1-11 Lock Street and 45 Jansson Road, Rhyll

ED19/67661

Cultural Heritage Management Plan

AAV CHMP No.: 11151 Sponsor: LT Corporation Pty Ltd Cultural Heritage Advisor: Melinda Albrecht Author: Melinda Albrecht

Date of Completion: 21 Febuary 2011

ANDREW LONG + ASSOCIATES

PO Box 2471 Fitzroy BC Victoria 3065 Australia

Andrew Long + Associates Pty Ltd ACN 131 713 409 ABN 86 131 713 409 ED19/67661

Photo Caption (Coverplate): Existing building within northern portion of activity area showing gravel driveways and flat to gentle undulating landform_15FeblO_Melinda Albrecht.jpg

Acknowledgements: The consultants would like to thank the following people for their involvment and assistance in completing the project:

Jamie Thomas (BWF), Iris Pepper and Darren Symington (BLCAC), Ricky Feldman, Henry Lion, Karl Van der Hi1st, Helene Athanasiadis, Matthew Whincop, Eric Endacott, Andrew Mellor, Josara De Lange, and David Mathews (ALA). ED19/67661

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Section 65

Cultural Heritage Management Plan - Notice of Approval

I, Monique Dawson, Deputy Director, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, acting under authority delegated to me by the Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development. hereby approve the cultural heritage management plan referred to below:

1-11 LOCK STREET AND 45 JANSSON ROAD, RHYLL

Cultural Heritage Management Plan number: 11151

Sponsor: LT Corporation Pty Ltd

Cultural Heritage Advisor: Ms Melinda Albrecht [Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd]

Author: Ms Melinda Albrecht [Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd]

Cover Date: 21 February 2011

Pages: x + 124 numbered pages

Received for Approval: 21 February 2011

Pursuant to s.65(6) of the Act this ltural heritage management plan takes effect upon the granting of this approval.*

Signed: NIQUE AW

Dated

* This notice of approval should be inserted after the title page and bound with the body of the management plan. ED19/67661

1-11 Lock Street and 45 Jansson Road, Rhyll

Cultural Heritage Management Plan

Activity Size: Medium Assessment: Desktop/Standard/Complex AAV CHMP No.: 11151 Sponsor: LT Corporation Pty Ltd Cultural Heritage Advisor: Melinda Albrecht Author: Melinda Albrecht

Date of Completion: 21 Febuary 2011 ED19/67661

Project Code: LRR Report Date: 29 January 2011 Status: Final Copy File Location: HAArchaeology\Project Files\Westernport\Phillip Island\Lock Street, Rhyll\CHMP ED19/67661

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

When is a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) required? A mandatory CHMP is required for an activity if (Regulation 6)- (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.

Is this activity area an area of cultural heritage sensitivity? Yes. The activity area is in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity as the activity area is located within 200m of the high water mark according to Regulation 28 (1).

Is this activity a high impact activity? The proposed activity is a high impact activity, as defined in Division 5, Regulation 45 as it includes:

(1) The construction of three or more dwellings on a lot or allotment

This CHMP has been mandatorily prepared to allow activities associated with the proposed construction works that may disturb Aboriginal heritage sites within the activity area, and provide contingency arrangements for managing the discovery of any further Aboriginal heritage sites identified during construction works associated with the development.

Sponsor

The sponsor of this CHMP is LT Corporation Pty Ltd

Cultural Heritage Advisor

This CHMP has been authored by qualified archaeologists and heritage consultants, experienced in professional Aboriginal heritage assessment and evaluation since 1991, in accordance with section 189 of the Act. Qualification details can be found in Appendix 5.

The author of this CHMP:

Melinda Albrecht Project Manager

Activity Description

The activity area is located approximately 140 km southeast of the Melbourne CBD at Rhyll, on Phillip Island, Western Port and is the proposed development of the a residential hotel, conference centre, serviced apartments and dwelling. The proposed development extends across a former caravan park site situated behind properties along Beach Street to the south and east, and Jansson Road to the west, with a frontage along Lock Street in the north. It should be noted that all activities will be conducted in accordance with the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) as per the Bass Coast Planning Scheme (see Appendix 7).1

The activity area is approximately 1.83 hectares in size, and is situated on a flat, low coastal bench overlooking Rhyll inlet, approximately 300m south by south west of Lady Nelson Point. To the south and west of the activity area is the slope of a former cliff line, representing a prior shoreline of Westernport Bay.

1 http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/basscoast/ordinance/32 21/02/11 04s basc.pdf - accessed

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/aavpp/32 29/11/10. 04.pdf - accessed ED19/67661

The proposed development of the activity area involves two planning permit applications. The first application (Application 100441), at 1 - 11 Lock Road, Rhyll, involves the construction of 33 serviced apartments within 2 buildings, a residential hotel comprising 84 rooms, including a conference centre, staff amenities meeting room, dining area and kitchen within a three-storey building as well as the development of a café and day spa with a variation to the standard car parking requirement of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme. This development will also include a sealed driveway and car parking area. The second planning permit application seeks to construct 32 dwellings on the land at part of 1 - 11 Lock Road and 45 Jansson Road, Rhyll.

The proposed development includes the construction of nine main buildings across the activity area. Building 1, to be located in the north eastern corner of the activity area, will contain a day spa, meeting room, dining area and kitchen, as well as staff facilities. This building will be a multi-storey development with these facilities located at ground floor in addition to the lobby. The first floor will contain residential hotel rooms and the conference room, and the second floor will contain residential hotel rooms. Building 2 is to be situated in the north western section of the activity area, and will also be a multi-storey building with a ground floor, and a first and second floor. A lap pool and a wading pool will be constructed south east of this structure, enclosed by a glass roof, with a child care facility and cafe/bar south of these pools. Building three will be situated along the western boundary of the property, west of the pools, child care facility and cafe/bar. This building will contain a ground floor, first floor and second floor. The ground and first floor contain serviced apartments whilst the second floor contains residential hotel rooms. The area in the south eastern section of the property, east of building three, will be utilised for a sealed driveway and car parking.

Buildings four to nine, form part of the second planning permit application (Application 100480), and are of a similar size and design, and will contain a ground floor and a first floor. These buildings will be located in the southern section of the property and will contain 32 dwellings.

According to Regulation 68, the proposed development of the subject land will constitute a medium-size activity in relation to the prescribed review fees for this CHMP.

The likely impact on the land surfaces within these defined areas will be extensive, with the removal of topsoil, and existing vegetation, and localised deeper excavations into the underlying subsoil across the proposed building sites. The construction works may also involve filling in sections of the property. The specific depth of these excavations is unknown at this stage, however the excavations for the apartments and proposed pools are likely to exceed 1m depth due to the sandy nature of the soil deposits.

Evaluation Methodology

Based on the results of the Desktop and Standard Assessments as well as taking into consideration the views and recommendations of the Traditional Owner Group community members, a testing programme combining a controlled lxlm hand excavation and the controlled hand excavation of shovel test pits was implemented as the most effective means of investigating the archaeological potential across the flat to gently inclined sandy dunes landform present within the activity area.

