GRWP Works Approval Application

6583830

available at:

Appendix I Appendix J Ecological and Planning Cultural Heritage Due Assessment Report Diligence

CH2M Beca // 25 March 2021 6583830 // page 123 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Report Heritage Due Diligence Report

Prepared for Western Water

Prepared by CH2M Beca Ltd

17 December 2020 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Table of Contents Document Acceptance...... iii Abbreviations ...... v Executive Summary ...... vii Introduction ...... vii Desktop assessment ...... vii Aboriginal heritage ...... vii Historical heritage ...... vii Recommendations...... viii Aboriginal heritage ...... viii Historical heritage ...... viii Important note about your report ...... ix 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project description ...... 1 1.2 Project location ...... 1 1.3 Purpose of assessment ...... 1 1.4 Authorship of the report ...... 2 2 Review of relevant legislation ...... 4 2.1 Victorian State legislation ...... 4 2.1.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 ...... 4 2.1.2 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 ...... 4 2.1.3 Heritage Act 2017 ...... 5 2.1.4 Planning and Environment Act 1987 ...... 6 2.2 Commonwealth legislation ...... 6 2.2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1984 ...... 6 3 Desktop assessment ...... 8 3.1 Aboriginal heritage ...... 8 3.1.1 Ethno-history ...... 8 3.1.2 Existing conditions ...... 8 3.1.3 Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity ...... 9 3.1.4 Previous Aboriginal heritage assessments ...... 9 3.1.5 Sensitive landforms ...... 11 3.1.6 Predictive statement ...... 12 3.1.7 Conclusion ...... 12 3.2 Historical heritage ...... 16 3.2.1 Historical background ...... 16 3.2.2 Previous historical heritage assessments ...... 16 3.2.3 Review of aerial imagery ...... 17 3.2.4 Register searches ...... 17

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page i Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

3.2.5 Predictive statement ...... 18 3.2.6 Conclusion ...... 18 4 Recommendations...... 20 4.1 Summary ...... 20 4.2 Aboriginal heritage recommendations ...... 20 4.2.1 High impact activities ...... 20 4.2.2 Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity ...... 20 4.2.3 Cultural Heritage Management Plan requirement ...... 20 4.3 Historical heritage recommendations ...... 21 4.3.1 Further historical heritage assessment...... 21 4.3.2 Discovery of archaeological sites ...... 21 4.3.3 Heritage induction training ...... 22 5 References ...... 23 Glossary ...... 24 Glossary ...... 1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 The project area with descriptions of proposed works ...... 3 Figure 3-1 Aboriginal Places and areas of CHS within 3 km of the project area ...... 13 Figure 3-2 Aboriginal Places within the project area ...... 14 Figure 3-3 extent of VAHR 7823-0195 ...... 15

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Aboriginal Places within 3 km of the project area ...... 8 Table 3-2 Previous Aboriginal cultural heritage studies ...... 9 Table 3-3 Summary of previous historical heritage assessments ...... 17 Table 3-4 Historical heritage in proximity to the project area ...... 18 Table 4-1 Summary of existing conditions and predicted archaeological sensitivity ...... 20

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page ii Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date

1 Kane Winchester Issue for CH technical review 03/09/2020

2 Kane Winchester Issue for CH2M Beca PM review 11/09/2020

3 Terrie Burns Update based on WW Comments

Document Acceptance

Action Name Signed Date

Prepared by Kane Winchester 03/09/2020

Reviewed by Rose Overberg (Aboriginal 04/09/2020 heritage)

Reviewed by Karen Murphy (Historical 07/09/2020 heritage)

Approved by Kate Munro 21/09/2020

on behalf of CH2M Beca

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page iii Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

© CH2M Beca 2020 (unless CH2M Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing). This report has been prepared by CH2M Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page iv Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Abbreviations

Aboriginal Places Registered Cultural Heritage Places

the Act Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

AV Aboriginal Victoria

CH2M Beca CH2M Beca Ltd

CHL Commonwealth Heritage List

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

CHS Cultural Heritage Sensitivity

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

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

the Heritage Act Heritage Act 2017

HV Heritage Victoria

LGA Local Government Area

HO Heritage Overlay

NT National Trust Register

NHL National Heritage List

the project Gisborne Recycled Water Plant Upgrade

PAHT Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Test

RAP Registered Aboriginal Party

the Regulations Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007

RNE Register of the National Estate

RWP Recycled Water Plant

SPS Sewage Pumping Station

VAHR Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page v Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

VHI Victorian Heritage Inventory

VHR Victoria Heritage Register

WHL World Heritage List

WW Western Water

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page vi Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Executive Summary

Introduction CH2M Beca Ltd (CH2M Beca) have been engaged by Western Water (WW) to provide services related to the Gisborne Recycled Water Plant (RWP) upgrade concept design. In 2017 WW identified upgrades for the Gisborne RWP based on expected increased demands from predicted population growth of the township of Gisborne between 2021 and 2065. Works approvals are required by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) before any works can progress. CH2M Beca have produced technical documents for the works approval. The proposed works will involve the construction and decommissioning of assets at the existing Gisborne RWP site. All the proposed works will take place in the existing Gisborne RWP site (the project area), on Haywood Drive, Gisborne, adjacent to the Calder Freeway in the Shire of Macedon Ranges Local Government Area (LGA).

Desktop assessment

Aboriginal heritage There is one previously registered Aboriginal Place within the project area, Jacksons Creek 2 (VAHR 7922- 0195) which is located on a flat landform at the bottom of the slope in the western section of the project area. There is a statutory buffer of 50 m around this previously registered Aboriginal Place, which is defined as an area of CHS (as per section 3.1.3). Previous archaeological reports determined sub-surface deposits on the Jacksons Creek floodplain occur between 450-1,100 mm in depth in a yellow silty clay and 100- 300 mm in depth in a silty soil near sloped landforms close to Jacksons Creek. Based on aerial imagery (see section 3.1.5) there are two sensitive landforms in the project area, a sloping landform in the northern section of the project area (west and east) running adjacent Jacksons Creek, and an escarpment/sloping landform in the southern section of the Gisborne RWP site towards Stephens Creek. Based on aerial imagery both landforms appear to have some level of previous disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the Gisborne RWP site. Previous archaeological reports undertaken in and surrounding the project area identified high levels of previous disturbance in the soil stratigraphy associated with the construction of the Gisborne RWP site, and contamination of the soil from sewerage from the operation of the plant.

Based on the previous archaeological reports and aerial imagery, the potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits in the project area is low in areas of disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the Gisborne RWP. In areas of less disturbance, in the far western sections of the project area close to Jacksons Creek, Stephens Creek, and on sensitive landforms (see section 3.1.5) there is a moderate potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits.

