structured strongly pedal heavy clays. The lower subsoil may be less dark or even mottled and grade into a carbonate layer. These soils have high nutrient levels including sodium (sodic). Some may be saturated for at least three months of the year due to topographic and groundwater positions, regarded as waterlogged soils. Soils indicate some mottling at depth, and high clay content throughout. Soils are deep to very deep (>2m) (DPI 2003: 101).

Port Campbell limestone forms the Heytesbury dissected plains. The drainage of the Heytesbury region has been strongly influenced by the ridges and swales of strand lines left by the retreating late Tertiary (Neogene) sea, which has formed a rectilinear pattern of parallel arcuate tributaries running north-west to south-east, and so perpendicular to rivers draining south-west. The development of the drainage has been associated with the final Late Neogene uplift of the adjacent Otways Ranges, between 2mya and 1mya (Timms 2017). The deep dissection has exposed underlying Gellibrand marl, resulting in numerous landslides, many of which remain active. Associated soil types include acidic mottled texture contrast soils (kurosols), acidic gradational soils (dermodols), some sandy and some with high organic matter content (podosols).

Climate and Rainfall

The climate within the geographic region has been described as temperate, with dry and warm summers and slightly wetter winters (LCC 1973: 408; 1991: 57). The average rainfall in this region has been described as varying from 700 mm to 1000 mm (LCC 1973: 408). Climatic conditions were therefore probably conducive to regular occupation of the area during the Holocene and late Pleistocene.

7.7 Flora and Fauna of the Geographic Region

Vegetation within the activity area consists of Damp Heath Scrub species (EVC 165) (DSE Biodiversity Interactive Map 2015). This is described as “Scrub or shrubland to 5 m tall on flat to gently sloping terrain subject to seasonal waterlogging. Dominated by a dense shrub layer and numerous graminoids on generally sandy soils.” Species present would have included Prickly Tea-tree (Leptospermum continentale), Scented Paperbark (Melaleuca squarrosa), Common Flat-pea (Platylobium obtusangulum), Hairy Rice-grass (Tetrarrhena distichophylla) and Spreading Rope-rush (Empodisma minus).

Aboriginal people utilised the roots and tubers, fruits, leaves and seeds of these plants for food, medicines and as raw materials for nets, baskets and ornaments. The underground stems of plants were collected and eaten as a starchy staple food. A variety of useful implements and weapons were formed from the locally available woods, with the bark of eucalypts used for flat shields and wood used for the manufacture of spears, sticks and clubs.

Fauna

Around the Curdies River, many birds, amphibians and freshwater mussels would have been found, while around the inlet closer to the coast numerous saltwater species of fish, shellfish and birds would also have been available. All of these would have been important to the diet of the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area.

The loss of habitat and vegetation has also meant the loss of much of the region’s indigenous wildlife. However, prior to European contact, Aboriginal people of the region would have had access to a variety of faunal resources, including birds, eggs, plant foods and game such as kangaroo, wallaby and reptiles, as well as sea mammals. The region’s woodlands would have supported koala, possums and eastern grey kangaroo. The woodlands also provided refuge for the short-nosed bandicoot, the swamp rat and Swanson’s antechinus. Curdies River would have provided habitat for platypus, fish and eels, as well as molluscs and yabbies (LCC 1973: 82). Small



mammal diversity is also high along riparian zones (LCC 1991: 120). These animals include Antechinus spp., bush rats, the New Holland mouse, and the long-nosed potoroo. Arboreal animals are generally not as prevalent, although ringtail possums and koalas are common. Typical bird species are those that feed on nectar producing plants common along the riparian zone.

7.8 Land Use History

The Peterborough area was allegedly settled by Europeans when a giant clipper called the ‘Schomberg’ was wrecked on a rock just east of Curdies Inlet (now known as Schomberg Rock) in 1855. Sealers and whalers were the first European visitors to these shores. As the colony grew Bass Strait became a major shipping route for cargo ships.

Visits by sealers to the coastal regions of south-west Victoria may have begun as early as the late 18th century. These visits appear to have been almost entirely restricted to the coastal area. Periodic visits by whalers may have begun as early as 1810. The first shore-based whaling station appears to have been that of William Dutton, who established a station at Portland in 1828 (Townrow 1997: 11). In 1846 the coastline of Port Campbell was mapped by G.S. Smythe (Loney 1984: 9). Thomas Mitchell’s account of his explorations of ‘Australia Felix’ provided a significant impetus to the movement of squatters to the west and south-west of Victoria. There was a rapid influx of settlers to the region as details of his travels became known. Edmund Henty established his settlement at Portland in 1834 (Kiddle 1963: 31). Squatting runs were rapidly established throughout the region from 1837 onwards. Occupation of the country progressed from several directions at once: overland from the north, from Melbourne and Geelong in the east and Portland in the west (Powell 1996). While some townships in the region were being laid out, other areas, such as Peterborough, Moonlight Head and Curdie Vale, were slow to settle, due to dense forest and thick scrub (Doyle 2006:45).

During the 1850-60 gold rush, the European population of Victoria dramatically increased, with the demand for land being particularly great among men returning from the diggings. This resulted in widespread land clearing for sheep grazing and agriculture. This destroyed many traditional hunting areas and led to conflict with Aboriginal people (Powell 1996).

Peterborough and Curdies Inlet were well situated for commercial fishing, with an operation set up in 1855 by a pioneer in fish curing and canning processed, James Meek. Resident fishers built huts on the beach that were demolished in the 1940s (Doyle 2006: 11). Commercial lime burning operations were established in the 19870s, exploiting limestone sources and the timber used to fuel the kilns (Harrington 2000: 53). In the early 1900s several lime works occurred near Peterborough, on the banks of the Curdies River (Doyle 2006: 43). Forest clearance and timber production saw the widespread use and destruction of forests. Sawmills were introduced in the mid-19th century near timber sources; timber harvesting on crown land was unrestricted (LCC 1976: 61).

Peterborough rapidly became a popular holiday destination in the late 19th century. During the 1930s, a golf course was established and the Peterborough Hotel was built.

Land Use History of the Activity Area

The activity area is a rural property with a house, sheds dam, radio communications pole and associated infrastructure and the land is currently used for grazing cattle. The property west of the house compound has been largely cleared of any remnant native vegetation and pine trees have been planted, providing wind breaks and shelter for cattle. To the east and north of the existing house and compound, native and introduced vegetation has been planted over the years.



7.9 Conclusions from the Desktop Assessment

Areas in close proximity to the coast are always potentially sensitive for Aboriginal Heritage Places, in particular shell middens, low density artefact distributions and stone artefact scatters. Aboriginal Ancestral human remains are also occasionally found in coastal sand deposits and are often found by accident. These areas have increased archaeological potential and significance on any remaining undisturbed sections of land.

The archaeological place record of the geographic region consists of shell middens and a low-density artefact distribution, as well as human remains and an object collection.

It is considered possible that in situ Aboriginal cultural material remains within the activity area, or as is most likely, disturbed deposits of cultural material, and these are likely to be stone artefacts rather than shell middens in this case. Given the likely soil conditions within the activity area it is unlikely that human remains would be present in the activity area.

Under 62(1) a standard assessment is required if the results of a desktop assessment show that it is reasonably possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present in the activity area.

When is a standard assessment required?

1. Subject to sub regulation (2), a standard assessment is required if the results of a desktop assessment show that it is reasonably possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present in the activity area.



STANDARD ASSESSMENT

STANDARD ASSESSMENT

8.1 Introduction

The results of the desk-based assessment indicated that there are previously recorded VAHR places in close proximity and as a result it is reasonably possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present in the activity area.

Therefore, it was considered necessary to undertake a standard assessment to assess the presence of any potential unrecorded Aboriginal cultural heritage within the activity area.

A standard assessment of the activity area by pedestrian surface survey was undertaken on 23 October 2019.

Jenny Fiddian conducted the standard assessment and her qualifications are indicated in Section 3.9. Leigh Painter and Adam Lovett (AKWP) participated in the standard assessment.

Greg Edwards (KMAC), Mundara Clarke-Leslie (EMAC) and Lucas Bannam (GMTOAC) also participated in the survey.

There were no obstacles in completing the standard assessment.

The specific aims of the standard assessment archaeological survey were as follows:

To determine if any Aboriginal archaeological sites were located on the surface within the activity area;

To identify if any areas of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity were within the activity area; and

To determine whether subsurface testing would be required.

8.2 Survey Methodology

A ground survey of the activity area was completed by traversing the activity area in a systematic manner as follows:

The survey was conducted as transects on foot with participants spaced 2m apart (Burke and Smith 2004).

Visual examination of the ground surface of the activity area was undertaken by each participant. Due to the small size of the activity area, the entire property was surveyed using a pedestrian transect methodology.

Any mature indigenous trees were examined in order to determine if scars were present.

There were no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances present. Therefore, no examination was carried out.

Following the completion of the survey, discussions were held with the Traditional Owners representatives in relation to the results of the survey and the need for further assessment.

The percentage of ground surface visibility was recorded throughout the survey. Any evidence of prior ground disturbance as well as any areas of potential archaeological sensitivity were inspected and recorded during the survey. The survey was photo logged by Jenny Fiddian to record the conditions encountered within the activity area (i.e. areas of prior disturbance and/or areas of potential archaeological sensitivity).