15th The testing was undertaken between February 2010 to the 17 February 2010, with a total of 3 days of excavation and field recording. A total of 35 shovel test pits and one 1x1m test pit were hand excavated in a grid pattern across the activity area, with 4 shovel test pits excavated across the gently inclined sandy dune in the north eastern corner and northern portion of the activity area (identified during the standard assessment as Survey Unit 2) and 31 shovel test pits excavated across the remainder of the activity area (identified during the standard assessment as Survey Unit 1). The lxlm test pit was positioned on a cleared area of the property that contained less ground disturbance than the remainder of the property.

• The locations any artefacts identified throughout the testing programme were then subject to targeted shovel test z• n pitting where shovel test pits were radiated at 5m intervals around artefact find spots. o lL1 _J The specific aims of the subsurface testing follows: - programme were as rr o 1. Initially establish the stratigraphy through controlled hand excavation; • (1) Z Ul < < ED19/67661

2. determine the presence / absence of subsurface archaeological deposits and gather more information on the nature of soil deposits through a programme of shovel test pits; 3. determine the boundaries of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area, through targeted shovel test pitting; and 4. determine the nature and significance of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage places.

Mechanical testing was not employed during the complex assessment.

The subsurface hand excavation testing programme of the activity area was specifically designed as a broad level investigation of shovel test pits roughly every 20m along the transects (Transects A to 0) to determine the presence / absence of Aboriginal archaeological deposits. The spacing of these shovel test pits often depended on whether the section of the activity area was in a relatively clear area, free of paved driveways and footpaths, and building debris from the former caravan park. Shovel test pits of —400x400mm in area were excavated stratigraphically by shovel in 100 mm spits to a maximum depth of 1650mm. Note that the level of stratigraphic control decreases with depth, and the precise depth provenance of artefacts becomes less certain below —600mm given the risk of vertical contamination by dislodgement of artefacts from higher levels. The majority of deposits encountered were quite deep (generally 1000-1200mm) decreasing the level of stratigraphic certainty within the shovel test pits.

All excavated material was 100% hand sieved using a 5mm mesh, in order to determine the presence / absence of stone artefacts and to provide an indication on the preservation of other types of culturally deposited material (e.g. faunal remains, burnt clay etc.).

The methodology employed during this phase of testing involved the hand excavation of 35 shovel test pits across the activity area.

The geomorphologic history of each landform (Section 4.6) and the comparative data from testing programmes elsewhere in the region (Section 4.9, and others) were drawn upon to determine the depth of excavation in each trench. In general, this level corresponded with the mid to dark brownish red to yellow 'coffee rock' deposits with brown grey clay overlain by generally paler coloured silty sand deposits.

Aboriginal Heritage Values A total of 1 silcrete flaked artefact and 1 quartzite flaked artefact were identified on the flat to gently inclined sandy dune landform of in the north western portion of the activity area. The silcrete artefact was identified during the excavation the shovel test pit El, at approximately 180-360mm depth. Shovel test pits were radiated 5m to the east (El-E), 5m to the south (El-S) and 5m to the west (El-W) of the artefact bearing shovel test pit El. A shovel test pit was not excavated to the north of El, due to a gravelled driveway and residential dwelling to the north.

An additional artefact, a quartzite flake, was located during the excavation of El-E at a depth range of 560-900mm. A shovel test pit was radiated 5m to the south (El-ES) of this artefact find spot, with no additional Aboriginal cultural heritage material identified.

VAHR No. Lock Rd 1 (7921-1221) Mapsheet: 7921- Western Port Cadastral Details: Lot 1 on Plan TP 211224 Grid reference: E352383 N5741367 Site type: Artefact Scatter Scientific Significance Rating: Low Date documented; name of recorder 16-02-10, Melinda Albrecht

Recommendations and Section 61 Matters

Will the Activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal heritage?

(7921-1221, Lock Rd 1) is located within the activity area and will be impacted by the activity. This Aboriginal cultural heritage place has been investigated in detail as part of this CHMP and the two stone artefacts comprising this site have been collected by the CHA and the place extent for each of this location has been comprehensively investigated through a programme of radial shovel test pitting.

The sponsor cannot modify the layout of the development to avoid impact to this Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the construction zone without substantial economic considerations which would be unjustifiable taking into account the low scientific significance of this Aboriginal heritage place.

The stone artefacts that represent 7921-1221 have been collected by the CHA and are being held at 54-58 Smith Street, Collingwood 3066. Please see Section 9 in regards to the specific recommendations for the Aboriginal cultural heritage place.

Will the Activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to Aboriginal heritage?

The extensive subsurface testing and evaluation undertaken as part of this CHMP resulted in identification of one Aboriginal cultural heritage place (VAHR number), an artefact scatter represented by 2 stone artefacts found in a disturbed context. The location of this cultural heritage place is within an area intended for high impact activity, therefore the activity will not be conducted in a way that minimises harm to this Aboriginal cultural heritage place. However, the Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221) present within the activity area has been investigated in detail as part of this CHMP and the stone artefacts comprising this site have been collected by the CHA for scientific investigation, and the place extent for this location has been comprehensively investigated through a programme of radial shovel test pitting. There is no evidence of further archaeological deposits in a surface or subsurface context. The Aboriginal cultural heritage place is located within a disturbed context, with both artefacts found with glass, ceramic, animal bone and bluestone road gravel and metal deposits.

As such, the activity cannot be conducted in a way to minimise harm to the Aboriginal heritage place (7921-1221) without a significant redesign of the proposed development that would be unjustifiable considering the low scientific significance results of this evaluation, and other environmental, economic and social considerations.

Specific Measures required of the management to Aboriginal cultural heritage likely to be affected by the Activity, Before, During and After the Activity

All Aboriginal Cultural Heritage recovered from the activity area during the complex assessment remains the property of the RAP(s) (if present). In any such instance it will be the responsibility of the CHA to:

o Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage.

o Label and package the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage with reference to provenance;

o With the RAP (if present), arrange storage of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in a secure location nominated by the CHA together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation.

o Facilitate the reburial of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in an appropriate location, preferably in close proximity to the original find spot, upon completion of the activity.

o Aboriginal cultural heritage material is to be placed in a non-plastic, permeable container for reburial.

o The location of the reburied material is to be recorded and clearly entered on the existing site card for the registered place.

Lock Rd 1(7921-1221)

iv ED19/67661

Collingwood 3066. After the implementation of the activity, the CHA with the RAP (if one exists), will arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. A repatriation location will be determined by the CHA in consultation with the RAP (if one exists). The location of any area in which Cultural Heritage is relocated will be recorded by a CHA using appropriate Heritage Record and Object Collection Forms and associated documentation in accordance with the relevant standards (e.g. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria's Guide for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plans 2007 (Appendices 3 and 4), and reported to the Secretary DPCD. Please see Section 9 in regards to the specific recommendations for the Aboriginal cultural heritage place.