Historical heritage There are no registered historical heritage places within or intersecting with the project area. The closest registered historical heritage place is listed on the Macedon Ranges Heritage Overlay (HO), Wyabun Park (HO285) and is located 380 m west of the project area, on Melbourne Road. There have been limited heritage studies in the Shire of Macedon Ranges covering the Gisborne region, however, there has been good survey coverage of the Gisborne township in the available studies with 39 places being recommended for addition to the HO. The most likely historical heritage places to occur in the Gisborne region would be associated with the early agricultural activities, pastoral runs, early non-Aboriginal settlement, and development of the township. An aerial imagery review indicated the Gisborne RWP site has been highly disturbed from the construction and operation of the plant. Based on the register search, background and aerial imagery there is a low potential for unidentified historical archaeological deposits or dry-stone walls to be present in the project area.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page vii Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Recommendations

Aboriginal heritage There are two triggers for determining if a mandatory CHMP is required for the project; the presence of areas of CHS, and whether the proposed activity constitutes a ‘high impact’ activity. For this project, the proposed works constitute a high impact activity and the project area intersects with three areas of CHS, Jacksons Creek, Stephens Creek, and VAHR 7922-0195. As such a mandatory CHMP is required for the project.

The CHMP is required for the project primarily to address the proposed works which will take place in the western and southern sections of the project area which have potentially sensitive landforms. The proposed works in these places include inlet pipeline works, access tracks, storage, and new buildings or structures.

WW will sponsor a CHMP in the concept design phase prior to letting the Design and Construct (D&C) contract. The benefits of this option would be to provide an approved CHMP (and associated planning approvals) to the D&C Contractor, allowing immediate start on construction. The risks of this option include:

◼ That in order to incorporate appropriate buffers for slight changes to design, the project areas become so large as to create a prohibitively expensive CHMP. A CHMP in this option would require a larger activity area to compensate for future flexibility in design. A larger activity area would require more time for standard pedestrian survey, more extensive complex assessment (if necessary) across potentially sensitive areas, and associated reporting. Generally, a mature detailed design is preferred for a CHMP assessment. This scenario would also lead to unnecessary disturbance and removal of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. ◼ That the D&C Contractor proposes significant changes to the CHMP, requiring a formal Amendment to the CHMP. The Amendment of a CHMP requires additional field assessment, reporting and liaison with the RAP for approvals, although the statutory timeframe is less than a new CHMP approval.

The proposed works should avoid the Jacksons Creek bank, southern escarpment, and VAHR 7922-0195 if possible. This could be done by tightening the proposed project area to minimise impact to these areas and restricting works to sections which have already been disturbed by previous phases of construction at the Gisborne RWP site.

Historical heritage There are no historical heritage places within or intersecting with the project area, therefore no further historical heritage assessment is recommended. However, historical heritage awareness training should be completed as part of the site induction for WW personnel and/or contractors prior to the start of construction works (see section 4.3.3). It is an offence to harm historical archaeological sites, whether they are recorded or not; therefore, if potential historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction or excavation on any land, the person in charge of the construction or excavation must as soon as practicable report the discovery to Heritage Victoria. If any unexpected archaeological sites are uncovered during construction works, a stop, manage and advise procedure must be followed by WW and/or their contractors (see section 4.3.2).

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page viii Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Important note about your report The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by CH2M Beca is to assess cultural heritage values and potential constraints in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract between CH2M Beca and Western Water (WW). That scope of services, as described in this report, was developed with WW.

In preparing this report, CH2M Beca has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the absence thereof) provided by WW and/or from other sources. Except as otherwise stated in the report, CH2M Beca has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. If the information is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and conclusions as expressed in this report may change.

CH2M Beca derived the data in this report from information sourced from WW (if any) and/or available in the public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re-evaluation of the data, findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. CH2M Beca has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for the sole purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards, guidelines, procedures and practices at the date of issue of this report. For the reasons outlined above, however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made as to the data, observations and findings expressed in this report, to the extent permitted by law.

This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No responsibility is accepted by CH2M Beca for use of any part of this report in any other context.

The register searches undertaken for this report are current only at the date that a particular register was searched, as noted in the report. Heritage sites may be added to or removed from heritage registers at any time and users of this report should check that sites have not been added or removed from a particular register since the date the register was searched.

The scope of this desktop assessment did not include consultation with the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) or Traditional Owners.

This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of, CH2M Beca’s Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between CH2M Beca and the Client. CH2M Beca accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page ix Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

1 Introduction

1.1 Project description Gisborne Recycled Water Plant (RWP) is owned and operated by Western Water (WW) and is located on Haywood Drive, Gisborne approximately 15km north-west of Sunbury and 40km north-west of Melbourne. The site is bordered by rural and agricultural land to the north, low density rural living to the east and south and the Calder Freeway to the west.

The Gisborne RWP treats wastewater from Gisborne, New Gisborne and Macedon townships and treated effluent produced by the plant is either supplied to customers through the Gisborne recycled water network or discharged under an EPA licence to Jacksons Creek. The plant is currently reaching the limit of its capacity. Growth in flows and loads to the plant are projected to increase in line with population from approximately 14,000 people to approximately 21,000 in 2035. To avoid negative impacts on Jacksons Creek, it is proposed to undertake the following upgrades to the plant:

◼ New common inlet screening and grit removal facility ◼ New odour control facility for inlet works consisting of a biotrickling filter with activated carbon polishing ◼ New membrane bioreactor (MBR) activated sludge process with provisions for future capacity augmentations ◼ Ferric sulphate dosing facility (or other suitable chemical phosphorus removal chemical) ◼ New effluent discharge pipework to Jacksons Creek ◼ Sludge dewatering, including polymer dosing facilities ◼ Electrical and ancillary services ◼ Site power supply upgrade ◼ Site road works

The concept design layout of the Stage 1 upgrade works is shown in Figure 1-1. This layout may be modified during detailed design, so this assessment has considered potential impacts within a broader study area to allow for future flexibility in plant design and layout. The study area is shown in Figure 1-1 as the shaded area.

This assessment has been prepared to support a works approval (exemption) application which is required from the Victorian Environment Protection Authority for any plant modifications that are likely to change the emissions from the plant to the environment.

1.2 Project location All the proposed works will take place in the existing Gisborne RWP site (the project area) in the Shire of Macedon Ranges Local Government Area (LGA).

1.3 Purpose of assessment The purpose of this assessment is to undertake a desktop due diligence assessment for the project to:

◼ Identify any triggers for approvals and assess the potential for impacts on any cultural heritage from the proposed works; and

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 1 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

◼ Make recommendations for the client to minimise risk to potential cultural heritage.

The assessment considers both Aboriginal cultural heritage and historical heritage.

1.4 Authorship of the report The report was prepared by Kane Winchester (Graduate Archaeologist, CH2M Beca). Mapping for the report was prepared by Filomena Losi (Graduate Spatial Analyst, CH2M Beca) and Pete Shields (Cartographer, CH2M Beca). Technical review of the report was undertaken by Karen Murphy (Technical Director, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, CH2M Beca) and Rose Overberg (Technical Leader, Heritage, CH2M Beca).

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 2 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Figure 1-1 The project area with descriptions of proposed works

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 3 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

2 Review of relevant legislation

2.1 Victorian State legislation

2.1.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 In 2006, the Victorian Parliament passed the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (the Act), which came into operation on 28 May 2007. The Act was amended in 2016 (Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Act 2016) and is the principal piece of legislation dictating Aboriginal cultural heritage management in Victoria.

2.1.2 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 The Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (the Regulations) are designed to generally give effect to the Act. Key objectives of the Regulations are to:

◼ Specify the circumstances in which a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) is required for an activity or class of activity ◼ Prescribe standards for the preparation of a CHMP including the carrying out of assessments.