8.3 Results Ground Survey

The area was surveyed on foot and ground surface visibility was noted as generally very low, with exceptions being in areas where the cattle gathered such as around gates and under trees. At these locations GSV was 80-100% (Map 4). No surface artefacts on any archaeological features were located as a result of poor GSV during the survey.

Plate 1: Activity Area Facing East

Plate 2: Activity Area Facing South-West

Plate 3: Activity Area Facing West

Plate 4: Activity Area Facing North-East



Plate 5: Facing West to Curdies Inlet

Plate 6: West End Facing East

Plate 7: East End Facing South: High GSV

Plate 8: East Section Facing West Towards House



Plate 9: Driveway and Garage Facing West

Plate 10: Infrastructure East End Facing North East

Plate 11: Stockyard Facing North

Plate 12: Substation Facing North



Map 4: Standard Assessment



8.4 Names of Those Taking Part in Ground Survey

Jenny Fiddian, Keith Patton, Leigh Painter, and Adam Lovett (AKWP), Mundara Clarke-Leslie (EMAC), Greg Edwards (KMAC) and Lucas Bannam (GMTOAC) all completed the standard assessment.

8.5 Ground Surface Visibility

Ground Surface Visibility (GSV) can be defined as how much of the surface is visible and what other factors (such as vegetation, gravels or leaf litter) may limit the detection of archaeological materials (Burke and Smith 2004: 79). This can be a major factor in obscuring archaeological materials.

The higher the level of GSV, the more easily places can be identified; therefore, places with a good GSV provide a better representation of places than areas where the ground surface is obscured. GSV in most areas of the activity area was zero, while several areas where cattle congregate were up to 80% - 100% (Plate 7).

8.6 Aboriginal Archaeological Places Recorded

No Aboriginal archaeological places were recorded as a result of the standard assessment.

8.7 Obstacles Encountered

No obstacles were encountered that affected carrying out the standard assessment.

8.8 Conclusions from the Ground Survey

The ground surface survey did not locate any new Aboriginal cultural heritage places, nor any areas of archaeological sensitivity. Very poor GSV was noted across the majority of the activity are. Pugging as a result of cattle movement was evident in some areas but this was relatively shallow. The paddocks were noted as being modified by agricultural activity over the years.

As a result of very poor GSV the field team considered it possible that buried former ground surfaces may still exist and that Aboriginal cultural heritage may be present in a sub-surface context.

As a result, under regulation 64, a complex assessment was required for the activity area in order to identify the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage.

r.64: A complex assessment is required if the desktop assessment or standard assessment shows that—

Aboriginal cultural heritage is, or is likely to be, present in the activity area; and

it is not possible to identify the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area unless a complex assessment is carried out.



COMPLEX ASSESSMENT

COMPLEX ASSESSMENT

9.1 Introduction

The standard assessment indicated that former (buried) ground surfaces may exist and considered it likely that Aboriginal cultural heritage may be present as a result, therefore a complex assessment was required.

The complex assessment of the activity area was undertaken over the course of four days, in two stages, on 23 - 24 October 2019, and 28 - 29 November 2019. The program of subsurface testing was conducted by Jenny Fiddian (AKWP) in conjunction with Leigh Painter and Adam Lovett (AKWP), Mundara Clarke-Leslie and Trent Clarke (EMAC), Greg Edwards (KMAC) and Lucas Bannam and Brad Rose (GMTOAC).

The locations of all investigations are included in Table 6 and Map 5.

9.2 Aims of the Complex Assessment

The aim of the subsurface testing was to test the activity area and determine the presence and form of any Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Complex assessment of the activity area was carried out with the following aims:

To assess the depth of disturbance;

To determine the presence or absence of former land surfaces;

To determine whether archaeological material is present and record;

If present, to ascertain the nature, extent and significance of buried Aboriginal archaeological deposits, including the potential for dating artefacts and/or buried cultural features; and

If present, to assess scientific significance in conjunction with cultural significance from the relevant Aboriginal community.

COMPLEX ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The following subsurface testing methodology was developed and agreed to in consultation with Mundara Clarke-Leslie and Trent Clarke (EMAC), Greg Edwards (KMAC) and Lucas Bannam and Brad Rose (GMTOAC). The complex assessment methodology was based on the original concept design plan which identified three effluent zones associated with the accommodation park (See Appendix B).

Myers Planning Group acting on behalf of the sponsor subsequently informed AKWP in February 2020 that the concept design plan had changed and that the three effluent zones associated originally with the accommodation park would not now be constructed and the effluent waste would now connect to the mains waste water easement outside of the property in the south west corner (See Appendix B 1 and Appendix J).

The aim of the initial test pit excavations is to establish the stratigraphy within the activity area. Following the controlled excavation of a 1m x 1m test pit, the activity area is to be systematically



investigated utilising a standard shovel testing methodology and mechanically excavated test pits.

10.1 Methodology of the Complex Assessment

The field investigation process determined that three 1m x 1m test pits (TP) would be placed across the activity area in order to investigate local stratigraphy more comprehensively. One 1m x 1m test pit was placed in the south-west section of the activity area on a very slight rise. A second 1m x 1m test pit was placed in the north central section on lower lying land. A third 1m x 1m test pit was placed on a slight rise west of the existing house, and outside the mapped area of sensitivity.

The following methodology was agreed on prior to commencement:

Controlled hand excavation of the test pit by trowel and shovel in 10cm spits.

50cm x 50cm shovel test pits (STP) were excavated by shovel throughout the activity area.

Controlled mechanically excavated (ME) 2m x 1m or 3m x 1m test pits were excavated throughout the activity area to further sample comprehensively.

All removed spoil was 100% screened through a 4.75mm gauge sieve. Sieving was carried out 0.5m away from the excavated test pit or shovel probe in order to prevent soil being returned to the excavation prematurely;

The location of each test pit/shovel test pit was recorded by DGPS (MGA 95 Zone 55 Co-ordinates).

In the event that in situ archaeological material was identified, additional radial 50cm x 50cm test pits in close proximity to the original test pit would be excavated, to define the extent of that distribution. If cultural material is located in a radial test pit, it is not necessary to expand the radial test pit to 1m x 1m.

Any material suitable for dating would be collected if present.

Artefacts recovered (if present) would be recorded according to AV guidelines.

10.2 Location of Complex Assessment

Three 1m x 1m manually excavated test pits, seven mechanically excavated test pits and seventeen 50cm x 50cm shovel test pits, including seven radial shovel test pits, were excavated in total as agreed to by all parties on site subsequent to the standard assessment.

The locations and attributes of these pits are summarised in the table below.