Although there is a very low risk that Aboriginal heritage will be disturbed during the construction activities, construction staff will not have the skills or expertise to recognise Aboriginal cultural heritage and will have difficulty implementing the contingency arrangement without an induction. It is therefore required that a cultural heritage advisor (CHA) in conjunction with one Traditional Owner representative from each of the Traditional Owner groups provide a cultural heritage induction prior to the commencement of the activity (at the Sponsor's expense). The skills acquired by the construction staff and contractors can thus be implemented effectively for the remainder of the activity. The Sponsor should contact the CHA and Traditional Owner groups at least 2 weeks prior to earth disturbance of the activity area to allow sufficient time to organise personnel to undertake this task.

Standard contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage, as per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 are to be adopted during the implementation of the activity (Section 10.2).

Recommendations for 7921-1221

A. The following management measures are required prior to the implementation of the activity:

• Based on the results of the assessment which identified one Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221) of low scientific significance within the activity area, there are no specific requirements recommended in relation to this Aboriginal cultural heritage place. The area containing this site has been extensively tested and only two subsurface stone artefacts have been identified, both of these located within a disturbed context. The subsurface artefacts were collected by the Cultural Heritage Advisor for scientific investigation during the testing programme for this CHMP, and are currently being held at 54-58 Smith Street, Collingwood 3066.

• Although there is a very low risk that Aboriginal heritage will be disturbed during the construction activities, construction staff will not have the skills or expertise to recognise Aboriginal cultural heritage and will have difficulty implementing the contingency arrangement without an induction. It is therefore required that a cultural heritage advisor (CHA) in conjunction with one Traditional Owner representative from each of the Traditional Owner groups provide a cultural heritage induction prior to the commencement of the activity (at the Sponsor's expense). The skills acquired by the construction staff and contractors can thus be implemented effectively for the remainder of the activity. The Sponsor should contact the CHA and Traditional Owner groups at least 2 weeks prior to earth disturbance of the activity area to allow sufficient time to organise personnel to undertake this task.

B. The following management measures are required during the implementation of the activity:

• With the RAP (if one exists), the CHA will arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation during the activity. • Consistent with the contingency arrangements in this CHMP, the CHA will label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance.

C. The following management measures are required after the implementation of the activity;

• With the RAP (if one exists), the CHA will arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. A repatriation location will be determined by the CHA in consultation with the RAP (if one exists). The location of any area in which ED19/67661

Cultural Heritage is relocated will be recorded by a CHA using appropriate Heritage Record and Object Collection Forms and associated documentation in accordance with the relevant standards (e.g. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria's Guide for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plans 2007 (Appendices 3 and 4), and reported to the Secretary DPCD.

vi ED19/67661

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 1 - Assessment 1 1. Introduction 3

1 Reason for Conducting the Cultural Heritage Management Plan 3 1.2 The Name of the Sponsor 3 1.3 The Name of the Cultural Heritage Advisor 3 1.4 The Location of the Activity Area 4 1.5 The Owners and Occupiers of the Land 4 1.6 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan 4 1.7 Registered Aboriginal Parties 4 2. Activity Area 7

2.1 Description of the Activity 7 2.2 Extent of the Activity Area 8 3. Documentation of Consultation 11

3.1 The Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan 11 3.2 Registered Aboriginal Parties and Applicants 11 3.3 Participants in the Assessment 12 3.4 Summary of Consultation 12 4. Desktop Assessment 13

4.1 Method of Assessment 13 4.2 Obstacles 13 4.3 Persons Involved in the Desktop Assessment 13 4.4 RAP Information 13 4.5 Geographic Region 14 4.6 A Review of the Landforms or Geomorphology of the Activity Area 14 4.6.1 Landforms / Geomorphology 14

4.6.2 Environment 14

4.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register Search 19 4.8 Review of Historical and Ethno-Historical Accounts of Aboriginal Occupation in the Geographic Region 22 4.9 Review of Reports and Published Work about Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Geographic Region 24 4.10 A Review of the History of the Use of the Activity Area 29 4.11 Implications 31 5. Standard Assessment 33

5.1 Introduction 33 5.2 Previous Sites 33 5.3 Method of Assessment 33 5.4 Obstacles 34 5.5 Participants Involved in the Standard Assessment 34 5.6 RAP Information 34 5.7 Results 34 5.8 Implications 39 6. Complex Assessment 41

6.1 Introduction 41 6.2 Subsurface Testing or Excavation Methodology 41

vii ED19/67661

6.3 Establishing Stratigraphy 43 6.3 Obstacles 45 6.4 Name of the Supervisors 45 6.5 Names of Participants 45 6.6 Co-ordinates of Testing Locations 45 6.7 RAP Information 45 6.8 The Results of Testing 46 6.9 Implications 53 7. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment 55

7.1 Introduction 55 7.2 Detailed Description and Concise Maps of All Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 55 7.3 A Statement of Significance 58 7.4 Photographs 59 7.5 Results of the Assessment 60 8. Section 61 Matters 63

8.1 Introduction 63 8.2 Will the Activity be Conducted in a way that Avoids Harm to Aboriginal Heritage? 63 8.3 Will the Activity be Conducted in a way that Minimises harm to Aboriginal Heritage? 64 8.4 Specific Measures Required of the Management to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Likely to Be affected by the Activity, Before, During and After the Activity 64 9. Recommendations 69

9.1 Recommendations for 7921-1221 69 10. Contingencies 71

10.1 Introduction 71 10.2 Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Found During Works 71 10.3 Custody and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Recovered 73 10.4 The Management of the Discovery of Human Remains 73 10.5 Reviewing Compliance with the Management Plan 74 10.6 Dispute Resolution 75 10.7 Delays and Other Obstacles 75 10.8 Authorised Project Delegates and the Handling of Sensitive Information 75 11. Site Gazetteer 77

12. References 79

13. Tables 83

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: STATUTORY REGULATIONS ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 2006 95 APPENDIX 2: NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 2006 97 APPENDIX 3: GLOSSARY OF TERMS 101 APPENDIX 4: HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT 105 APPENDIX 5: QUALIFICATIONS 111 APPENDIX 6: COMPLIANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST 113 z APPENDIX 7: BASS COAST PLANNING SCHEME INFORMATION 115 OuJ _J - FIGURES CCOu.1 u OU) ZU) << viii ED19/67661

FIGURE 1: STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE DRAWING OF 1X1-Al 44 FIGURE 2: STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE DRAWING OF SHOVEL TEST PIT El 48 FIGURE 3: STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE DRAWING OF El-E. 50