A CHMP is a legally binding document that includes cultural heritage assessment, consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and management recommendation/contingencies put in place to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. A CHMP is designed to manage Aboriginal cultural heritage issues specific to an activity for a specified area, called an ‘activity area’. An approved CHMP also acts like a permit and if followed correctly protects the Sponsor of the CHMP against prosecution under the Act.

Regulation 7 of the Regulations prescribes that a CHMP is required for an activity if:

1. All or part of the activity area is defined as an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (CHS; see regulation 5 for definitions); and

2. All or part of the activity is a high impact activity (see regulation 5 for definitions)

If only part of a Project includes high impact activities and only part of the activity area is within an area of CHS, a CHMP is required. A CHMP is also required for an activity, regardless of points a) and b) if any part of the activity requires an Environmental Effects Statement.

A CHMP is not required for an activity if the entire area of CHS has been subject to significant ground disturbance. Significant ground disturbance is defined in regulation 5 as disturbance by machinery in the course of grading, excavating, digging, dredging or deep ripping, but does not include ploughing (other than deep ripping) of:

◼ The topsoil or surface rock layer of the ground, or ◼ A waterway.

The burden of proving that an area has been subject to significant ground disturbance, and therefore does not require archaeological investigation, rests with the Sponsor of a CHMP. The Sponsor must provide evidence to support a claim of significant ground disturbance. Evidence may include common knowledge, publicly available records, further information or expert advice or opinion (DPC 2013).

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 4 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

2.1.3 Heritage Act 2017 The Heritage Act 2017 (the Heritage Act), which replaced the Heritage Act 1995 on 1 November 2017, is administered by Heritage Victoria (HV), Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. The main purpose of the Heritage Act is to ‘provide for the protection and conservation of the cultural heritage of the State’. The Heritage Act protects all categories of cultural heritage relating to the non-Aboriginal settlement of Victoria including shipwrecks, buildings, structures, objects and archaeological sites.

There are two categories of listing provided for under the Heritage Act:

◼ Victorian Heritage Register (Section 23), and; ◼ Victorian Heritage Inventory (Section 117).

2.1.3.1 Victorian Heritage Register This category provides protection for those places, objects, archaeological places, archaeological artefacts or shipwrecks assessed as being of outstanding cultural significance within the State of Victoria. The Heritage Act establishes a Heritage Council, an independent statutory authority which determines which heritage places/objects are included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). Nominations to the VHR can be made to the Executive Director (Heritage Victoria) who will review the nomination and make recommendations to the Heritage Council for inclusion on the VHR.

Under Section 87 and 88 of the Heritage Act it is an offence to knowingly, or negligently, remove, relocate, demolish, damage, despoil, develop, alter or excavate any part of a registered place on the VHR, unless a Permit is granted under the Heritage Act. Permit applications must be submitted to the Executive Director for consideration and determination of the matter. There is a review process for the decisions or conditions of permits through the Heritage Council. Fees for permits to carry out works to a registered place or object are detailed in Section 13 and 14 of the Heritage Regulations 2017 and range in scale depending on the nature and costs of the works involved.

2.1.3.2 Victorian Heritage Inventory The Victorian Heritage Inventory (VHI) includes all known archaeological sites (other than those determined to be of low archaeological value). Archaeological sites are defined as a place (other than a shipwreck) which:

1. Contains an artefact, deposit or feature which is 75 or more years old; and

2. Provides information of past activity in the State; and

3. Requires archaeological methods to reveal information about the settlement, development or use of the place; and

4. Is not associated only with Aboriginal occupation of the place.

Under Section 123 of the Heritage Act it is an offence to knowingly or negligently deface, damage, or otherwise interfere with an archaeological site, whether it is included in the VHI or not, without a Consent. A Consent under Section 124 is required from the Executive Director for works or activities, including excavation, in relation to an archaeological site. Fees for consents are detailed in Section 23 of the Heritage Regulations 2017 and range in scale depending on the nature and scale of the works involved.

2.1.3.3 ‘D’ listing

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 5 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Heritage Victoria has a ‘D’ classification in the VHI for places that don’t meet the definitions and requirements for inclusion in the VHI as an archaeological site or those with no cultural heritage significance. There is no requirement to obtain Consent from HV for removal or damage to relics or sites provided with a ‘D’ classification although HV request they are notified in writing.

2.1.3.4 Discovering archaeological sites Under Section 127 of the Heritage Act, if an archaeological site is discovered during an investigation or survey of land for a relevant survey purpose (including survey for an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan), the person undertaking the survey or investigation must provide a site card to HV within 30 days after the discovery. Even if the survey does not reveal an archaeological site, HV must be notified and a survey report provided, in accordance with Section 31 of the Heritage Regulations 2017.

If an archaeological site is discovered during construction or excavation on any land, the person in charge of the construction or excavation must as soon as practicable report the discovery to HV.

2.1.4 Planning and Environment Act 1987 The project area is located within the Shire of Macedon Ranges LGA. In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Shire of Macedon Ranges has developed a Planning Scheme and as part of their Planning Scheme, has produced a Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, which identifies heritage places. The purpose of the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) and Schedule is to conserve and enhance places of natural or cultural significance and those elements which contribute to their significance (both historical and Aboriginal heritage places). Planning approval may be required from the Shire of Macedon Ranges to undertake works within a place listed on the Heritage Overlay.

The Shire of Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme also has Clause 52.33 (post boxes and dry-stone walls), which states that a planning permit is required to demolish, remove or alter a dry-stone wall if it was constructed before 1940.

2.2 Commonwealth legislation

2.2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1984 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) includes ‘national heritage’ as a Matter of National Environmental Significance and protects listed places to the fullest extent under the Constitution. It also establishes the National Heritage List (NHL) and the Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL).

The following is a description of each of the heritage lists and the protection afforded places listed on them.

2.2.1.1 Commonwealth Heritage List The CHL is established under the EPBC Act. The CHL is a list of properties owned by the Commonwealth that have been assessed as having significant heritage value. Any proposed actions on CHL places must be assessed for their impact on the heritage values of the place in accordance with Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies (Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2). The guidelines require the proponent to undertake a self-assessment process to decide whether or not the action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, including the heritage value of places. If an action is likely to have a significant impact an EPBC Act referral must be prepared and submitted to the Minister for approval.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 6 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

2.2.1.2 National Heritage List The NHL is a list of places with outstanding heritage value to Australia, including places overseas. Any proposed actions on NHL places must be assessed for their impact on the heritage values of the place in accordance with Matters of National Environmental Significance (Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1). The guidelines require the proponent to undertake a self-assessment process to decide whether or not the action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance, including the national heritage value of places. If an action is likely to have a significant impact an EPBC Act referral must be prepared and submitted to the Minister for approval.

2.2.1.3 Register of National Estate The Register of the National Estate (RNE) was formerly compiled as a record of Australia’s natural, cultural and Aboriginal heritage places worth keeping for the future. The RNE was frozen on 19 February 2007, which means that no new places have been added or removed since that time. From February 2012 all references to the RNE were removed from the EPBC Act. The RNE is maintained on a non-statutory basis as a publicly available archive.