Test Pit Depth (cm) Location Easting

Location Northing

Cultural Artefacts

Inclusions Landform

TP 1 30

Auger 40

664941 5725511 No Rootlets, ironstone,

decomposing basalt

Slight rise

TP 2 30

Auger 45

665112 5725533 No Rootlets, worms, ironstone,

decomposing basalt, 2 pieces

slag 20cm, coffee rock

Low lying

TP 3 40 665186 5725458 No Mulch, 1 piece Rise




Location Northing

Cultural Artefacts

Inclusions Landform

Sondage 54 glass top 5cm, ironstone,

decomposing basalt

ME 1 50 NE 665194

SE 665194

SW 665191

NW 665191

NE 5725512

SE 5725511

SW 5725511

NW 5725512

No Glass, bricks, pottery

Slight rise

ME 2 45 NE 665132

SE 665132

SW 665130

NW 665130

NE 5725524

SE 5725523

SW 5725523

NW 5725524

No Glass, pottery, coffee rock

Low lying

ME 3 45 NE 665053

SE 665053

SW 665051

NW 665051

NE 5725572

SE 5725571

SW 5725571

NW 5725572

No Rootlets, worms, decomposing

basalt

Low lying

ME 4 40 NE 664986

SE 664986

SW 664984

NW 664984

NE 5725583

SE 5725582

SW 5725582

NW 5725583

Yes 2 stone flakes, shell pieces,

ironstone pieces

Low lying

ME 5 145 NE 664914

SE 664914

SW 664912

NW 664912

NE 5725597

SE 5725596

SW 5725596

NW 5725597

No Water seeping in at bottom,

decomposing basalt

Low lying

ME 6 70 NE 664889

SE 664889

SW 664887

NW 664887

NE 5725484

SE 5725483

SW 5725483

NW 5725484

No Decomposing basalt

Low lying

ME 7 60 NE 664865

SE 664865

SW 664864

NW 664864

NE 5725524

SE 5725521

SW 5725521

NW 5725524

Yes Geometric microlith

Low lying

STP1 20 665122 5725476 No Rootlets, decomposing basalt pieces

Base of rise

STP2 22 664988 5725499 No Rootlets, decomposing

basalt

Low lying




Location Northing

Cultural Artefacts

Inclusions Landform

STP 3 23 665058 5725482 No Rootlets, decomposing

basalt

STP 4 26 665129 5725470 No Basalt pieces

STP 5 40 665215 5725516 No Metal handle, china piece, shell pieces,

pipe at 25cm, tree root 10cm

Top of rise

STP 6 45 665271 5725476 No Decomposing basalt, worms,

centipede, charcoal

Top of rise

STP 7 36 665221 5725473 No Metal piece, porcelain,

rootlets, tree roots,

decomposing basalt, charcoal

Top of rise

STP 8 50 665249 5725424 No Rootlets Top of rise

STP 9 29 665214 5725436 No Rootlets, tree roots, worms,

charcoal, grubs, decomposing

basalt

Top of rise

STP 10 16 665239 5725549 No Rootlets Top of rise

ME 4 RSTP 1 27 664958 5725558 No Decomposing basalt

Low lying

ME 4 RSTP 2 25 664953 5725594 No Worms, decomposing

basalt, ironstone

Low lying

ME 4 RSTP 3 37 664959 5725599 No Decomposing basalt,

ironstone, worms

Low lying

ME 4 RSTP 4 25 664962 5725592 No Worms, grubs, decomposing

basalt, ironstone

Low lying

ME 7 RSTP 1 20 664851 5725534 No Decomposing basalt, grubs

rootlets

Low lying




Location Northing

Cultural Artefacts

Inclusions Landform

ME 7 RSTP 2 24 664857 5725528 No Ironstone, worms

Low lying

ME 7 RSTP 3 25 664850 5725519 No Decomposing basalt, worms,

rootlets, ironstone

Low lying

Table 6: Locations and Attributes of Test Pit and Shovel Test Pits

10.3 Scaled Photographs (J. Fiddian)

Plate 13: Test Pit 1 at 30cm Facing East

Plate 14: Test Pit 2 at 30cm Facing North

Plate 15: Test Pit 3 at 40cm Facing North

Plate 16: ME 1 Facing North




Plate 18: ME 5 at 135cm Facing North


Plate 20: STP 4 Facing North






Plate 24: ME 4 RSTP 3 Facing West

Plate 25: ME 7 RSTP 2 Facing North Plate 26: ME 7 RSTP 3 Facing North



10.4 Names of Those Taking Part in Complex Assessment

The program of subsurface testing was conducted and supervised by Jenny Fiddian (AKWP), in conjunction with Leigh Painter, Adam Lovett and Keith Patton (AKWP), Mundara Clarke-Leslie and Trent Clarke (EMAC), Greg Edwards (KMAC) and Lucas Bannam and Brad Rose (GMTOAC).

10.5 Name of Person Responsible

Jenny Fiddian supervised both stages of complex assessment.

10.6 Obstacles in Complex Assessment

There were no obstacles encountered during the complex assessment.

10.7 Results and Conclusions of Complex Assessment

Aboriginal cultural material was located in two of the mechanically excavated test pits (ME 4 and ME 7). Radial shovel test pits were excavated around both of these test pits, four radials were excavated around ME 4 and three around ME 7 as there was no room to excavate west of the test pit because of a boundary fence line. No additional cultural material was located in any of the radial shovel test pits.

Three 1m x 1m manually excavated test pits, ten shovel test pits and seven mechanically excavated test pits were excavated across the activity area in order to comprehensively sample the activity area. Mechanically excavated test pits measured 2m x 1m (ME 2, ME 3, ME 4, ME 5 and ME 6), 3m x 1m (ME 1) and 5m x 1m (ME 7).

The soil profiles indicate that the western side of the activity area is lower lying than the eastern side and was evidently subject to periods of inundation. The soil on the western side is generally is generally a clayey loam overlying compact clay. This is consistent with coastal lagoon deposits described in the desktop assessment.

The eastern side indicated a slightly sandy clayey silt or loam overlying compact clay, and had evidence of ground disturbance through previous construction activities. Although cultural material is present within the activity area, the complex assessment has confirmed that it is most unlikely that any undisturbed deposits are present given the extent and depth of previous ground disturbance across the activity area. The extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage was confirmed.

The desktop assessment predicted a sensitivity for low density artefact distributions and predicted that the activity area would also have been exposed to previous ground disturbance as a result of the use of the land for agricultural purposes. This was confirmed during complex assessment.

10.8 Stratigraphy

The stratigraphic profile for all three test pits consisted of heavy clayey loam topsoil for a depth of 20cm, overlying a sticky compact clay at 20cm, although TP 3 reached clay at 45cm. These results are represented in Tables 7, 8 and 9 below: No Aboriginal cultural heritage was recovered from any of the 1m x 1m test pits.



Test Pit 1 was excavated in the southern paddock on a very slight rise at the western end of the activity area (Map 5).

Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour

pH Texture Moisture Structure Consistency Inclusions Boundary Artefacts

1 A 0-200 7.5YR 2.5/1 black

6.5 Slightly sandy clayey loam,

increasing clay with depth

Dry Sub angular Firm Grass roots, decomposing basalt, ironstone

Smooth None

2 B 200-300 7.5YR 2.5/1 black

Very sticky black clay, high plasticity

Damp Blocky

Sub angular

Very firm Ironstone, decomposing orange basalt pieces

Abrupt None

2 B 300-400

auger

7.5YR 2.5/1 black

Sticky black clay, high plasticity

Damp Blocky

Sub angular

Very firm Ironstone, decomposing orange basalt pieces

Smooth None

Table 7: Test Pit 1 (1m x 1m)

Test Pit 2 was excavated in the middle of the northern paddock on the lowest lying section of the activity area (Map 5).

Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


1 A 0-200 7.5YR 2.5/1 black

6.5 Clayey loam Dry Blocky

Sub angular

Firm Decomposing basalt, ironstone

Smooth None

2 B

200-300 7.5YR 2.5/1 black

Very sticky black clay, high plasticity.

Impenetrable at 30cm

Damp Blocky

Sub angular

Very firm Ironstone, decomposing basalt pieces, worms, 2

pieces slag

Abrupt None

2 B 300-450

auger

7.5YR 2.5/1 black

Highly plastic sticky black clay.

Damp Blocky

Sub angular

Very firm Smooth None




Test Pit 3 was excavated in the southern paddock on a slight rise at the eastern end of the activity area (Map 5).

Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


1 A 0-450 7.5YR 2.5/1 black

6.5 Slightly sandy clayey loamy silt

(fill)

Dry Sub angular Firm Grass roots, decomposing basalt, ironstone

Smooth None

2 B 450-550

sondage

7.5YR 2.5/1 black

7-7.5 Compact clay

Damp Blocky

Sub angular

Compact Smooth None


Figure 1: Test Pit 1 Soil Profile





Mechanically excavated (ME) test pits were placed throughout the activity area to investigate soil profiles, determine extent of previous ground disturbance and to ascertain whether cultural material was present (Map 5). Cultural material was located in ME 4 and ME 7.

ME Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour

pH Texture Moisture Consistency Inclusions Artefacts

1 1 A 0-350 10YR 4/1 Dark grey

7 Sandy clay Dry Firm Water pipe at 30cm, glass, bricks, pottery

None

2 B

350-500

10YR 5/6 Yellowish

brown

Compact clay

Dry Compact None

2 1 A 0-300 10YR 4/1 Dark grey

6.5 Sandy clay Dry Firm Glass, pottery at 15cm. Coffee rock at 30cm

None

2 B 300-460 10YR 5/6 Yellowish

brown

Compact clay Dry Compact Coffee rock None

3 1 A 0-400 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Clayey loam Dry Firm None



ME Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


B 400-450 10YR 2/1 Black

Compact clay Dry Compact Decomposing basalt None

4 1 A 0-400 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5-7 Clay Dry Compact 2 Coastal flint flakes at 30cm, ironstone pieces,

shell pieces.

Yes

5 1 A 0-600 10YR 2/1 Black

7 Clay Dry Compact None

2 B 600-800 10YR 6/6 Brownish

yellow

Compact clay Dry Compact None

3 C 800-1350

5YR 5/6 Yellowish red


4 D 1350-1450

Mottled yellow grey

white

Clay Damp Very compact

Decomposing basalt, water seepage.

None

6 1 A 0-700 10YR 2/1 Black

7 Clay Dry Compact None

2 B 700 10YR 6/6 Brownish

yellow

Compact clay Dry Very compact

None

7 1 A 0-550 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Clay Dry Compact Geometric microlith

30-35cm

Yes

2 B 550-600 10YR 6/6 Brownish

yellow

Compact clay Dry Compact Decomposing basalt None

Table 10: Mechanically Excavated Test Pits 1 – 7



Shovel test pits were excavated across the activity area to sample throughout the property. Radial shovel test pits were excavated around ME 4 and ME 7 when cultural material was located, in order to determine the extent of the cultural deposit. These were placed at all cardinal points, where possible. It was not possible to excavate west of ME 7 due to the location of the property boundary fence line.