PLATES

PLATE 1: FLAT TO GENTLY INCLINED LANDFORM OF SA- 1_15FEB10_MELINDA ALBRECHT.JPEG 37 PLATE 2: VERY GENTLY INCLINED LANDFORM OF SA-2_15FEB10_MELINDA ALBRECHT.JPEG 38 PLATE 3: EXCAVATION OF 1X1-A FACING SOUTH-15FEB10_MELINDA ALBECHT.JPEG 42 PLATE 4: BASE OF 1X1M TEST PIT A FACING NORTH. RANGE POLE HAS INCREMENTS OF 250MM _15FE810_HENRY LION.JPEG 44 PLATE 5: SHOVEL TEST PIT 1-1 FACING NORTH. RANGE POLE HAS INCREMENTS OF 200MM _17FEB10_HENRY LION.JPEG 46 PLATE 6: SHOVEL TEST PIT El FACING NORTH. RANGE POLE HAS INCREMENTS OF 200MM _16FEB10_MELINDA ALBRECHT.JPEG 48 PLATE 7: AREA CONTAINING ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE, FACING NORTH-EAST_16FEB10_MELINDA ALBRECHT.JPEG 49 PLATE 8: SHOVEL TEST PIT El-E FACING NORTH. RANGE POLE HAS INCREMENTS OF 200MM _16FEB10_MELINDA ALBRECHT.JPEG 51 PLATE 9: LOCATION OF THE ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE PLACE (7921-1221) FOUND DURING COMPLEX ASSESSMENT, FACING NORTH-EAST_16FEB1O_MELINDA ALBRECHT.JPEG 57 PLATE 10: SILCRETE ARTEFACT FROM 7921-1221_25JUNE10_DAVID MATHEWS.JPEG 59 PLATE 11: QUARTZITE ARTEFACT FROM 7921-1221_25JUNE10_DAVID MATHEWS.JPEG 59

MAPS

MAP 1: LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY AREA 5 MAP 2: MAP OF ACTIVITY AREA. 9 MAP 3: GEOLOGY OF THE ACTIVITY AREA (GEOVIC MAPS) 16 MAP 4:VEGETATION WITHIN THE ACTIVITY AREA PRE 1750 (BIODIVERSITY MAP) 17 MAP 5:GEOGRAPHIC REGION CONTAINING THE ACTIVITY AREA 18 MAP 6: REGISTERED ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE PLACES WITHIN 5KM OF THE ACTIVITY AREA 21 MAP 7: SURVEY AREAS (SA) USED DURING THE STANDARD ASSESSMENT 35 MAP 8: LOCATION OF TEST EXCAVATIONS DURING THE COMPLEX ASSESSMENT. 52 MAP 9: MAP SHOWING PLACE EXTENT OF 7921-1221 WITHIN CONSTRUCTION PLAN 61

TABLES

TABLE 1: ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY GROUPS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CHMP. 11 TABLE 2: PARTICIPANTS IN THE ASSESSMENT 12 TABLE 3: ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE PLACES LOCATED WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC REGION CONTAINING THE ACTIVITY AREA. S = STONE (S) = SILCRETE, (QTE) = QUARTZITE, (Q) = QUARTZ, (B) = BASALT, (F) = FLINT, (C) = CHERT; (CHAO = CHALCEDONY, 0= OTHER (CH) CHARCOAL, (BR) BURNT ROCKS, 19 TABLE 4: POST CONTACT ABORIGINAL PLACE LOCATED ON PHILLIP ISLAND 20 TABLE 5: PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED IN THE STANDARD ASSESSMENT. 34 TABLE 6: SURVEY AREA 1 37 TABLE 7: SURVEY AREA 2 38

ix ED19/67661

TABLE 8: ESTABLISHING THE STRATIGRAPHY 45 TABLE 9: PARTICIPANTS IN COMPLEX ASSESSMENT 45 TABLE 10: EXCAVATIONS COMPLETED DURING THE COMPLEX ASSESSMENT 47 TABLE 11: ARTEFACTS IDENTIFIED DURING THE COMPLEX ASSESSMENT. 47 TABLE 12: DETAILS OF ARTEFACTS IDENTIFIED DURING THE SUBSURFACE TESTING PROGRAMME 47 TABLE 13: DESCRIPTION OF 7921-1221 55 TABLE 14: SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE OF ABORIGINAL SITES IDENTIFIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT. 58 TABLE 15: ABORIGINAL TRADITIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT. 58 TABLE 16: KEY ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ISSUES 63 TABLE 17: SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE OF ABORIGINAL SITES IDENTIFIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT. 109 TABLE 18: ABORIGINAL TRADITIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT. 109 ED19/67661

ASSESSMENT

1- PART

r-I ED19/67661

1 INTRODUCTION

1 Reason for Conducting the Cultural Heritage Management Plan

When is a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) required? A mandatory CHMP is required for an activity if (Regulation 6)- (c) all or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (d) all or part of the activity is a high impact activity.

Is this activity a high impact activity? The proposed activity is a high impact activity, as defined in Division 5 Regulation 45 as it includes:

(2) The construction of three or more dwellings on a lot or allotment

1.2 The Name of the Sponsor

• The sponsor of this CHMP is LT Corporation Pty Ltd

1.3 The Name of the Cultural Heritage Advisor

The author of this CHMP:

Melinda Albrecht Project Manager

3 ED19/67661

1.4 The Location of the Activity Area

The activity area is located approximately 140 km southeast of the Melbourne CBD at Rhyll, on Phillip Island, in Western Port, with Western Port Bay to the east. The activity area is approximately 1.83 hectares in size. The proposed activity includes the development of a residential hotel and conference centre on several blocks of land in the township of Rhyll (see Map 1).

The activity area is located within the Bass Coast Shire Council.

1.5 The Owners and Occupiers of the Land

The Sponsor, LT Corporation Pty Ltd, is the owner and occupier of the land.

Lot Number's Owner/Occupier Lot 1 on Plan TP 211224; CP103364; Crown LT Corporation Pty Ltd Allotments 5, 6, 7, 8 Rhyll

1.6 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

Notification of the intent to prepare this CHMP, as required by Section 54 of the Act, was submitted to the Secretary, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) on 10 February 2010. The activity area is located on property that is owned by the LT Corporation Pty Ltd.

1.7 Registered Aboriginal Parties

At the time the notice of intent to prepare a CHMP was submitted to the Secretary, AAV, there were no RAPs for the activity area. Previously the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) and the Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd (BWF) had submitted applications for RAP status for this area, however these applications were declined. Nevertheless the Aboriginal Heritage Council acknowledged that these two groups, BLCAC and BWF represented traditional owners for the areas of their former applications and were to be consulted in relation to cultural heritage matters. Prior to the submission of this CHMP, on 4 November 2010 the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) submitted a new application for RAP status for this area. Pursuant with Section 65 of the Act the Secretary, AAV will review the CHMP (Appendix 2). ED19/67661

o 350400 351200 352000 352800 353600 o o m - sr 0 125 250 500

—1 REID STREET Westemport Boy

Activity Area

44), 1/2N6,4 4„ti. °O 4, 04, 4`).. 4'4 dj. 0 05 1 Ikm 1 20 000 at A4

(ib

Port Phillip Bay F RAN KS TON

PORTSEA French Island

dtHYLL

Phillip Island WONTHAGGI

0 125 25 50 II I I I I I I km

Lock Road, Rhyll Development ANDREW LONG+ Activity Area Boundary • • Road Rhyll 141 Lock Island Victoria • ASSOCIATES Cultural Heritage Management Plan - Road Date 15/08/2010 Drainage Channel Drawn by Andrew Long + Associates Property parcel Location of the Activity Area LGA Boundary Locality (main)

ProtectioniHonzontai Datum Map Grai Australia Zone 55/Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 ,GDA94 MGA Zone 551

Map 1: Location of the Activity Area.