2.2.1.4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the Commonwealth Act) protects Aboriginal cultural property that is significant to Aboriginal people. Cultural property includes any places, objects and folklore that ‘are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition’. This includes intangible cultural heritage values; these sites may not necessarily have an archaeological component. Where Aboriginal cultural heritage places have cultural significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and are registered under the State’s Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, these would also be Aboriginal places subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Act.

There is no cut-off date and the Commonwealth Act may apply to contemporary Aboriginal cultural property as well as ancient sites. The Commonwealth Act takes precedence over State cultural heritage legislation where there is conflict. Under section (s) 9 and 10 of the Commonwealth Act, the responsible Minister may make a declaration in situations where state or territory laws do not provide adequate protection of heritage places. The declaration can be made in response to verbal or written communication to the Minister, which seeks to protect or preserve a specified area from injury or desecration. Declarations can result in stop work activities and override other approvals that may be in place.

2.2.1.5 Native Title Act 1993 The Native Title Act 1993 recognises and protects native title and provides that native title cannot be extinguished contrary to the Act. The National Native Title Tribunal is a Commonwealth Government agency set up under this Act, and mediates native title claims under the direction of the Federal Court of Australia.

The National Native Title Tribunal maintains the following registers:

◼ National Native Title Register. ◼ Register of Native Title Claim. ◼ Unregistered claimant applications. ◼ Register of Aboriginal land use agreements

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 7 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

3 Desktop assessment

3.1 Aboriginal heritage

3.1.1 Ethno-history Information which relates to the Aboriginal occupation of the project area is derived from publications and other surviving forms of documentation which were compiled by early non-Aboriginal settlers, missionaries and government officials who went to the region during the mid to late 19th century (Barwick 1984). The following information was compiled from a number of written sources based on language research and ethno-historic observations. It should be noted that the information provided here does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Wurundjeri people regarding their tribal affiliations and boundaries.

Clans comprised the basic 'land owning' group in Aboriginal society (Clark 1990; Stanner 1965). In Victoria, clans were generally patrilineal descent groups with territories defined by ritual and economic responsibilities. Clusters of neighbouring clans which shared a common dialect and political and economic interests distinguished themselves from other clusters by the use of a language name (Barwick 1984). At the time of European contact, the region was occupied by clans from the Woi wurrung (Wurundjeri) language group, who occupied the basins of the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers.

The local Aboriginal people for the project area were most likely associated with the Gunung willam balug who occupied the area around Mt. Macedon (Clark 1990).

3.1.2 Existing conditions A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) was undertaken by Kane Winchester (Graduate Archaeologist, CH2M Beca) on 19 August 2020 using access number 8418.

There is one previously registered Aboriginal Place, Jacksons Creek 2 (VAHR 7922-0195) within the project area. Jacksons Creek 2 (VAHR 7922-0195) is an artefact scatter with 19 recorded stone artefacts (Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-3). This includes 17 quartz stone artefacts and two trachyte stone artefacts. There are a total of 30 Aboriginal Places comprising 101 components within a 3 km radius of the project area (Figure 3-1). The most common Aboriginal Place type is artefact scatters (n=22), the remaining Aboriginal Places are low density artefact scatters (LDADs) (n=8). The results of the VAHR search are provided in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Aboriginal Places within 3 km of the project area

Aboriginal Place type Number Percentage (%)

Artefact scatter 22 73 LDAD 8 27 Total 30 100

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 8 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

3.1.3 Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity The project intersects two areas of CHS as defined by Division 3 of the Regulations (Figure 3-1 to Figure 3-2).

◼ A waterway or land within 200 m of a waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (r 26 (1)) (Jacksons Creek and Stephens Creek). ◼ Land within 50 metres of a registered Aboriginal Place is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (r 25 (2)) (Jacksons Creek 2 VAHR 7922-0195)

3.1.4 Previous Aboriginal heritage assessments Table 3-2 Previous Aboriginal cultural heritage studies

Author Summary

Luebbers R. Luebbers was engaged by Fisher Stewart Pty Ltd to undertake an archaeological survey for two (1997) options for the upgrade of the Gisborne Sewer. Fisher Stewart Pty Ltd were commissioned by WW to replace the existing sewer system to prevent sewerage spilling into Jacksons Creek. Two options were considered: ◼ Option A had two creeks crossings and traversed the flat alluvial floor of the creek; ◼ Option B would traverse the interface between the creek slopes and floor.

Both options followed the Rosslynne Water Supply Pipeline starting at the Rotary Park Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) and following a 1.2 km alignment to the Gisborne Recycled Water Plant. The major differences between the two options were that A had multiple stream crossings, and B would require deep construction trenches. The report noted that the Jackson Creek valley floor is a floodplain consisting of alluvial deposits and pebbles of mostly quartzite, sandstone and chert composition. The main sediments units were a light-coloured clay and fine gravel just above the creek bed, underlying a dark silt with a high gravel content, in turn underlying a light brown silt. The report concluded that a dark loam overlay all the other sedimentary units. The field survey had a ground surface visibility of 2 percent due to vegetation cover. The survey targeted exposed areas adjacent to the creek, eroded surfaces on the valley slope, exposed alluvium, and animals tracks parallel to the stream channel. The field survey resulted in the recording of one Aboriginal Place: VAHR 7823-0063 (an isolated chert core) and one historical heritage site: The Billy Goat Furnace (H7823-0040). It was also determined the alignment across the floodplain was in a potentially sensitive area and that sub-surface testing should be undertaken. Luebbers Luebbers and Associates were engaged by Stewart Fisher Pty Ltd to undertake an archaeological (1998) survey for two options for the upgrade of the Gisborne Sewer (Luebbers 1997). Due to the recording of an Aboriginal Place (VAHR 7823-0063) during the survey, further assessment was recommended to determine any additional heritage constraints on the project. Archaeological excavation was undertaken at three locations: ◼ Jacksons Creek Crossing 1: approximately 850 m west of the project area (near VAHR 7823- 0063); ◼ Base of Hill: approximately 750 m west of the project area; and ◼ Jacksons Creek Crossing 2: approximately 520 m west of the project area, near VAHR 7823- 0074.