Shovel Test Pits

STP Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


STP1

1 A 0-200 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Clay Dry Compact Rootlets, decomposing basalt pieces

None

STP2 1 A 0-220 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Clay Dry Very compact Rootlets, decomposing basalt

None

STP3 1 A 0-150 10YR 3/1 Very dark

grey

6 Fine clayey silt Dry Firm Grass roots, None

2 B 150-230

10YR 2/1 Black

6 Clay

Dry Compact Decomposing basalt None

STP4 1 A 0-260 7.5YR 2.5/2

Very dark brown

6.5 Clayey loam Dry Compact Decomposing basalt None

STP5 1 A 0-300 10YR 5/2 Greyish brown

8 Sand Dry Firm Tree root 10cm north-east – 20cm south-east

Metal handle 15cm, china, shell, pipe at 25cm

None

2 B 300-400

10YR 6/2 Light

brownish grey

Sand Dry Firm None



STP Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


STP6 1 A 0-200 10YR 3/2 Very dark

greyish brown

6 Fine sandy loam Dry to damp

Firm Tree roots, charcoal None

2 B 200-430

10YR 5/3 Brown

6-6.5

Sandy clay Dry Very firm Decomposing basalt, worms, centipede,

charcoal

None

3 C 430-450

10YR 3 /4 Dark

yellowish brown

6-6.5

Clay Moist Compact Decomposing basalt, charcoal

None

STP 7 1 A 0-260 7.5YR 3/1 Very dark

grey

6 Sandy loam Dry Weak Metal object, porcelain, grass roots, tree roots, decomposing basalt,

charcoal

None

2 B 260-360

10YR 4/2 Dark

greyish brown

7-8 Sandy clay Damp Firm Charcoal, impenetrable decomposing basalt

gravels

None

STP 8 1 A 0-500 7.5YR 4/2 Brown

7 Slightly sandy silt, < clay with depth

Dry Firm None

2 B 500 7.5YR 4/2 Brown


STP 9 1 A 0-80 7.5YR 5/1 Grey

6 Clayey silt Very dry Very firm Rootlets, tree roots, worms

None

2 B 80-280 7.5YR 5/2 Brown

6 Silty clay Very dry Very firm Worms, grubs, roots, charcoal

None



STP Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


3 C 280-290

10YR 4/2 Dark

greyish brown & 10YR 5/6 Yellowish

brown mottled

6 Clay Dry Very firm Worms, grubs, charcoal, degrading basalt

None

STP 10 1 A 0-160 7.5YR 3/2 Dark

brown

7.5 Slightly sandy clayey silt

Dry Firm Rootlets None

2 B 160 7.5YR 3/2 Dark

brown

Compact clay Dry Compact Rootlets None

ME 4 RSTP 1

south

1 A 0-270 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Clay, compact at base

Dry Compact Decomposing basalt None

ME 4 RSTP 2

west

1 A 0-250 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Clay, impenetrable at

base

Dry Compact Worms, decomposing basalt, ironstone

None

ME 4 RSTP 3

north

1 A 0-370 10YR 2/1 Black


base

Dry Compact Worms, decomposing basalt, ironstone

None

ME 4 RSTP 4

east

1 A 0-250 10YR 2/1 Black


base

Dry Compact Worms, grub, decomposing basalt,

ironstone

None



STP Context No

Soil Horizon

Depth (mm)

Munsell Colour


ME 7 RSTP 1 north

1 A 0-200 10YR 2/1 Black

5.5-6

Clayey silt Dry Firm Decomposing basalt, grubs, grass rootlets

None

2 B 200 10YR 2/1 Black

5.5-6

Clay Dry Compact Decomposing basalt None

ME 7 RSTP 2

east

1 A 0-240 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Loamy clay Dry Compact Ironstone, worms None

2 B 240 10YR 2/1 Black

Sticky clay Damp Impenetrable None

ME 7 RSTP 3

south

1 A 0-250 10YR 2/1 Black

6.5 Sticky clay Damp Impenetrable Decomposing basalt, worms, rootlets,

ironstone

None

Table 11: Shovel test pits including radial shovel test pits



The complex assessment methodology was based on the original concept design plan provided to AKWP which identified three effluent zones associated with the accommodation park (Appendix B). Myers Planning Group acting on behalf of the sponsor subsequently informed AKWP in February 2020 that the concept design plan had changed and that the three effluent zones associated with the accommodation park would not now be constructed and the effluent waste would now connect to the mains waste water easement outside of the property (Appendix B 1 and Appendix J).

The complex assessment comprised a total of three 1m x 1m test pits, seven mechanically excavated test pits and seventeen 50cm x 50cm shovel test pits, including seven radial shovel test pits excavated when cultural material was located.

Cultural material was located in two mechanically excavated test pits. These artefacts were located in a disturbed context, the ground surface having been subjected to farming activity over many years, and the low-lying sections of the activity area appear to have been subject to periodic flooding at times. This was evident in the heavy black compact clay soil deposits that dominated the western section of the activity area. In total, three sub-surface artefacts were located during complex assessment, all of which were located in a disturbed context.

The extent and depth of ground disturbance across the entire activity area indicates that it is unlikely that in situ cultural deposits are present in the activity area. The artefacts were in slightly lower lying areas and may have washed down from higher locations in the past. The artefacts included a silcrete geometric microlith and two coastal flint flakes. These would have been used for daily activities such as food processing.

The higher parts of the activity area, the area that slightly rises to the east from the coastline, has undergone previous ground disturbance as a result of the construction of the existing house, fences, sheds and associated domestic infrastructure, as well as during farming/agricultural activities. No cultural material was located on this landform and it is considered unlikely that any is present.

Although complex assessment excavation did not reach depths of excavation required for works associated with any future development, a culturally sterile clay layer was reached by 20-40cm depth across the activity area. The Traditional Owner representatives present in consultation with Jenny Fiddian were satisfied that a culturally sterile clay deposit was reached and with the extent of testing carried out during the assessment. There is no requirement to excavate further.

Aboriginal cultural material was located during complex assessment. Given the size of the activity area, the extent of testing, large or dense collections of in situ cultural material are not likely to exist in the activity area.



Map 5: Complex Assessment



DETAILS OF ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE WITHIN THE

ACTIVITY

One Aboriginal archaeological site was located within the activity area (Map 7): VAHR7420-0062, a low-density artefact distribution. The site database in Appendix E presents an analysis of the artefacts present.

The appearance of this site type confirms the prediction statement provided in the desktop assessment which concludes that LDADs are likely to occur on the plains in association with waterways, while shell middens are located closer to the coast.

11.1 Assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area involved a detailed desktop assessment and well as a thorough archaeological pedestrian survey (standard assessment) and subsurface archaeological investigation by way of complex assessment.

The applied methodology of the assessment incorporated a systematic approach to testing, where the entire activity area was surveyed on foot targeting any areas of increased exposure. The subsurface testing program also incorporated these systematic approaches, with shovel test pits and mechanically excavated test pits being placed across the activity area.

No surface artefacts were located during the standard assessment, and only a small number (n=3) were located sub-surface, all of which were in a disturbed context as a result of previous land use activities. The assemblage is indicative of food processing activities. The presence of a backed tool suggests some specialised activity may have also taken place, such as hide working or woodworking.

11.1.1 Site Formation Processes

Site formation processes were assessed through a study of the landform, soil types, stratigraphy and taphonomic processes. These processes, while extensive, are primarily associated with the use of the land for farming, and with episodes of flooding, to which the western section appears to have been periodically subjected. The Aboriginal Place was located in the western section of the activity area in a low-lying area, within which three artefacts were located at a depth of approximately 30cm (Map 6).

11.1.2 Artefact Analysis

The artefact analysis focused on determining patterns of raw material use, technology and typology. Attributes recorded for the artefact include:

Raw material, type and colour

Tool type (where applicable)

Flake scars (where applicable)

Fracture type

Platform quantity, type, width and thickness (where applicable)

Termination type (where applicable)

Retouch type (where applicable) and

Dimensions and mass.

The artefact attributes table for material located during standard and complex assessment is presented in Appendix E.



Raw Material

The artefact assemblage comprises one silcrete and two coastal flint artefacts.

Artefact Types

The artefacts located subsurface include one geometric microlith and two coastal flint flakes.

Plate 27: Flakes from ME 4

Plate 28: Geometric microlith from ME 7

11.1.3 Radiometric Dating

No culturally derived charcoal material was located during subsurface testing locations and hence was not collected for radiometric dating.

11.1.4 Statistical Analysis

As only three artefacts were located, any form of statistical analysis is meaningless. One silcrete geometric microlith and two coastal flint flakes were located during complex assessment.

11.1.5 Significance Assessment.

In order to meet the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the significance of Aboriginal archaeological sites must be assessed during the CHMP process. However, various types of significance ascribed to Aboriginal places can be divergent and are not immutable. The scientific significance of the site can be enhanced by new discoveries, dating and interpretation. The social and contemporary significance of the sites can be diminished by development, removing them from their landscape context and/or surrounding them with a largely anthropogenic landscape. However, the social significance of the places, even those that are earmarked for harm and salvage can also be enhanced through this process. The significance table assigned to the site below reflects the variability of significance ascribed to the place.



11.1.6 Extent of VAHR

The site comprises a low-density artefact distribution, the extent of which is defined by the coordinates of the locations from which the artefacts were located.

11.1.7 Nature of VAHR

The site comprises three artefacts in total found in a disturbed subsurface context. The exact and true nature of the site and its original deposition history cannot fully be determined. The artefacts include two flakes and one tool.

11.1.8 Significance of VAHR

The scientific significance of VAHR 7420-0062 has been assessed against the criteria as defined in Section 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Table 12).

The scientific significance of VAHR 7420-0062 has been assessed as low because of the small number of artefacts and the disturbed context of the place. Very little scientific information can be gained from the place as a result of this.

The Traditional Owners are the most appropriate people to determine the cultural significance of VAHR7420-0062.



Map 6: Location of VAHR 7420-0062



SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

Aboriginal cultural heritage material was located during the archaeological assessment; the significance assessment for which is described below:

Criterion Assessment

Archaeological/ Scientific Low. VAHR7420-0062 contains three artefacts, including two flakes and one tool. All were located in a disturbed

context.

Based on the number of artefacts recovered, the site condition and the relatively common occurrence of this

site within the region, given the low number of assessments undertaken to date, the site has been

assessed as having a low archaeological and scientific significance.