5 ED19/67661

ACTIVITY AREA

2.1 Description of the Activity

The proposed development of the activity area involves two planning permit applications. The first application (Application 100441), at 1 - 11 Lock Road, Rhyll, involves the construction of 33 serviced apartments within 2 buildings, a residential hotel comprising 84 rooms, including a conference centre, staff amenities meeting room, dining area and kitchen within a three-storey building as well as the development of a café and day spa with a variation to the standard car parking requirement of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme. This development will also include a sealed driveway and car parking area. The second planning application seeks dwellings the land permit to construct 32 on at part of 1 - 11 Lock Road and 45 Jansson Road, Rhyll.

2 http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/aavpp/32 04.pdf - accessed 29/11/10. 7 ED19/67661

floor. The ground and first floor contain serviced apartments whilst the second floor contains residential hotel rooms. The area in the south eastern section of the property, east of building three, will be utilised for a sealed driveway and car parking.

According to Regulation 68, the proposed development of the subject land will constitute a medium-size activity in relation to the prescribed review fees for this CHMP.

The likely impact on the land surfaces within these defined areas will be extensive, with the removal of topsoil, and existing vegetation, and localised deeper excavations into the underlying subsoil across the proposed building sites. The construction works may also involve filling in sections of the property. The specific depth of these excavations is unknown at this stage, however the excavations for the apartments and proposed pools are likely to exceed lm depth due to the sandy nature of the soil deposits.

2.2 Extent of the Activity Area

The activity area encompasses approximately 1.83 hectares of flat partially cleared land situated behind residential properties along Beach Street to the south and east, and Jansson Road to the west, with frontage along Lock Street in the north. The activity area is located within the Bass Coast Shire Council.

The general location of the activity area is depicted in Map 1. Map 2 defines the activity area.

8 ED19/67661

Gveroie, op of Iccaucn 352300 352400 352500 LOCK ROAD

French Island MORNINGTON PENINSULA

Phillip Island •LCM1.01.

s ROAD ..1.. 3 BEACH ROAD -1.. c't=

JANSSON

2 APPLICATION

25 50

Project Code: Drawn by: Joaara de Lange 1-11 Lock Road, Rhyll - CHMP 11151 Legend LRR Dale. 25 January 2011 Map of the activity area (=Activity area boundary LiWater area Road showing proposed development plan GDA94 ' ANDREW LONG + —Watercourse Property parcel : Bass Coast Shire MGA Zone 55 ASSOCIATES :o )1 kIlts ALA las tallevery care to ensve the a0000acy'and c,cency of Yr], product. ALA ma,es no reoresentaLons or .arraltes aoou101 accuracy. cocniNetenesa or witoblily for any spec* purpose Data Soteces DOE ,cMap 2039 . A cannot be fled lAbOr Icy. any watt0 md,fect expenses. losses damages and,cr costs Ireurred as a •es,0, 0.0100001 ne,ng ac:urate r110mplete or unsurtable m any Aay or lot any reason

Map 2: Map of Activity Area.

9 ED19/67661

DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION

3.1 The Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

Notification of the intent to prepare this CHMP, as required by Section 54 of the Act, was submitted to the Secretary, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) on the 10 February 2010 (Appendix 2). The activity area is located on property that is owned by the Sponsor. Pursuant with Section 65 of the Act the Secretary, AAV will evaluate the CHMP.

3.2 Registered Aboriginal Parties and Applicants

At the time the notice of intent to prepare a CHMP was submitted to the Secretary, AAV, there were no RAPs for the activity area. Previously the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) and the Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd (BWF) had submitted applications for RAP status for this area, however these applications were declined. Nevertheless the Aboriginal Heritage Council acknowledged that these two groups, BLCAC and BWF represented traditional owners for the areas of their former applications and are considered by the Victorian Aboriginal Council to have equivalent status to RAP applicants, even though they have no current statutory authority. Prior to the submission of this CHMP, on 4 November 2010 the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) submitted a new application for RAP status for this area. The RAP status of the BLAC will be presented throughout this report as 'Traditional Owner Representative' which represents the RAP status of the BLCAC during the desktop, standard and complex assessments for this CHMP.

Representatives of BLCAC and BWF were present and were consulted with throughout the preparation of this CHMP.

This consultation took the form of informal discussions that were undertaken throughout the standard and complex assessments for this CHMP. These discussions included issues relating to any oral history information known about the study region, and the Aboriginal cultural heritage material identified during the standard and complex assessments for the CHMP. The Boon Wurrung and Bunurong Aboriginal people informally consulted for this CHMP are the traditional owner representatives listed below. No additional consultation was undertaken.

Name Abbreviation RAP Status Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation BLCAC Traditional Owner Representative Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd BWF Traditional Owner Representative Table 1: Aboriginal Community Groups who participated in the CHMP.

11 ED19/67661

3.3 Participants in the Assessment

Participant Organization Position Component Date(s) Melinda Albrecht ALA Project Manager Standard Assessment; 15-02-10, 16-02-10, Complex Assessment 17-02-10 Henry Lion ALA Project Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16-02-10, Archaeologist 17-02-10 Karl Van der Hi1st ALA Assistant Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16-02-10, 17-02-10 Jamie Thomas BWF Representative Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16-02-10, 17-02-10 Iris Pepper BLCAC Representative Complex Assessment 15-02-10 Darren Symington BLCAC Representative Complex Assessment 16-02-10, 17-02-10 Table 2: Participants in the Assessment.

3.4 Summary of Consultation

Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation and the Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd provided representative s who participated in the planning, execution and recording of the Standard and Complex assessment for this CHMP. The Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation representatives and the Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd representative was informally consulted for this CHMP throughout the planning, execution and recording of the Standard and Complex assessments, and took part in discussions relating to the testing methodology, the results and the recommendations of the project.

12 ED19/67661

DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

4.1 Method of Assessment

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the desktop assessment. The aims of the desktop assessment were threefold: • to determine the level of previous investigation of the activity area and the surrounding region; • to determine the presence of registered Aboriginal places within the activity area; • to determine the environmental context of the activity area with regard to landform and geomorphology.

The methods used to undertake the desktop assessment included: • using appropriate sources, including Victorian government on-line information, reviewing and summarising relevant environmental background; • searching Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) and other research sources (cf. consultancy reports, academic research etc.) for information relating to the activity area and the geographic region (a VAHR search was undertaken on 3 February 2010); and • reviewing and analysing this information to identify or characterise the Aboriginal cultural heritage place types and locations likely to be present within the activity area.