Mechanical excavation was completed by a back-hoe fitted with a 400 mm bucket. At Crossing 1, a steep alluvial embankment was excavated to a length of 26 m and one metre deep. The trench revealed a fine-grained homogenous alluvium. No Aboriginal Places were recorded. At Base of Hill, a sloping landform was excavated to a length of 66 m and a depth of 400 mm. The excavation revealed basalt floaters (eroded bedrock) , sandy alluvial silt and heavy clays. No Aboriginal Places were recorded. At Crossing 2, a flat and wide alluvial plain (floodplain) was excavated for a length of 42 m and a maximum depth of one metre. It revealed a fine alluvial silt. One Aboriginal Place (VAHR 7823-0074: Jacksons Creek Workshop) was recorded for 36 m of the 42 m trench, in a

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 9 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Author Summary

continuous scatter at a depth of 450-600 mm. Two distinct nodes of concentration at either end of the trench were recorded, with the western end having the larger concentration. A total of 176 stone artefacts were recorded in a 150 mm zone of light-yellow alluvium. The stone artefacts were a mix of tools such as backed microliths and scrapers made from silcrete, chert, basalt and 19th century bottle glass, indicating use during the post contact period. Other stone artefacts included discarded silcrete debitage and flakes created during core reduction. The report confirmed the sensitivity of the Jacksons Creek floodplain. Hyett (2007) TerraCulture was engaged by WW to undertake a desktop cultural heritage assessment for proposed works at the Gisborne Waste Water Treatment Plant. The study area was located at 17 Haywood Drive and was in a natural amphitheatre on the bank of Jacksons Creek, east of the Calder Freeway, and within the current project area. The desktop assessment found that the Jacksons Creek area was of high archaeological sensitivity, based on ethnohistorical accounts and previous archaeological assessments. It stated that sub-surface cultural material was likely to occur between 450-600 mm. Hyett determined the study area had been subject to previous significant ground disturbance associated with the large-scale excavation, construction and operation of the Gisborne Waste Water Treatment Plant. Although the area was potentially sensitive, the desktop report recommended no further assessment due to the low potential for Aboriginal Places being present due to previous significant ground disturbance. Feldman (2008) Andrew Long and Associates were engaged by Western Water to prepare a mandatory CHMP (no. 10245) for the construction of an Outfall Sewer in South Gisborne, from Willowbank Road to the Gisborne RWP site, the activity area included the western section of the project area. The desktop assessment noted the landscape around Gisborne was well known to Aboriginal people and there were potentially spiritual attachments to the area. It also noted non-Aboriginal settlement of the area began around the 1840s, with the primary land use being pastoral. The activity area had been subject to disturbance from the construction of infrastructure such as the Calder Freeway. The desktop found there were no previously registered Aboriginal Places within the activity area, but there were four places within four kilometres of the activity area. The most common place type was artefact scatters, with three of the places occurring adjacent to Jacksons Creek. The desktop assessment determined Aboriginal places were known to occur adjacent Jacksons Creek and its tributaries and the most common landform associated with the places was riverbanks. Jacksons Creek was particularly important as it has an Aboriginal historical association, Jacksons Creek protectorate Station. A systematic and comprehensive pedestrian survey of the activity area was undertaken to examine all landforms. The survey had minimal ground surface visibility across the activity area due dense coverage of introduced grass species. The survey found the activity area had been subject to a high level of previous disturbance associated with the construction of roads, services, residential buildings and livestock grazing. Sub-surface testing was deemed necessary to determine the sensitivity of the activity area. No Aboriginal Places were identified during the pedestrian survey. The sub-surface testing was completed in two phases. Phase one involved the excavation of 69 0.4 x 0.4 m shovel test pits across 11 transects from Gisborne RWP to Willowbank road. The shovel test pits were excavated through silt and clay deposits up to 400 mm. Two Aboriginal Places were identified, VAHR 7922-0195 and VAHR 7922-0196, both artefact scatters. VAHR 7922-0195 was located on flat land at the bottom of a slope adjacent Jacksons Creek near the Gisborne RWP. VAHR 7922-0196 was found near the on ramp to Calder Freeway at Emmeline Drive. Phase 2 of sub-surface testing involved further investigation of one identified Aboriginal Places and included the excavation of one 1 x 1 m test pits and five 0.4 x 0.4 m shovel test pits. The 1 x 1 m test pit was excavated adjacent the site for VAHR 7922-0195 and consisted of topsoil to 100 mm, grey brown clayey silt to 180 mm, and mottled clay to 350 mm. Five shovel test pits were excavated to the north, east, and west and consisted of silty soil to 180 mm, and slay soil with introduced material to 300 mm. A further 18 artefacts were identified in the 1 x 1 m test pit. All artefacts were identified between 100-300 mm. VAHR 7922-0196 was not considered for further investigation as the artefact was identified in fill material associated with the construction of the on ramp and the Calder Freeway.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 10 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Author Summary

O'Connor Western Water Corporation sponsored a CHMP (No 11802) to be completed for a recycled water (2012) pipeline from the Gisborne Recycled Water Plant to Kilmore Road, the activity area included the northern section of the project area along Jacksons Creek. The desktop assessment found the activity area was located in the dissected uplands on undulating plains, generally in the sheetflow basalt deposits of marine sandstone, siltstone and chert, with sections of fluvial deposits of gravel, sand and silt. It also noted the Jacksons Creek area (along the banks) is part of a floodplain prone to periodic flooding. The desktop report found that there were 23 Aboriginal Places in the geographic region, with most being located less than 1 km from Jacksons Creek and Riddells Creek. The assessment predicted that there was potential for Aboriginal Places to occur on undulating landforms, particularly near or adjacent to Jacksons Creek and its tributaries, with the most common location being river banks. The most likely Aboriginal Place type would be stone artefact scatters. The standard assessment was constrained by poor ground surface visibility due to dense grass coverage. The survey was separated into four investigation areas. No Aboriginal Places were identified during the standard assessment; however, investigation area two contained a floodplain bounded by Jacksons Creek (in a vacant paddock, approximately 620 m west of the project area). This area was determined to have high archaeological sensitivity. In addition, a sloped landform bounded on the western side by Jacksons Creek in investigation area three (approximately 360 m west of the project area), was determined to have moderate archaeological sensitivity. The standard assessment concluded that the activity area had undergone a variety of disturbances associated with previous land use. Investigation area four was within the northern section of the project area and was determined to have low archaeological sensitivity due previous ground disturbance associated with the construction of the Gisborne RWP. The complex assessment included the excavation of one 1 x 1 m test pit and 14 (0.5 x 0.5 m) and eight (0.4 x 0.4 m) shovel test pits across locations that would be affected by the proposed works. The complex assessment focussed mainly on investigation areas two and three. The 1 x 1 m test pit was excavated in area two to a depth of 1,200 mm, and contained grey/brown silt which increased in clay content with depth to 650 mm. From 650 mm there was brown/yellow silty clay, which contained 30 stone artefacts between 650-1,100 mm in depth. The test pit was terminated at 1,200 mm due to it being deeper than the maximum depth of proposed activity. The 30 stone artefacts were reportedly associated with Jacksons Creek Workshop (VAHR 7823-0074). The most common raw material was silcrete (n= 22) followed by basalt (n=7). Excavations in investigation area 4 were limited due to health and safety reasons. The soil in the Gisborne RWP was found to be contaminated by sewerage and highly disturbed as a result of the previous construction activity at the site. The 22 shovel test pits were excavated across the investigation areas to a maximum depth of 1,200 mm. Only one shovel test pit identified cultural material, located in area two, which contained three stone artefacts between 400-1,100 mm. This was also believed to be associated with Jacksons Creek Workshop.

3.1.5 Sensitive landforms Based on aerial imagery from Google Earth version 7.3.3.7786 there appears to be multiple sensitive landforms within or adjacent the project area.

The northern section of the project area (west and east) running along Jacksons Creek appear to be adjacent gently sloping landforms which are sloping toward Jacksons Creek. This may be a part of the Creek bank, a landform that has been identified in previous archaeological reports as having high archaeological sensitivity. Sections of the landforms appear disturbed as a result of access tracks, car park, and structures associated with the operation of the Gisborne RWP site.