Contemporary/ Social The contemporary or social significance of a site is related to its association with a particular social group or

community.

The Traditional Owners are the most appropriate people to determine the social significance of any Aboriginal Place or areas of land associated with their heritage.

Historical N/A. The site is prehistoric and there are no documented or oral histories relating to this site. There is no evidence that the site was the location of an important event, nor

associated with an historic person or activity.

No oral information was supplied by EMAC, KMAC or GMTOAC during field assessment.

Spiritual Although no ‘ceremonial’ or ‘ritual’ components of the site have been identified, the place may hold spiritual

significance for certain members of the Aboriginal community.

Table 12: Significance of Site VAHR7420-0062



CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 61 MATTERS

(IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 61 MATTERS (IMPACT

ASSESSMENT) 1

13.1 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts

The Peterborough region has a long history of primarily pastoral and agricultural land use and associated development, with European settlers establishing runs in the region in the 1850s. Agricultural activities include the large scale clearance of trees, vegetation, utilising the land for grazing and the planting of crops, all of which are likely to have impacted and/or destroyed numerous unrecorded Aboriginal places. The Peterborough region has become increasingly visited by tourists, and residential developments along with commercial developments are being established, which include associated infrastructure such as road networks and utility installations.

The archaeological place record of the geographic region generally consists of shell middens, with one low-density artefact distribution and one burial also recorded. However, it should also be noted that very few archaeological studies have actually been undertaken in the current geographic region. As such, based on the number of artefacts recovered, the site condition and the occasional occurrence of this site type within the region, the site has been assessed as having a low archaeological and scientific significance. Therefore, whilst the proposed activity will impact on the Aboriginal place within the activity area, the place has a low capacity to provide any further information regarding Aboriginal peoples past behaviours in the region, and the cumulative impact of the proposed activity is considered to be low.

13.2 Section 61 – Harm Avoidance/Minimisation

This section assesses the potential for the planned accommodation park in the activity area at 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough, Victoria, to impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage. CHMPs are required to address matters raised in Section 61 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. These matters concern the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage prior to, during and after the activity. A discussion of these matters is provided below.

Much of VAHR7420-0062 is located within the land proposed to be developed into an accommodation park. The cultural heritage is located in the northern and western section of the activity area, and the majority of the place cannot be avoided during works.

Aboriginal cultural heritage was located during the assessment, and while it is considered possible that more is present in the activity area, this is likely to be of a low density and in a disturbed context.

Contingencies are provided in Part 1 of this CHMP, in the event that cultural material is revealed during works.



13.3 Specific Management Measures

Harm to VAHR7420-0062 cannot be avoided. VAHR 7420-0062 contains three artefacts. Based on the number of artefacts recovered, the site condition and the occasional occurrence of this site within the region, the site has been assessed as having low archaeological and scientific significance.

As Aboriginal cultural heritage was recovered during the course of this CHMP, and as harm to VAHR7420-0062 cannot be avoided, management conditions for the removal, custody, curation and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage are required. These management conditions are contained in Part 1 of this CHMP.

13.4 CHMP Compliance Check List

Item Complied with (Y/N)

Reasons for

Non-Compliance

Action Taken/Required (include timeframe)

CHMP Management Conditions Adopted

1 Cultural Heritage Awareness Induction

2 Approved hard copy of CHMP held on site for duration of activity

3 AV Fact Sheet series must be held on site during construction

CHMP Contingencies for management of Aboriginal cultural heritage

Heritage Advisor appointed

Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during Activity

Works stopped

Extent determined

Measures to protect (5m buffer zone and No Go signage)

Site evaluated and recorded

RAP or Aboriginal group notified

AV notified

Site record provided to AV



Item Complied with (Y/N)

Reasons for

Non-Compliance

Action Taken/Required (include timeframe)

Management action taken

Custody arrangements for cultural heritage

Contingencies for discovery of human remains

All works ceased

Remains protected

Coroner/police notified

VAHC notified

Mitigation/salvage implemented

Custody/reburial

Contingencies for dispute resolution

Custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage identified before or during the Activity



APPENDIX A – NOI MAP



APPENDIX B –DRAFT DESIGN PLAN (ORIGINAL)



APPENDIX B1 - LATEST DESIGN PLAN



APPENDIX C – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Absolute Dating: Is the process of determining a specific date for an archaeological or paleontological site or artefact. Some archaeologists prefer the terms chronometric or calendar dating, as use of the word "absolute" implies a certainty and precision that is rarely possible in archaeology. See also relative dating.

Adze: A stone tool made on flakes with steep flaking along the lateral margins and hafted for use as a wood working tool.

Alluvial Terrace: A terraced embankment of loose material adjacent to the sides of a river valley.

Amorphous: Showing no definite crystalline structure.

Angle of Applied Force: The angle at which the force of flaking is applied to a core.

Angular Fragment: A piece of stone that is blocky or angular.

Anisotropic: Having some physical properties which vary in different directions.

Anvil: A portable stone, used as a base for working stone tools. Anvils most frequently have a small circular depression in the center which is the impact damage from where cores were held while being struck by a hammer stone. An anvil may be a multi‐ functional tool also used as a grindstone and hammer stone.

Archaeological Context: The situation or circumstances in which a particular item or group of items is found.

Archaeological Site Types: The archaeological site types encountered in Australia can be divided into three main groups:

Historical Archaeological Site: An archaeological site formed since the European settlement containing physical evidence of past human activity (for example a structure, landscape or artefact scatter).

Aboriginal Contact Site: A site with a historical context such as an Aboriginal mission station or provisioning point, or a site that shows evidence of Aboriginal use of non‐traditional Aboriginal

materials and technologies (e.g. metal or ceramic artefacts).

Aboriginal Prehistoric Archaeological Site: A site that contains physical evidence of past Aboriginal activity, formed or used by Aboriginal people before European settlement.

INCLUDING

Artefact scatters Scarred Trees

Isolated artefacts Mounds

Rock shelters Rock art

Burial Structures Hearths

Shell middens Quarries

Ethnographic Items Grinding Patches

Archaeology: The study of the past through the

systematic recovery and analysis of material

culture.

Artefact: any movable object that has been

utilized modified or manufactured by humans.

Artefact Scatter: A surface scatter of cultural material. Aboriginal artefact scatters are often defined as being the occurrence of five or more items of cultural material within an area of about 10m x 10m.

Australian Height Datum: The datum used to determine elevations in Australia. The AHD is based on the mean coastal sea level being zero metres AHD.

Australian Small Tool Tradition: Stone tool assemblages found across Australia, with the exception of Tasmania, dating between 8000 BP to European contact. The tool types include hafted implements (e.g. Bondi points), bifacial and unifacial points, geometric microliths, and blades. The assemblage is named for its distinct lack of larger ‘core tools’ which characterized earlier assemblages.

Axe: A stone‐headed axe or hatchet or the stone head alone, characteristically containing two ground surfaces which meet at a bevel.

Backed Artefact: Backed artefacts are flakes retouched until they have one or more steep and relatively thick surfaces that are covered



with negative scars. Backed pieces are a feature of the ‘Australian small tool tradition’, dating from about 8000 BP in southern Australia.

Bearing: An angle measured clockwise from a north line of 0° to a given surveyed line.

Bevelled Edge: An edge which has had its angle altered.

Biface: A flaked stone artefact which has flake scars on both ventral and dorsal surfaces.

Bipolar: Technique of knapping where a core is rested on an anvil and force applied to the core at an angle close to 90o in the direction of the core's contact with the anvil.

Blade: A flake at least twice as long as it is wide.

Blaze: A mark carved in a tree trunk at about breast height. This type of mark was traditionally used by explorers or surveyors to

indicate a route of passage in a certain direction, or a particular camp location.

Bulb of Percussion: Is a convex protuberance

located at the proximal end of the ventral surface of a flake, immediately below the ring crack.

Bulbar Scar: The negative scar on a core that results from the bulb of percussion on the extracted flake.

Burial site: Usually a subsurface pit containing h uman remains and sometimes associated artefacts. Human burials can also occur a bove the ground surface within rock shelters or on tree platform burials.

Burin: A stone implement roughly rectangular in shape with a corner flaked to act as a point for piercing holes.

Cadastral: From the Latin, a cadastre is a comprehensive register of the real property of a country, and commonly includes details of the ownership, the tenure, the precise location (some can include GPS coordinates), the dimensions (and area), the cultivations if rural and the value of individual parcels of land.

Chert: Is a fine‐grained silica‐rich microcrystalline, cryptocrystalline or microfibrous sedimentary rock that may contain small fossils. It varies greatly in colour (from white to black), but most often manifests as gray, brown, greyish brown and light green to rusty red.

Cleavage Plane: A plane of weakness or preferred fracture in a rock.

Composite: An artefact made up of two or more parts joined together.

Conchoidal Fracture: describes the way that brittle materials break when they do not follow any natural planes of separation. Materials that break in this way include flint and other fine‐grained minerals, as well as most amorphous solids, such as obsidian and other types of glass.

Conjoin: A physical link between artefacts broken in antiquity. A conjoin set refers to a number of artefacts which can be been refitted together.

Contours: Lines joining points of equal height on a topographic map.

Core: An artefact from which flakes have been detached using a hammer stone. Core types include single platform, multi‐platform, and bipolar forms.