There were no obstacles to undertaking the desktop assessment.

The desktop assessment was conducted prior to the commencement of the standard and complex assessment. The following individuals were involved:

• Melinda Albrecht, Project Manager

Please note that no oral information was collected during the desktop assessment.

13 ED19/67661

4.5 Geographic Region

The activity area is located approximately 140 km southwest of the Melbourne CBD at in Rhyll town centre, Phillip Island, Western Port. The activity area is situated on a low coastal bench of partially developed parkland that is located behind residential properties along Beach Street to the south and east and Jansson Road to the west, with frontage onto Lock Street in the north. To the south and west of the activity area is the slope of a former cliff line, representing a prior shoreline. The geographic region containing the activity area has been defined as the area within a 5km radius of the current activity area. This includes the land west of the activity area to just east of Thompson Road, Cowes, south west towards Sunderland Bay and Surf Beach, and east and north to Western Port Bay (See Map 5).

The proposed activity is the development of a residential hotel and conference centre. The sponsor for this CHMP assessment is LT Corporation Pty Ltd.

4.6 A Review of the Landforms or Geomorphology of the Activity Area

4.6.1 Landforms / Geomorphology

The geology of Phillip Island is dominated by older volcanic rocks deposited in the middle to late Eocene times. These consist of extrusive deposits of tholeiitic and minor alkaline basalts.3 Successive lava flows extended across the island with intervening layers of red, brown or grey tuff and agglomerate formed by the deposition of volcanic ash and gravel (Bird 1993, 219) (Map 3).

The geology of the activity area consists of the weathered surface of a basalt lava flow which has been eroded by wave action and in turn aggraded through the deposition of beach sand, before re-emerging following a slight fall in sea level —4,000 years ago (Bird 1993, 221). Soils are to be characterised by orange-red sandy clays, which represent decomposed weathered tuff, superimposed by sand mantling, the deposition of which may be quite recent.

The climate of the study region is broadly described as temperate, characterised by warm summers and cool winters. The mean maximum temperature for Rhyll is 24.2 degrees Celsius in February and a mean minimum temperature of 8.1 degrees Celsius in July. The mean annual rainfall for Rhyll is 660.0mm.4

Prior to 1750 vegetation in the activity area was most likely dominated by plains grassy woodland vegetation.s Information provided by surveyors in the 1860s indicates that the north east corner of Phillip Island was 'beautifully wooded' and contained 'good agricultural soil' on 'gently undulating' land (Gliddon 1963, rear end paper map). Remnant vegetation west of the activity area is classified as 'Coastal Grassy Forest' with some 'Swamp Scrub', characteristic species being Narrow-leaf Peppermint, Coast Manna Gum, Black Sheoak, Prickly Ti-tree and Hedge Wattle (LCC 1991, Map 7). Ti-tree scrub and

3 http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.isp?site=geovic — accessed 03/02/10 4 BOM -http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_090069.shtml — accessed 03/02/10 5 http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bim — accessed 03/02/10

14 ED19/67661

mangroves may also have been present along the shoreline of Reid Bight, to the south east of the activity area. The vegetation of the activity area is currently dominated by a mixture of eucalypt, conifer and deciduous plantings with some lawn areas (Map 4).

There are no natural watercourses on the property, though the foreshore of Rhyll Inlet is situated approximately 75 metres to the east.

Water rushes and marsh vegetation would have grown in the nearby Rhyll wetland, located north west of the activity area. This swampy wetlands area would have supported various species of fish, and other aquatic species as well as various birds. The coastline at Rhyll and it surrounds would have supported a variety of migratory as well as local bird species, such as penguins and mutton birds, plovers, wedge tailed eagles, pelicans and cormorants. The coastal areas would also have contained a wide variety of shellfish species and other marine life. Mangroves, presently located to the south of Rhyll would also have supported various animal species (Bird 1993, 198). Animal species such as kangaroos, wallabies, wombat, possums and emu would have inhabited the undulating sandy dunes and plains of the wider study area.

15 ED19/67661

340000 342000 344000 346000 348000 356000 352000 354000 356000 35800G

uti

Oil Western port Bay Oil •cr P Activity Area

Oat ()al -Po Oil

Oil

trY -Po Qd1 1 -Pa Oil Odll Qd1 1

Oat Qa -Po cn -Po Qa 1 -Po

111 -Po

0 125 2.5 5 II rill I I km -Po -Po

0 0 0 0 0

,r)

G261

ci 0 0 Port Phillip Bay 0 FFtANKSTON

PORTSEA French Geology ; Island Code, Unit Name, Age 141- -Po. Older Volcanic Group. Pataeogene (Eocene)

G261. Wootamai Granite Devonian (Late Devonian)

N Ksw. Wonthaggi Formation. Cretaceous (Early Cretaceous) Phillip Island WONTHAGGI Oil Unnamed alluvium. Quaternary (Holocene) . 0d11. Unnamed coastal dune deposits. Quaternary (Holocene)

0 12.5 25 50 Qml. Unnamed swamp and lake deposits. Quaternary (Holocene) I i I lir] Ikm Sm. Murnndindi Supergroup. Palaeozoic (Silunam

Lock Road, Rhyll Development •••• ANDREW LONG + 1-11 Lock Road. Rhyll, Island Victoria . . ASSOCIATES VVaterbody Cultural Heritage Management Plan Drainage Channel Date 15/08/2010 Drawn by Andrew Long + Associates Activity Area Boundary Activity Area Geology Locality (main)

ProtectlorvHonzontal Datum Map God Australia YV,) Abder .1.A S.'Rion wv.y car., /0 T. uo ar, and ,,s,•,Yry L A ,on‘iyaUtneysz Yor ttt spou. (tow.* ALA 0.00,15. hyrid lotAs st 5t onto Zone 55/Geocentnc Datum of Australia 1494 ton.licyf the pY,Pot bos, mace 000 flycyryeplor{e :Ye UMW*.2, 2, Of hOt .0t GDA94 MGA Zone 55)

Map 3: Geology of the activity area (GeoVic Maps)