The southern section of the project area appears to be across an escarpment/ sloping landform moving east to west. The Gisborne RWP side of the escarpment appears to be disturbed from an access track which has been cut into it. The track moves west to east from a small structure, upward to the top of the escarpment. The other side of the landform appears to be gently sloping downward toward a property (potentially a house or shed) and Stephens Creek just outside of the Gisborne RWP site. This side of the landform appears to be

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 11 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

far less disturbed. There is a row of trees along the top of the landform which based on aerial imagery do not appear very old, this suggests the area along the top of the landform may have been subject to some form of clearing.

3.1.6 Predictive statement Based on the review of background information, a register search, and reviews of relevant archaeological reports and sensitive landforms the following predictive statements can be made:

◼ The most sensitive landforms will be adjacent or associated with Jacksons Creek and its tributaries; ◼ The most common Aboriginal Place in the wider region is artefact scatters; ◼ The most common raw materials for stone artefacts are silcrete and quartz; ◼ Sub-surface archaeological deposits associated with the Jacksons Creek floodplain are likely to occur between 450-1100 mm; ◼ Sub-surface archaeological deposits associated with landforms adjacent Jacksons Creek are likely to occur between 100-300 mm; ◼ The likelihood of sub-surface archaeological deposits in the project area will depend on the level of previous ground disturbance; ◼ Sub-surface soils are likely to be disturbed and contaminated at the Gisborne RWP site; and ◼ There is a low potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits to occur at the Gisborne RWP site due to multiple phases of disturbance associated with construction of the site.

3.1.7 Conclusion

There is one previously registered Aboriginal Place within the project area, Jacksons Creek 2 (VAHR 7922- 0195) which was located on a flat landform at the bottom of the slope in the western section of the project area. There is a statutory buffer of 50 m around this previously registered Aboriginal Place, which is defined as an area of CHS (as per section 3.1.3). Previous archaeological reports determined sub-surface deposits on the Jacksons Creek floodplain occur between 450-1100 mm in depth in a yellow silty clay and 100- 300 mm in depth in a silty soil near sloped landforms close to Jacksons Creek. Based on aerial imagery (see section 3.1.5) there are two sensitive landforms in the project area, a sloping landform in the northern section of the project area (west and east) running adjacent Jacksons Creek, and an escarpment/sloping landform in the southern section of the Gisborne RWP site towards Stephens Creek. Based on aerial imagery both landforms appear to have some level of previous disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the Gisborne RWP site. Previous archaeological reports undertaken in and surrounding the project area identified high levels of previous disturbance in the soil stratigraphy associated with the construction of the Gisborne RWP site, and contamination of the soil from sewerage from the operation of the plant.

Based on the previous archaeological reports, and aerial imagery, the potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits in the project area is low in areas of disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the Gisborne RWP. In areas of less disturbance, in the far western sections of the project area close to Jacksons Creek, Stephens Creek, and on sensitive landforms (see section 3.1.5) there is a moderate potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 12 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Figure 3-1 Aboriginal Places and areas of CHS within 3 km of the project area

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 13 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Figure 3-2 Aboriginal Places within the project area

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 14 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Figure 3-3 extent of VAHR 7823-0195

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 15 Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

3.2 Historical heritage

3.2.1 Historical background The Mount Macedon area was a critical transport route, which sits in proximity to major land transport corridors used in the 1850s and 1860s. The corridors included the Melbourne to Murray River rail routes and roads to the Castlemaine goldfields (TBA Planners et al. 1994). Mount Macedon was a point of orientation in transport corridors which moved through the region. Frequent traffic through the area lead to the establishment of large pastoral runs and agricultural activities in the region, and in turn, the growth of small and distinctive settlements. One of the distinctive settlements which grew from pastoral runs was Gisborne.

Gisborne is a rural township named after Henry Frye Gisborne, the Commissioner of Crown Lands between 1839-1840 (Victorian Places 2015). The year of 1834 marked the arrival of a Tasmanian man, John Aitken, to Victoria; he inspected the area south of Mount Macedon and deemed it suitable for sheep grazing (Gisborne & Mount Macedon Districts Historical Society Inc 2015). Aitken returned to Tasmania to collect his flock of sheep for relocation to the large tract of land he had selected in Victoria. Upon returning to Victoria in 1836, John Aitken developed a property on the pastoral land named for his wife, Emmeline Vale. On this property, some of the finest Merino wool in Victoria was produced (Gisborne & Mount Macedon Districts Historical Society Inc 2015). The future site of Gisborne on Jacksons Creek was taken up as a pastoral station the following year, in 1837, by Henry Howey. In 1847 Elizabeth and Thomas Gordon had Macedon House constructed as the Mount Macedon Hotel. In 1854 the Gordons transferred their publican license to the Gisborne Hotel (Barker 2019). Gisborne was marked by the three large pastoral runs that surrounded it and by 1850, had an unofficial post office. In the following year, 1851, an official street plan was laid by government surveyor Robert Hoddle near the Bush Inn adjacent to Jacksons Creek (Victorian Places 2015). Gold mining in the region resulted in flourishing of the small settlement, as the usual shops and hotels were a comfort to travellers. In 1860, Gisborne became home to a form of municipal government, with the creation of the Gisborne Road District (Nelsen 2017).

Although Gisborne received railway infrastructure in 1861, the line passed by the main settlement to New Gisborne. The railway bypassing the township led to a downturn in trade and subsequently to business failures, including the delicensing of the Mount Macedon Hotel (Barker 2019). Throughout the 1860s, buildings were constructed which continue to define the township today. This included the Gisborne Court House and other buildings such as the Mechanic’s Institute. The growth of the township experienced in the 19th century had slowed in the early 20th century, until the years after World War II (Victorian Places 2015). In 1970, the Tullamarine Freeway was opened, making Gisborne within commuting distance for people working in outer metropolitan Melbourne, and becoming the chosen location for residence by airline employees after the Melbourne International Airport opened in the same year (Gisborne & Mount Macedon Districts Historical Society Inc 2015).

In 1994, the Gisborne area was still being used for pastoral purposes with 16 percent of the area being defined as farmland (Victorian Places 2015). The project area is within the Gisborne RWP site. The immediate area around the project area has vegetation and grass coverage. The area outside of the Gisborne RWP site is developed, with roadways and larger parcels of land with housing.

3.2.2 Previous historical heritage assessments There have been limited heritage studies undertaken in the Shire of Macedon Ranges LGA which cover the Gisborne area. This includes a heritage study for the previous Shire of Gisborne LGA (TBA Planners et al. 1994) and a more recent heritage study completed in 2017 (Nelsen 2017).