Cortex: Weathered outer surface of rock, usually chemically altered.

Crazing: Production of visible surface cracks by uncontrolled heating of rock.

Crown Land: Technically belonging to the reigning sovereign, is a class of public land, provided for the enjoyment and benefit of the people.

Crushing: Abrasion, small fracturing and the formation of ring cracks, usually along an artefacts edge.

Cryptocrystalline: Rock in which the crystal structure is too fine for clear resolution with an optical microscope.

Cultural Significance: Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter Article 1.2).

Cultural Materials: The products of human behavior, such as stone artefacts or food debris.

Datum: In surveying and geodesy, a datum is a reference point or surface against which position measurements are made, and an associated model of the shape of the earth for computing positions. Horizontal datum’s are used for describing a point on the earth's surface, in latitude and longitude or another coordinate system. Vertical datum’s are used to measure elevations or underwater depths.

Debitage: The term debitage refers to the totality of waste material produced during the production of chipped stone tools and lithic reduction.



Decortication: Removal of cortex from a stone artefact.

Dendrochronology: Is the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree‐ring growth patterns.

Denticulated: Describes a stone tool which has one edge worked into a series of notches giving a toothed or serrated cutting edge.

Discard: The movement of an object from its systemic context to an archaeological context.

Distal: The end of a flake opposite the bulb; the area of a flake containing its termination.

Direct Freehand Knapping: A method of holding the material to be flaked in the unsupported hand and directing the hammer stone with the other hand.

Dorsal Surface: The face of a flake which was the core surface prior to flake removal and may therefore retain negative flake scars or cortex.

Edge Ground Implement: A tool, such as an axe or adze which has been flaked to a rough shape and then ground against another stone to produce a sharp edge.

Edge Modification: Irregular small flake scarring along one or more margins of a flake, flaked piece or core, which is the result of utilisation/retouch or natural edge damage.

Elevation: The height above mean sea level.

Eraillure Flake: A flake formed between the

bulb of force and the bulbar scar.

Ethno‐archaeology: The study of past human behavior and of the material culture of living societies.

Ethnographic Site: An ethnographic site is one which has particular spiritual or ritual significance to a particular group of people.

Excavation: The systematic recovery of archaeological data through the exposure of buried sites and artefacts.

Excavation Report: A report outlining the reasons, aims, methods used and findings from the excavation.

Faceted Platform: A platform which is created by the removal of a number of flake scars.

Feather Termination: A termination of the fracture plane that occurs gradually (i.e. there are no sharp bends in the plane), producing a thin, low angled distal margin.

Feature: In excavations, a feature is something that a human made in the past that has not

been or cannot be moved. Examples of this would be a house floor or a hearth (fire pit). When archaeologists are excavating, they often come across features.

Flake: A piece of stone removed from a core during the process of knapping by the application of external force, which characteristically shows traces of the processes of removal: concentric fracture ripples and a bulb of percussion. Flakes with a length: breadth ratio of 2:1 or more are usually referred to as blades.

Force: The quantity of energy exerted by a moving body; power exerted; energy exerted to move another body from a state of inertia.

Formal Tool: an artefact that has been shaped by flaking, including retouch, or grinding to a predetermined form for use as a tool. Formal tools include scrapers, backed pieces, adzes and axes.

Fracture: Irregular surface produced by breaking a mineral across rather than along cleavage planes.

GDA94: Geocentric Datum of Australia. A spatial reference system which is universally implemented across Australia. The Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) is a coordinate reference system that best fits the shape of the earth as a whole. It has an origin that coincides with the center of mass of the earth, hence the term 'geocentric'

Geodesy: The science and mathematical calculations of the shape and size of the Earth.

Geographic Coordinates: a geographic coordinate system enables every location on the earth to be specified, using mainly a spherical coordinate system. There are three coordinates: latitude, longitude and geodesic height.

Geographic Information Systems: Is any system for capturing, storing, analysing, managing and presenting data and associated attributes which are spatially referenced to Earth. GIS is a system or tool or computer based methodology to collect, store, manipulate, retrieve and analyse spatially (georeferenced) data.

Geometric Microlith: A small tool that has been fashioned from breaking apart a microblade. The piece is then retouched or backed and a small tool formed.

Gilgai Soils: Soils with an undulating surface,



presenting as a pattern of mounds and depressions. Gilgai soils contain swelling clays, which shrink and swell with alternate drying and wetting cycles. They display strong cracks when dry. Elements of the soil circulate and move during the shrink‐swell process.

Global Positioning System: GPS is a satellite based navigation system originally developed by the United States Department of Defense. A GPS receiver calculates a position by measuring distances to four or more satellites of a possible 24. These orbit the Earth at all times.

Grain: A description of the size of particles or crystals in rocks or sand. Coarse grained rocks have particles or crystals which are large (1mm or more), and fine grained rocks have particles which are small (0.1mm or less).

Greywacke: Hard fine‐grained rock of variable composition containing some quartz and feldspar but mostly very fine particles of rock fragments.

Graticule: A network of crossing lines on a map representing parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude as defined by the projection.

Grid: The division of an archaeological site into small squares that denote different areas of excavation, making it easier to measure and document the site.

Grid Coordinates: A point on a map given as an easting and northing reading. The values are given in metres.

Grindstone: The abrasive stone used to abrade another artefact or to processes food. Upper and lower grind stones used to grind plants for food and medicine and/or ochre for painting. A hammer stone sometimes doubles as a hammer stone and/or anvil.

Hammer Stone: a piece of stone, often a creek/river pebble/cobble, which has been used to detach flakes from a core by percussion. During flaking, the edges of the hammer stone become ‘bruised’ or crushed by impact with the core. Hammer stones may also be used in the manufacture of petroglyphs.

Hand‐Held: Description of the method used to immobilize the rock during knapping, it which it is held in one hand and struck by a hammer stone held in the other hand.

Hardness: Resistance of material to permanent deformation.

Hearth: Usually a subsurface feature found eroding from a river or creek bank or a sand

dune – it indicates a place where Aboriginal people cooked food. The remains of hearth are usually identifiable by the presence of charcoal and sometimes clay balls (like brick fragments) and hearth stones. Remains of burnt bone or shell are sometimes preserved with a hearth.

Heat Treatment: The thermal alteration of stone (including silcrete) by stone workers to improve its flaking qualities.

Heritage: The word 'heritage' is commonly used to refer to our cultural inheritance from the past that is the evidence of human activity from Aboriginal peoples through successive periods of later migration, up to the present day. Heritage can be used to cover natural environment as well, for example the Natural Heritage Charter. Cultural heritage can be defined as those things and places associated with human activity. The definition is very broad, and includes Indigenous and historic values, places and objects, and associated values, traditions, knowledge and cultures.

Heritage Place: A place that has aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values for past, present or future generations – ‘this definition encompasses all cultural places with any potential present or future value as defined above’. Heritage place can be subdivided into Aboriginal place and historical place, for the purposes of this document.

Hinge Termination: A fracture plane that turns sharply toward the free surface of the core immediately prior to the termination of the fracture. The bend of the ventral surface is rounded and should not be confused with a step termination.

Historic Place: A place that has some significance or noted association in history.

Homogeneous: Uniform structure and property throughout the material.

Hunter‐Gatherer: A member of a society who gains their subsistence in the wild on food obtained by hunting and foraging.

Hydrology: Is the study of the movement, distribution, and quality of water throughout the Earth.

ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites): ICOMOS is a nongovernment professional organisation closely linked to UNESCO, with national committees in some 100 countries with the headquarters in France.



ICOMOS promotes expertise in the conservation of cultural heritage. It was formed in 1965, and has a responsibility to advise UNESCO in the assessment of sites proposed for the World Heritage List. Australia ICOMOS was formed in 1976. Its fifteen-member executive committee is responsible for carrying out national programs and participating in decisions of ICOMOS.

Incipient Crack: A crack or line of weakness in the rock.

Inclusion: An impurity or foreign body in the stone that reduces the homogeneity of the rock.

Indirect Percussion: Punch technique.

Interpretation: The process of explaining the meaning or use of an artefact.

Inward Force: Force applied to the platform, and directed into the body of the core.

Isolated Artefact: The occurrence of less than five items of cultural material within an area of about 100 sq. metres. It/they can be evidence of a short‐ lived (or one‐off) activity location, the result of an artefact being lost or discarded during travel, or evidence of an artefact scatter that is otherwise obscured by poor ground visibility.

Knapper: A person who creates stone artefacts by striking rocks and causing them to fracture.

Knapping Floor: The debris left on one spot and resulting from the reduction of one block of r aw material. A knapping location is a site comprised of one or more knapping floors.

Koori: Koori is an Aboriginal term used to describe Indigenous people from Victoria and southern New South Wales.

Lateral Margins: The margins of a flake either side of the percussion axis.

Latitude: The angular distance along a meridian measured from the Equator, either north or south.

Layer: The layer is the level in which archaeologists dig. All excavation sites have different numbers of layers. Archaeologists try to work out when they are moving to a new layer by cultural or man‐made clues like floors, but sometimes they will go by changes in soil colour or soil type.

Longitude: The angular distance measured from

a reference meridian, Greenwich, either east or

west.

Longitudinal Cross Section: The cross‐section of

a flake along its percussion axis.

Magnetic North: The direction from a point on the earth's surface to the north magnetic pole. The difference between magnetic north and true north is referred to as magnetic declination.