16 ED19/67661

346000 348000 350000 352000 354000 356000

Ecological Vegetation Class (1750) ▪ Etensas Wantland 0 Sod CSoo, Succastot 14echand Port Phillip Bay 0 FRANKSTON 0 mei fatO Colony Suctuktot Hatt:Nada:oasts. Tussock ,.;,assianl MOOS. + as Ell0050* 50 CoasSanNSwerno Skouo Mesas. ,r) 1.0Coast Bata.a 40-3014500 C0140 Banks* 'M30,1 anSCosstal Done Sc.,. Mos., - PORTSEA EllCoastal ',Wattle Szt ober. d Caton., Succulent ne,Matst Mosso French Ell Coastal Dune Citeselan0 Island Coastal Dune Scrob/Bagt CS°, Succulent 77104370 Moseo RHY'LL ▪ Cosettal Done Utttvasstai Doss roesstand Mossc ▪ COastal Headland Stillb C000111 Heels. SctutwCoesta °user.* Cioroste70 Mosaic Ell Island' Coastal Semis,. Phillip WONTHAGGI Coastal Sadtroat000505tal Done Gtassisna • Coastal SettmsstAtittl,0,. Stu,daand.tosa, Coasts nate°. Cita... 0 15 30 60 Ell Deno Sands tietpocn Osoodeml I iiiIiiiIkrn Estuanne WrettaNSEstueone Swamp 5.u0 Voss,' mg :east, WooSand ▪ Mangrove Sh,... • Mangor• SnrultlanSEstuenne tilts Cr wawa Moss, Rana Grassy Okoodantl Swamp So. ▪ Neaand 000741100

Westernport Bay St

453 Activity Area

cc 0 ‘1"

CCI

(.0

0 1 2 4 1 I I km

Lock Road, Rhyll Development •••• ANDREW LONG + • • 1-11 Lock Road Rhytt Phil/lip Island Victoria ...• ASSOCIATES Cultural Heritage Management Plan Activity Area Boundary Date 15/08/2010 Waterbody Drawn by Andrew Long + Associates Activity Area Vegetation Drainage Channel Ecological Vegetation Class (1750) Locality (main)

nrolectionitionzontal Datum Map Grid Australia N., ,nas taken •. 10 0011,0 ON aCcun, Old D...., 0?..• AnOul Zone 55/Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 ..OrnIN•Cono,s 3 yo55t35 50 en, N.P.,Annor ps held 30*07 Ildnect •.p•rub• otadr. fon4.41300- or..•4 A I.Vr,dua tx, nr...,rnplets aftsullable. ..11,,r Who aft, reavon iGDA94 MGA Zone 551

Map 4: Vegetation within the activity area pre 1750 (Biodiversity Map)

17 ED19/67661

348000 350000 352000 354000 356000 358000

FRANKSTO 0 125 250 500 Port Phillip Bay

PORTSEA French Island

0 5 10 20 Ii ii It I 1km

I '1— SETTLEMENT ROAD 0 0.5 1 2 3 k lii 11I I I I Ikm LOCKROADIt

Activity Area

RHYLL SWAMP '

Western port Bay

HARBISONROAD %- •

BACK BEACHROAD

ED Lock Road, Rhyll Development Geographic Region ANDREW LONG+ 1-11 Lock Road. Rhyll. Phi/Hip Island Victoria niActivity Area Boundary ASSOCIATES Cultural Heritage Management Plan VVatertrody Date 21/0212011 Drawn Roads by. Andrew Long + Associates

Drainage Activity Area Geographic Region Property parcel

Locality (main) Protection:Horizontal Datum- Map Grid Australia Zone 55tGe0centric Datum ot Australia 1994 • A., can o' (GDA94 MGA Zone 551

Map 5: Geographic region containing the activity area

18 ED19/67661

4.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register Search

VAHR Site Field Name Site type Site Context Site No Contents 7921-0163 Drennan 1 Artefact Scatter Surface scatter found on side or base (S) 0, Qte, of hill/rise/dune of prior coastline of B, F mud flats

7921-0164 McFee 1 Artefact Scatter Surface scatter found on side or base (5) Q, Cate, F of hill/rise/dune in ploughed paddock

7921-0165 Cleeland 1 Artefact Scatter Surface scatter found on side and top (5) Q, Qte of hill in ploughed paddock

7921-0614 CE IA 1 Artefact Scatter Flat to undulating ground (S) Qte

7921-0615 CE IA 2 Artefact Scatter Undulating to gently inclined upper (S) C slope of dune

7921-0902 Cowes East 3 Artefact Scatter Undulating sandy pasture (S) S, Q

Earth Feature (0) BR, Ch

7921-0903 Cowes East 4 Artefact Scatter Undulating to gently inclined mid slope (S) Q of plain

7921-0904 Cowes East 5 Artefact Scatter Undulating to gently inclined upper (5) Q slope of plain 7921-0905 Cowes East 6 Artefact Scatter Gently inclined lower slope of plain (5) S, Q

7921-0921 Shorland Close 1 Artefact Scatter High soil heap of introduced deposits (5) Chal

7921-1138 Shorland Close 2 Artefact Scatter Very gently inclined low-lying land (5), Qte, 5, adjacent to wetland Chal, Q

Table 3: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places located within the Geographic Region containing the Activity Area. S = Stone (S) = Silcrete, (Qte) = Quartzite, (Q) = Quartz, (B) = Basalt, (F) = Flint, (C) = Chert; (Chal) = Chalcedony, 0= Other (Ch) Charcoal, (BR) Burnt Rocks

There are no registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area. A total of 11 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places are located within the geographic region containing the activity area (Table 3, Map 6). The geographic region containing the activity area has been defined as the area within a 5km radius of the current activity area. This includes the land west of the activity area to just east of Thompson Road, Cowes, south west towards Sunderland Bay and Surf Beach, and east and north to Western Port Bay (See Maps 5 and 6).

All of Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region are artefact scatters, with one place (7921-0902, Cowes East 3) also containing an earth feature. Most of these sites were found on the ground surface of a ploughed paddocks or plains, mostly associated with dunes, slopes or hills. These artefact scatters predominately contain quartz and quartzite stone artefacts, with 7921-0163 (Drennan 1) and 7921-0164 (McFee 1) also containing flint artefacts, and 7921-0615 (CE IA 2) containing chert. There was also chalcedony, silcrete and basalt lithics represented within several of the Aboriginal cultural heritage places. All of the Aboriginal cultural heritage places were located on undulating plains generally

19 ED19/67661

away from the coastline, with the majority of the Aboriginal cultural heritage places clustered to the north west of the current activity area. Many of these artefact scatters were located in highly disturbed contexts, or were in poor condition due to land use activities such as clearing and ploughing as well as stock trampling.

There is one registered Aboriginal historical place (1.1-13) located on Phillip Island, referred to as the Phillip Island Sealers Camp (Table 5). There is no known specific location for this historic place.

Place Place Name Place type Place Context Place Number Contents

1.1-13 Phillip Island Sealers Properties where Aboriginal people had contact with Camp initial contact European sealers on Phillip Island prior with pastoralists to the first settlement of Victoria. occurred Sealers lived in camps on the island with a number of Aboriginal women. These women were probably taken from the mainland or from Tasmania by force or barter. There is evidence that the seizure of Aboriginal women from the Bunurong people led to increased tension and fighting between the Bunurong and Aboriginal people to the east with a large number of Bunurong Aboriginal people killed in tribal conflicts from c.1812 to 1836.