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 16

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Table 3-3 Summary of previous historical heritage assessments

Author Summary

TBA Planners et al. The heritage study reviewed the shires of Gisborne, Newham and Woodend and Romsey (1994) before they were defunct and merged into the Shire of Macedon Ranges. The heritage study’s goals were to identify and evaluate the environmental history of non- Aboriginal settlement, buildings, objects, sites and natural features of historic significance, heritage management controls, and recommendations for statutory controls. The methodology for the study included general historical research for themes of the area, site and landscape identification, detailed historical research of sites and landscape units, and site ranking. The heritage study identified 1,051 sites, with 148 landscape sites and 219 historic buildings in the study area which included the township of Gisborne, including the project area. The heritage study recommended that 24 places in Gisborne be added to the Shire of Gisborne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO). This included churches, the Mechanics Institute, farm homesteads and complexes, and houses. None of the places recommended for inclusion in the HO are in the project area. Nelsen (2017) The Shire of Macedon Ranges commissioned a heritage study for selected areas, including Gisborne, New Gisborne and Kyneton. The purpose of the study was to review 44 sites with potential heritage significance identified in previous heritage studies from 1990 and 1994. The report was conducted in two parts. Part one contained an initial review of the 44 identified places over the three locations to determine if a statement of significance was warranted for any of the places, and to identify any of places of heritage significance. Part two involved the preparation of statements of significance for all places that had heritage significance. The study used Heritage Victoria guidelines to determine the overall heritage significance of the identified places. The initial review involved a place visit, review of the previous heritage studies undertaken in the 1990s, and consideration of each place against the Heritage Victoria criteria. Of the 44 initial places, 15 were found not worthy of further consideration. An additional 14 places were proposed by the author for consideration. A total of 23 places in Gisborne were identified as having potential heritage significance. The detailed investigation in part two resulted in 15 places in Gisborne being recommended for addition to the HO. No places recommended are within or intersect the project area.

3.2.3 Review of aerial imagery A review of aerial imagery was completed by Kane Winchester (Graduate Archaeologist, CH2M Beca) on 19 August 2020 using Google Earth Pro version 7.3.3.7786. The review of aerial imagery identified the project area is highly developed with multiple large pools, trenches, graded and concrete tracks for vehicles and parking, structures for the operation of the Gisborne RWP, and a small residential building/shed to the south of the Gisborne RWP site along the main access track. The surrounding area adjacent the Calder Freeway appears to be undeveloped and covered with grass and occasional trees. There is no visible evidence to suggest historical archaeological deposits in the project area. There also appears to be no existing dry-stone walls within the project area.

3.2.4 Register searches The following heritage registers were searched on 19 August 2020 by Kane Winchester (Graduate Archaeologist, CH2M Beca) to determine whether any known historical heritage sites were present within or in proximity to the project area:

◼ VHR ◼ VHI ◼ Shire of Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO) ◼ CHL ◼ NHL

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 17

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

◼ World Heritage List (WHL) ◼ RNE

There are no historical heritage places within, intersecting or adjacent the project area. The closest registered historical heritage places are listed on the VHI and HO, they are Wyabun Park Refuse Tip (H7822-0034) approximately 480 m west, and Wyabun Park (HO285) approximately 380 m west (Figure 3-4). The majority of historical heritage places listed on the HO in Gisborne are associated with the early non-Aboriginal settlement of the township, including farms, homesteads, churches, stores, and schools. The results of the register searches are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Historical heritage in proximity to the project area

Place Register Register number Address Description Distance from name project area

Wyabun VHI H7822-0034 29 Melbourne Road, Refuse tip 480 m Refuse Gisborne Tip Wyabun HO HO285 29 Melbourne Road, Site of land commissioner’s 380 m Park Gisborne residence Gisborne VHI H7823-0002 Melbourne Road and Shelter Shed marked under 820 m Shelter Hill Street, Gisborne the Farming and Grazing Shed category on VHI Billy Goat VHI H7823-0040 Riddell Street, History of the site is 860 m Furnace Gisborne unknown, marked under Site Farming and Grazing category on VHI

3.2.5 Predictive statement Based on the historical background, relevant register searches, review of previous heritage studies in the Gisborne area, and aerial imagery, the following predictive statement about historical heritage can be made:

◼ Any previously undiscovered historical archaeological deposits are likely to be associated with the early non-Aboriginal settlement of the area. They will most likely be related to pastoral and agricultural activities. ◼ Based on an aerial imagery review there is a low potential for any intact or remains of dry-stone walls to be present in the project area. ◼ There is a low potential for previously undiscovered historical archaeological deposits to be present in the project area due to the high level of development which has occurred at the Gisborne RWP site.

3.2.6 Conclusion There are no registered historical heritage places within or intersecting with the project area. The closest registered historical heritage place is listed on the HO, Wyabun Park (HO285) 380 m west of the project area, on Melbourne Road. There has been limited heritage studies in the Shire of Macedon Ranges covering the Gisborne area, however, there has been good survey coverage of the Gisborne township in the available studies with 39 places being recommended for addition to the HO. The most likely historical heritage places to occur in the Gisborne area would be associated with the early agricultural activities, pastoral runs, the early non-Aboriginal settlement, and development of the Gisborne township. An aerial imagery review indicated the Gisborne RWP site has been highly disturbed from the construction and operation of the plant. Based on the register search, background and aerial imagery there is a low potential for unidentified historical archaeological deposits or dry-stone walls to be present in the project area.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 18

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Figure 3-4 Historical heritage places in relation to the project area

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 19

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

4 Recommendations

4.1 Summary Table 4-1 provides a summary of the existing conditions and predicted archaeological sensitivity of the project area.

Table 4-1 Summary of existing conditions and predicted archaeological sensitivity

Aboriginal Places Areas of CHS Heritage Overlays Archaeological Potential for and registered sensitivity previously historical heritage (Aboriginal) undiscovered sites/features historical heritage sites

Yes Yes No Low-moderate Low

4.2 Aboriginal heritage recommendations There are two triggers for determining if a mandatory CHMP is required for the project; the presence of areas of CHS, and whether the proposed activity constitutes a ‘high impact’ activity (see section 2.1.2).

4.2.1 High impact activities According to Part 2, Division 5 of the Regulations the proposed activities constitute a high impact activity, as it is:

◼ A utility installation, other than a telecommunications facility, if- the works affect an area exceeding 25 square metres (r 46 (b)(xxvii)(D)).

4.2.2 Areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity The project area intersects with three areas of CHS, Jacksons Creek, Stephens Creek, VAHR 7922-0195 (as per section 3.1.3)

As a result of the high level of previous ground disturbance at the Gisborne RWP site, some parts of the project area may be exempt under Part 2, Division 3 of the Regulations:

◼ If part of the land within 50 metres of a registered cultural heritage place has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (r 25 (3)); and ◼ If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200 metres of a waterway has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (r26 (2)).

However, this exemption will not apply to all the areas of CHS within the project area, so will not negate the requirement for a CHMP.

4.2.3 Cultural Heritage Management Plan requirement In the project area there are sections which have been subject to significant ground disturbance, specifically at the main site structures, ponds, and the north-east section. However, there are remain sections of the project area which have archaeologically sensitive landforms which have experienced less disturbance (as per section 3.1.5). These sensitive landforms have a higher archaeological potential and sensitivity.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 20

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

According to the Regulations the project area intersects with areas of CHS and the proposed works constitute a high impact activity, as such, a mandatory CHMP is required for the project.

The proposed works should avoid the Jacksons Creek bank, southern escarpment, and the mapped extent of VAHR 7922-0195 if possible. This could be done by tightening the proposed project area to minimise impact to these areas and restricting works to sections which have already been disturbed by previous phases of construction at the Gisborne RWP site.