Maintenance: The process of keeping an artefact in a particular state or condition. An edge which is being used is maintained by flaking off blunted portions. A core is maintained by keeping its characteristics within the limits required for certain types of flaking.

Manufacture: The process of making an artefact.

Manuport: Foreign fragment, chunk or lump of s tone that shows no clear sings of flaking but is out of geological context and must have been transported to the site by people.

Map Scale: The relationship between a distance on a map and the corresponding distance on the earth's surface.

Margin: Edge between the ventral and dorsal surfaces of a flake.

Material Culture: A term that refers to the physical objects created by a culture. This could include the buildings, tools and other artefacts created by the members of a society.

Mercator projection: A conformal cylindrical projection tangential to the Equator. Rhumb lines on this projection are represented as straight lines.

Meridian: A straight line connecting the North and South Poles and traversing points of equal longitude.

MGA94: The Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of eastings, northings, and zones generated from GDA94 are called Map Grid of Australia 1994 coordinates.

Microblade: A very small narrow blade.

Microcrystalline: Rocks in which the crystals

are very small but visible in an optical

microscope.

Microwear: Microscopic use‐wear.

Moiety: A moiety is a half. Tribes were composed of two moieties (halves) and each clan belonged to one of the moieties.

Mound: These sites, often appearing as raised areas of darker soil, are found most commonly in the volcanic plains of western Victoria or on higher ground near bodies of water. The majority were probably formed by a slow buildup of debris resulting from earth‐oven



cooking: although some may have been formed by the collapse of sod or turf structures. It has also been suggested some were deliberately constructed as hut foundations.

Morphology: The topographical characteristics of the exterior of an artefact.

Mosaic: A number of continuous aerial photographs overlapped and joined together by way of 'best fit' to form a single non‐rectified image.

Negative Bulb of Force: The concave surface left after a flake has been removed. See Bulbar Scar.

Notched: Serration or series of alternating noses and concavities.

Obtrusiveness: How visible a site is within a particular landscape. Some site types are more conspicuous than others. A surface stone artefact scatter is generally not obtrusive, but a scarred tree will be.

Overhang: The lip on a core or retouched flake, caused by the platform being undercut by the bulb on the flake removed.

Overhang Removal: The act of brushing or tapping the platform edge in order to remove the overhang in a series of small flakes.

Overlays: The Victorian Planning Provisions establish a number of different Overlays to show the type of use and development allowed in a municipality. Heritage Overlays will list places of defensible cultural heritage significance.

Patina: An alteration of rock surfaces by molecular or chemical change (but not by attrition, hence not to be confused with sand blasting).

Pebble/Cobble: Natural stone fragments of any shape. Pebbles are 2‐60 mm in size and cobbles are 60‐200 mm in size.

Percussion: The act of hitting a core with a hammer stone to strike off flakes.

Percussion Flaking: The process of detaching flakes by striking with a percussor.

Percussion Length: The distance along the ventral surface from the ring crack to the flake termination.

Place: Place means a site, area, land, landscape, building or other works, group of buildings or other works, and may include components, contents, spaces and views. (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter Article 1.1)

Plane of Fracture: The fracture path which produces the ventral surface of a flake.

Planning Scheme: The legal instrument that sets out the provisions for land use, development, and protection in Victoria. Every municipality in Victoria has a planning scheme.

Platform: Any surface to which a fabricator is applied when knapping.

Platform Angle: 1. The angle between the platform and core face on a core. 2. The angle between the platform and dorsal surface on a flake. 3. The angle between the platform and flaked surface on a retouched flake.

Platform Preparation: Alteration of the portion of the platform which receives the fabricator by grinding, polishing or flaking. Removal of small flake scars on the dorsal edge of a flake, opposite the bulb of percussion. These overhang removal scars are produced to prevent a platform from shattering.

Platform Removal Flake: A flake which contains a platform on the dorsal surface.

Point of Force Application: The area of the platform in contact with the indenter during knapping. Also known as point of contact.

Positive Bulb of Force: Bulb of force.

Post‐Depositional Processes: The natural or cultural processes which may differentially impact upon archaeological sediments after they deposited.

Potlids: A concave‐convex or plano‐convex fragment of stone. Potlids never have a ringcrack or any other feature relating to the input of external force. They often have a central protuberance which indicates an internal initiation to the fracture. Potlids are the result of differential expansion of heated rock.

Pre‐Contact: Before contact with non‐Aboriginal people.

Post‐Contact: After contact with non‐Aboriginal people.

Pressure Flaking: The process of detaching flakes by a pressing force. Also Static Loading.

Primary Decortication: The first removal of cortex from a core, creating a primary decortication flake. The flake will have a dorsal surface covered entirely by cortex.

Procurement: Obtaining raw materials.

Provenance: The location of an artefact or

feature both vertically and horizontally in the



site. Archaeologists record the provenance of artefacts and features in their field books and on the artefact bag. Provenance is important because it gives archaeologists the history and context of an object, i.e., exactly where it was found on the site.

Punch: An object which is placed on a core or retouched flake and receives the blow from the percussor.

Quarry: A place where humans obtained stone or ochre for artefact manufacture. A place where stone or ochre is exposed and has been extracted by Aboriginal people. The rock types most commonly quarried for artefact manufacture in Victoria include silcrete, quartz, quartzite, chert and fine‐grained volcanics such as greenstone.

Quartz: A form of silica.

Quartzite: Sandstone in which the quartz sand grains are completely cemented together by secondary quartz deposited from solution.

Radiocarbon Dating: Also called carbon dating and C‐14 dating. It is used to work out the approximate age of an artefact by measuring the amount of carbon 14 it contains. This dating technique is not perfect. It can only be used on organic remains (typically wood or charcoal). Also radiocarbon is only accurate to ±50 years, and cannot accurately date objects more than 50,000 years old.

Redirecting Flake: A flake which uses an old platform as a dorsal ridge to direct the fracture plane.

Redirection: Rotation of a core and initiation of flaking from a new platform situated at right angles to a previous platform. It produces a redirecting flake.

Reduction: Process of breaking down stone by either flaking or grinding.

Reduction Sequence: A description of the order in which reduction occurs within one block of stone.

Rejuvenate: The process of flaking in such a way that further reduction is possible or is easier. This usually involves removing unwanted features, such as step terminations, or making unsuitable characteristics more favorable, for example changing the platform angle. A Rejuvenation flake is a flake that has been

knapped from a core solely for the purpose of preparing a new platform and making it easier to get flakes off a core, as it reduces that angle between platform and core surface.

Relative Dating: A general method of dating objects, which uses their relation to other objects. For example, artefacts found in lower layer are typically older than artefacts in higher layer.

Relic: Deposit, object or material evidence of human past.

Replica: A copy of a prehistoric artefact made by a modern investigator for research purposes.

Replicative Systems Analysis: A method of analysing prehistoric artefacts by creating exact replicas of all the manufacturing debris.

Reserves: The word 'reserve' derives from the land being reserved for a particular public use. Crown land retained in public ownership, but not reserved is termed unreserved Crown land.

Resharpening: The process of making a blunt edge sharper by grinding or flaking.

Retouched Flake: A flake that has subsequently been re‐flaked. A flake, flaked piece or core with intentional secondary flaking along one or more edges.

Retouching: The act of knapping a flake into a retouched flake.

Ridge: The intersection of two surfaces, often at the junction of two negative scars.

Ring Crack: A circular pattern of micro‐fissures penetrating into the artefact around the Point of Force Application and initiating the fracture. It appears on the ventral surface usually as a semi‐ circular protuberance on the edge of the platform.

Rock Art: Paintings, engravings and shallow relief work on natural rock surfaces. Paintings were often produced by mineral pigments, such as ochre, combined with clay and usually mixed with water to form a paste or liquid that was applied to an unprepared rock surface.

Run: A large area of land in which squatters could pasture their stock without a lot of fencing necessary. Employed shepherds looked after various areas of the runs. Runs became consolidated pastoral holdings. Many of the runs were about 25 sq miles in area and later became parishes.

Sand: Quartz grains with only a small content



of other materials. Grain size 2.00 mm to 0.05 mm.

Sandstone: A sedimentary rock composed of sand, and with only a small amount of other material, which has been consolidated by argillaceous or calcareous bonding of grains.

Sahul: This is the name given to the continent when Australia and New Guinea were a single landmass during the Pleistocene era. During this period, sea levels were approximately 150 metres lower than present levels.

Scar: The feature left on an artefact by the removal of a flake. Includes negative bulb, negative ring crack and negative termination.

Scarred tree: Scars on trees may be the result of removal of strips of bark by Aborigines e.g. for the manufacture of utensils, canoes or for shelter; or resulting from small notches chopped into the bark to provide hand and toe holds for hunting possums and koalas. Some scars may be the result of non‐ Aboriginal activity, such as surveyors’ marks.

Scraper: A flake, flaked piece or core with systematic retouch on one or more margins.

Screen: A screen is used by an archaeologist to sift excavated soil in search of small artefacts like nails, ceramic fragments, and organic material like seeds, shell, and bone. Can be either manual (hand held) or mechanical.

Secondary Decortication: The removal of cortex from a core after the primary decortication flake. A secondary decortication flake is one that has both cortex and flake scars on the dorsal surface.