4.3 Historical heritage recommendations

4.3.1 Further historical heritage assessment There are no historical heritage places within or intersecting with the project area. The closest historical heritage place Wyabun Park (HO285) is 380 m west of the project area. This site will not be impacted by the works. Based on a review of aerial imagery there appears to be no previously undiscovered historical heritage places or dry-stone walls within the project area, and the potential for their presence is low.

No further historical heritage assessment is recommended.

4.3.2 Discovery of archaeological sites All historical archaeological sites in Victoria older than 75 years are protected by the Heritage Act, whether they are recorded on the VHI or not. It is an offence to knowingly or negligently deface, damage, or otherwise interfere with an archaeological site without obtaining the appropriate consent from the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.

Under Section 127 of the Heritage Act, if an archaeological site is discovered during construction or excavation on any land, the person in charge of the construction or excavation must as soon as practicable report the discovery to HV. If any unexpected archaeological sites are uncovered during construction works, the following procedure must be followed by WW and/or their contractors:

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 21

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

STOP

◼ Stop any activity which may impact on the discovery ◼ Ensure that other people working in the area are aware of it and have also stopped work in the area ◼ Protect the artefacts or site by erecting temporary fencing or another suitable barrier.

ADVISE

◼ A supervisor or the cultural heritage consultant must be consulted if they are on site ◼ Supervisors are to contact WW to advise of the discovery ◼ Supervisors are to advise HV where the discovery was made and provide a description or photograph of the discovery

MANAGE

◼ HV, the onsite heritage consultant or supervisor will advise on how to manage the discovery ◼ Management of the discovery may involve protection, recovery, recording or removal of the artefacts or features and is likely to require Consent to Damage from HV.

4.3.3 Heritage induction training Historical heritage awareness training should be completed as part of the site induction for Western Water personnel and/or contractors prior to the commencement of construction works to ensure understanding of potential heritage items that may be impacted during the project, and the procedure required to be undertaken in the event of discovery of historical heritage material, features or deposits, or the discovery of human remains.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 22

Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

5 References

Barker, M. 2019 Proposed Residential and Commercial Subdivision at 1 Kilmore Road, Gisborne. Cultural Heritage Management Plan. Barwick, D.E. 1984 Mapping the past: an atlas of Victorian clans 1835-1904. Aboriginal History 8(2):100-131. Clark, I.D. 1990 Aboriginal languages and clans: an historical Atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800- 1900. Melbourne: Monash Publications in Geography No. 37. DPC 2013 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Practice Note: Significant Ground Disturbance. Retrieved 20 December 2018 from https://www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/heritage/heritage-tools-and- publications/guides-forms-and-practice-notes-for-aboriginal-heritage-management.html. Feldman, R. 2008 South Gisborne Outfall Sewer: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan 10245. Cultural Heritage Management Plan, Andrew Long & Associates, Fitzroy, Victoria. Gisborne & Mount Macedon Districts Historical Society Inc 2015 A Brief History of Gisborne and Mt Macedon Districts. Retrieved from https://www.gisbornemountmacedon.org.au/history.htm. Hyett, J. 2007 Gisborne Recycled Water Plant, Desktop Assessment. Luebbers, R. 1997 Archaeological Survey of Gisborne Sewer Outfall Options in Jacksons Creek Gisborne Victoria. Luebbers, R. 1998 Archaeological Monitoring: Rising Main, Jacksons Creek, Gisborne, Victoria. Nelsen, I. 2017 Gisborne and Kyneton Heritage Study. Macedon Ranges Shire Council. A report to Macedon Ranges Shire Council. O'Connor, A. 2012 Cultural Heritage Management Plan: Jacksons Creek Recycled Water Main, Gisborne. Stanner, W.E.H. 1965 Aboriginal Territorial Organisation: Estate, Range, Domain and Regime. Oceania 36(1):1-26. TBA Planners, Graeme Butler and Associates, Francine Gilledder and Associates, Dr Chris McConville and Associates, J. Ramsay, G. Lee and S. Matthews 1994 Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study. For the Shire of Gisbome, Shire of Newham and Woodend, the Shire of Romsey, Heritage Branch of the Department of Planning and Development, and the University of Melbourne, TBA Planners, Bendigo. Victorian Places 2015 Gisborne and Gisborne shire. Retrieved from https://www.victorianplaces.com.au/gisborne-and-gisborne-shire

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 23

Appendix A

Glossary

Appendix A – Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Glossary

Historical archaeological artefact: This term relates to historical (non-Aboriginal) archaeology and is defined by the Heritage Act 2017 as an object (other than a shipwreck artefact) which provides information of past activity in Victoria and:

◼ Is associated with an archaeological site; or ◼ Is associated with a registered archaeological place; or ◼ Is associated with an approved site of archaeological value; or ◼ Is associated with a place that was an archaeological site, registered archaeological place or approved site of archaeological value

Area of archaeological sensitivity (Aboriginal heritage): A part of the landscape that contains demonstrated occurrences of cultural material. The precise level of sensitivity will depend on the density and significance of the material.

Aboriginal artefact: An object made or modified by humans. In Australia this term commonly refers to stones that have been purposefully modified by Aboriginal people through percussion for the purpose of creating tools (referred to as stone artefacts). Stone artefacts include angular fragments, cores, flakes and tools.

Archaeological site: This term relates to historical (non-Aboriginal) archaeology and is defined by the Heritage Act 2017 as a place (other than a shipwreck) which:

◼ Contains an artefact, deposit or feature which is 75 or more years old; and ◼ Provides information of past activity in the State; and ◼ Requires archaeological methods to reveal information about the settlement, development or use of the place; and ◼ Is not associated only with Aboriginal occupation of the place

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP): Larger developments and many high impact activities in culturally sensitive landscapes can cause significant harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 prescribes in regulations, circumstances in which a CHMP will be required for certain types of development or activities located in sensitive areas before they can commence. CHMPs are required to be prepared in a prescribed legal format and will be evaluated by a Registered Aboriginal Party or if a Registered Aboriginal Party has not been elected across a study area then the CHMP will be evaluated by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Registered cultural heritage places/Aboriginal Places: These are Aboriginal sites registered on the Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register.

Scarred trees: Aboriginal derived scars are distinct from naturally occurring scars by their oval or symmetrical shape and occasional presence of steel, or more rarely, stone axe marks on the scar's surface. Other types of scarring include toeholds cut in the trunks or branches of trees for climbing purposes and removal of bark to indicate the presence of burials in the area. Generally, scars occur on river red gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), or Grey Box (E microcarpa) or Black Box (E largiflorens) trees. River red gums are usually found along the margins of rivers, creeks and swamps with grey box on near and far floodplains.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 1

Appendix A – Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report

Size and shape of the scar depended on the use for which the bark was intended. For example, bark was used for a variety of dishes and containers, shields, canoes and construction of huts.

Significant ground disturbance: is the disturbance of the topsoil/surface rock layer of the ground/a waterway by machinery in the course of grading, excavating, digging, dredging or deep ripping, but does not include ploughing other than deep ripping.

Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register (VAHR): A list of all registered cultural heritage places (Aboriginal Places) in Victoria.

CH2M Beca // 17 December 2020 6583830 // page 2