Selection: Runs were subdivided into selections for farming, agriculture and grazing homesteads. After a period of yearly rental payments, the selector could often obtain freehold ownership.

Shell Midden: A surface scatter and/or deposit comprised mainly of shell, sometimes containing stone artefacts, charcoal, bone and manuports. These site types are normally found in association with coastlines, rivers, creeks and swamps – wherever coastal, riverine or estuarine shellfish resources were accessed and exploited.

Sieve: See Screen.

Significance: Significance is a term used to describe an item's heritage value. Values might

include natural, Indigenous, aesthetic, historic, scientific or social importance.

Silica: Silicon dioxide.

Silcrete: A silicified sediment.

Siliceous: Having high silica content.

Site: An area designated for archaeological exploration by excavation and/or survey usually due to the presence of a concentration of cultural material.

Step Termination: A fracture plane that turns sharply towards the free surface of the core immediately prior to the termination of the fracture. The bend of the ventral surface is sharp, often a right angle.

Stratification: Over time, debris and soil accumulate in layers (strata). Colour, texture, and contents may change with each layer. Archaeologists try to explain how each layer was added‐‐if it occurred naturally, deliberately (garbage), or from the collapse of structures‐and they record it in detailed drawings so others can follow. Stratigraphy refers to the interpretation of the layers in archaeological deposits. Usually, the artefacts found on top are the youngest (most recent), while those on the bottom are the oldest.

Structures (Aboriginal): Can refer to a number of different site types, grouped here only because of their relative rarity and their status as built structures. Most structures tend to be made of locally available rock, such as rock arrangements (ceremonial and domestic), fish traps, dams and cairns, or of earth, such as mounds or some fish traps.

Surface Site: A site where artefacts are found on the ground surface.

Taphonomy: The study of the depositional and preservation processes which produce archaeological or paleontological material.

Termination: The point at which the fracture

plain reaches the surface of a core and detaches

a flake.

Tertiary Flake: A flake without cortex.

Theodolite: Instrument used by a surveyor for measuring horizontal and vertical angles.

Thermal Treatment: Alteration of siliceous materials by controlled exposure to heat.

Thickness: Measurement of the distance between the dorsal and ventral surfaces of a flake.



Thumbnail Scraper: A convex edged scraper that is small, generally the size of a thumbnail.

Tool: Any object that is used.

Topographic Map: A detailed representation of cultural, hydrographic relief and vegetation features. These are depicted on a map on a designated projection and at a designated scale.

Transverse Cross Section: The cross section of a flake at 90o to the length.

Transverse Mercator Projection: A projection similar to the Mercator projection, but has the cylinder tangent at a particular meridian rather than at the equator.

True North: The direction to the Earth's geographic North Pole.

Tula: A flake with a prominent bulb, large platform and platform/ventral surface angle of about 130o, which is retouched at the distal end. Not to be confused with a Tula Adze.

Tula Adze: A composite tool observed ethnographically, consisting of a stone artefact (often a Tula), a wooden handle and resin.

Unidirectional Core: Core from which flakes were removed from one platform surface and in only one direction. Unifacial: Artefact flaked on only one side. Unit: Archaeologists lay out a grid over a site to divide it into units, which may vary in size, and then figure out which units will be dug. Archaeologists dig one unit at a time. Keeping track of specific measurements between artefacts and features gives archaeologists the ability to draw an overall map looking down on the site (called a floor plan), to get the bigger picture of the site.

Use‐wear: Damage to the edges or working surfaces of tools sustained in use.

Ventral Surface: The surface of a flake created when it is removed and identified mainly by the presence of a ring crack.

Visibility: The degree to which the surface of the ground can be seen. This may be influenced by natural processes such as wind erosion or the character of the native vegetation, and by land‐use practices, such as ploughing or grading. Visibility is generally expressed in terms of the percentage of the ground surface visible for a project area



APPENDIX D – NOTICE OF INTENTION TO

PREPARE A MANAGEMENT PLAN



APPENDIX E – SITE GAZETTEER AND DATABASE VAHR7420-0062

VAHR Number Place Name Place Type Place Content PGC

7420-0062 1518 Timboon –

Peterborough Rd LDAD

Low density artefact distribution

One silcrete geometric microlith, two coastal flint flakes

664961E 5725592N

Table A1: Gazetteer VAHR7420-0062

Co-ordinates Location, depth

Artefact type

Material Colour Dimensions

mm Usewear / Retouch Termination Platform Cortex %

664995E 5725477N

ME 7, 30cm Geometric microlith

Silcrete Mottled

grey 15x8.5x3 Backing left margin n/a Plain 0

92

664961E 5725592N

ME 4, 30cm Complete

flake Coastal

flint Beige 10x8x2 No feather Plain 80

664961E 5725592N

ME 4, 30cm Complete

flake Coastal

flint Beige 19x13x3 No feather Point 70

Table A2: Site Database



APPENDIX F- ARTEFACT REBURIAL AREA



APPENDIX G – SCHEDULE TO THE PLANNING

SCHEME



APPENDIX H – PROVISIONS TO THE PLANNING

SCHEME



APPENDIX I – PLANNING PROPERLY REPORT



APPENDIX J – ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT



REFERENCES

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Act No. 16/2006 (amended 2016)

Australian ICOMOS 1999, The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter). Revised edition, Australian ICOMOS, Brisbane.

Barwick, D. E. 1971. Changes in the Aboriginal Population of Victoria, 1863-1966. In Mulvaney, D. J. and Golson, J. (eds), Aboriginal man and environment in Australia. Canberra, 288-315.

Bird, C. and D. Frankel, 1991. Chronology and explanation in western Victoria and south-east South Australia. In Archaeology in Oceania 26: 1-16.

Burke, H. & C. Smith, 2004.The archaeologist’s field handbook. Crow’s Nest NSW, Allen and Unwin.

Clark, I.D. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800–1900. Monash Publications in Geography No. 37.

Coutts, P., D. Witter and D. Parsons, 1977. Impact of European Settlement on Aboriginal Society in Western Victoria. In Records of the Victorian Archaeological Survey No. 4, pp. 17-58.

Dawson, J. 1881. Australian Aborigines: the languages and customs of several tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria. Robertson, Melbourne.

Department of Primary Industries, 2003. A land resource assessment of the Corangamite region.

Doyle, H. 2006. Moyne Shire Heritage Study Stage 2. Volume 2: Environmental History. Prepared for Moyne Shire Council.

Edwards, J., S. Tickell, C. Abele, A. Willocks, A. Eaton, J. Cramer, R. King and S. Bourton, 1994. Port Campbell Embayment 1:100,000 Geological Map. Geological Survey of Victoria.

Harrington, J. 2000. An Archaeological and Historical Overview of Limeburning in Victoria. Heritage Council Victoria.

Kiddle, M. 1963. Men of Yesteryear: A Social History of the Western District of Victoria 1834-1890. Melbourne University press, Melbourne.

Land Conservation Council (LCC). 1973. Report on the Melbourne Study Area. Land Conservation Council: Melbourne.

Land Conservation Council, 1976. Report of the Corangamite Study Area. Government Printer, Melbourne.

Land Conservation Council, 1991. Melbourne Area, District 2 Review, Descriptive Report. Land Conservation Council.

Loney, J. 1984. The Great Ocean Road: Tourist and historical guide. Neptune Press, Newtown.

Powell, J.M. 1996. Historical Geography. In Land Conservation Council, 1996. Historic Places Special Investigation: South Western Victoria Descriptive Report. Land Conservation Council, Melbourne, pp 79-100.

Rhodes, D. and D. Catrice, 1995. Minerva Gas Field Development Proposal EIA. Archaeological Heritage Inception Report. Report for Sinclair Knight Merz and BHP Petroleum Pty. Ltd.

Sonego, L. 2019. Peterborough Aerodrome Upgrade: 1577 Timboon – Peterborough Road. CHMP 16313 for Glenample Air Pty. Ltd.



Timms, S. 2017. 8 Hamilton Street, Peterborough. Retail Premises and Car Park. CHMP 14691 for GOR Retreat Peterborough Pty Ltd.

Townrow, K., 1997. An Archaeological Survey of Sealing and Whaling Sites in Victoria. Heritage Victoria and Australia Heritage Commission.

Websites

Aboriginal Victoria

https://applications.vic.gov.au/apps/weave/server/request/execute.do?

https://applications.vic.gov.au/apps/achris/public/home. Accessed 16 August 2015

Biodiversity Interactive Maps, http://mapshare3.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare3EXT/imfLayers.jsp GeoVic, http://mapshare3.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare3EXT/imf.jsp?site=geovic

Bureau of Meteorology: http://www.bom.gov.au/

Ecological Vegetation Class Benchmarks for each Bioregion. Retrieved May 2014, from http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/native-vegetation-groups-for-Victoria/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion

GeoVic: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/exploration-and-mining/tools-and-resources/geovic

Google Earth Google Maps, https://maps.google.com.au/

Heritage Victoria website, http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/

National Heritage Database website, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl

National Trust (Victoria) website, http://www.nattrust.com.au/info.asp?pg=hpdsearch Planning Schemes Online, http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/

State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (2013).

Victoria Resources Online: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/vro

http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/

· 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough 3270: Holiday Accommodation Park Cultural...

Documents

Transcript of · 1518 Timboon – Peterborough Road, Peterborough 3270: Holiday Accommodation Park Cultural...