Table 4: Post Contact Aboriginal place located on Phillip Island

20 ED19/67661

347200 348000 348800 349600 350400 351200 352000 352800 353600 354400 355200 356000 356800 357600

LRoei.c1 DIRT6RLE: 42,401. Western Bay • COWES-RHYL ROAD port 1ft 0 ActiVity Area

0 0.5 1 km

N- tr)

HARRISON ROAD

•t9,41.. MCFEES ROAD

tn fORRES c?'

FRANKSTON Z. rn

PORTSEA ranch 175

0510 20 Phillip Island In km WONTHAGGI i„ii '

Lock Road, Rhyll Development Registered Aboriginal • Cultural Heritage Place ANDREW LONG+ 1-11 Lock Road. Rhylt. Phil/lip Island Victoria iVAHR number) ASSOCIATES =I Activity Area Boundary Cultural Heritage Management Plan Date 21/02/2011 =I Geographic Region Drawn by Andrew Long Associates Previously Registered - Roads Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places Property parcel LGA Boundary (within 5 km of Activity Area) • Locality (main) Protection/Honzontal Datum: Map Grid Australia CI SW< a; a 4 p.a. maae, .0 '1 0a1,e 4 411,a.14, a0+0.4 .0f an, latc, aggrs Ana 0,44 0,1,46 a Zone 55/0eocen1nc Datum of Australia 1994 40. rea404 (GDA94 MGA Zone 55)

Map 6: Registered Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places within 5km of the activity area

21 ED19/67661

4.8 Review of Historical and Ethno-Historical Accounts of Aboriginal Occupation in the Geographic Region

In this section the available ethno historical information relating to Aboriginal people in the study region is briefly reviewed. This information can assist in formulating a model of Aboriginal subsistence and occupation patterns in the Phillip Island area. In conjunction with an analysis of the documented archaeological record of the area (See Section 4.9), the ethno historical information also assists in the interpretation of archaeological sites occurring in the activity area, and in predicting the location of archaeological sites and site types.

There has been no prior investigation of ethno historical evidence for the wider study area. For more detailed information on Aboriginal peoples' association with the Western Port and Phillip Island region see Barwick (1998) and Gaughwin and Sullivan (1984).

There are several problems concerned with correctly identifying and describing 19th century Aboriginal groups in Victoria, largely as a result of discrepancies in early European accounts and the difficulties early settlers had in understanding Aboriginal languages and social systems. Furthermore, the devastating effects of European settlement, such as the loss of traditional lands and resources, the spread of disease, social breakdown and removal of both groups and individuals to reserves and mission stations have added further complexities. As a result it is hard to identify and document the specific Aboriginal clan groups in the study region both before and after the period of initial European settlement. There is currently little information available for the Aboriginal population of the study region in the 19th century. The broader study area is located within the traditional language boundaries of the Bun wurrung (spelling according to Clark 1990, 363, however numerous variants exist), who made up one of the seven Kuhn Nation language groups. A language group consisted of independent groups of closely related kin, or 'clans', who were spiritually linked to designated areas of land through their association with topographic features connected to mythic beings or deities. Clan lands were inalienable and clan members had religious responsibilities (e.g. conducting rituals) to ensure 'the perpetuation of species associated with the particular mythic beings associated with that territory' (Berndt 1982, 4).

The closest documented clan to the study area was the Yallock Balug/Yallock-Bulluk clan (meaning river people) who were associated with the Bass River c. 10 km east of Phillip Island (Clark 1990, 368). According to Barwick (1984, 119), in 184y the clanhead (or Arweet) of the Yallock-Bulluk was Worindidjolong/Warendedolong/Warrengittolong. William Thomas, an Assistant Protector of Aborigines, recorded most of the little documented information regarding the lifestyle of the Aboriginal people in Western Port. He observed clans living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, moving within their lands to make use of seasonal plant and animal resources (i.e. he noted that coastal clans used to travel by canoe to French Island to obtain eggs), trading opportunities and to meet ritual and kinship obligations. Whilst travelling through Western Port with an Aboriginal group he observed that:

...all are employed; the children in getting gum, knocking down birds etc the women in digging up roots, killing bandicoots, getting grubs etc; the men in hunting kangaroos, etc, scaling trees for opossums etc. They mostly are at the encampment about an hour before sundown — the women first, who get fire and water, etc. by the time their spouses arrive... In warm weather, while on tramp, they seldom make a miam — they use merely a few boughs to keep off the wind, in wet weather a few sheets of bark make a comfortable house. In one half hour I have seen a neat village begun and finished. (Thomas in Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984, 93-94).

By 1812 sealers were visiting Western Port on a seasonal basis and by 1826 they were permanently o settled at Phillip Island exploiting the seal colony at Seal Rocks (Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984, 82). The z o relationship between local Aboriginal groups and the sealers is not well documented, however Gaughwin Sullivan suggest that competition over resources, the removal of Aboriginal women by sealers to

o z aHand a ED19/67661

Bass Strait Islands and warfare between the two groups may have led to the complete absence of Aboriginal people on Phillip Island by the late 1820s (1984, 82). While Gaughwin and Sullivan state that `No Aborigines were ever seen on Phillip Island by Europeans' (1984, 82), it has been reported that two Western Port Aboriginal people known as Peter and Eliza were living on Phillip Island along with seven sealers in 1842 when John McHaffie settled on the island. They lived in a 'mia-mia just behind the small lagoon, in the lee of the sand hummocks' and were subsequently employed by McHaffie 'for many years' (Gliddon 1963, 143, 169). There has been one Aboriginal historical place (1.1-13, Phillip Island Sealers Camp) recorded on Phillip Island. The location of this place is the general Phillip Island area. The information supplied by the VAHR states that Aboriginal people were known to be living on Phillip Island with sealers prior to the first settlement of Victoria. Aboriginal people living with sealers at Phillip Island were observed in 1827 from the settlement at Corinella, with crops planted and A-frame huts built (Historical Place Report for 1.1-13). The sealers had a number of Aboriginal women living with them on the island, and these women had probably been forcibly taken or bartered from the mainland (Sullivan 1981, 14). Sullivan has suggested that the seizure of women from the Bunurong Aboriginal people may have led to increased tension and fighting between the Bunurong Aboriginal people and Gippsland Aboriginal people to the east (Sullivan 1981, 21). Sealers taking women from both Aboriginal groups brought about raids between the two groups to obtain women, and initiated retaliation (Sullivan 1981, 21)

A large number of Bunurong Aboriginal people and Gippsland Aboriginal people were killed in various tribal conflicts prior to and during the early days of European settlement. In 1840, William Thomas was told that before European settlement, there had been tribesmen living on French Island, and that these people had been raided and killed by Aboriginal people from Gippsland (Gunson 1968, 6). Around 1833- 1834 there was another massacre that reportedly took place on the western side of Tooradin, with about 25 Bunurong Aboriginal people killed (Gunson 1968, 6). Reprisal raids and killings also took place, with Bunurong Aboriginal people arriving in Gippsland in February 1840, to avenge the death of their companions, telling Thomas that the party were going to shoot buln buln (lyre-birds) at Lang Lang and other mountains in the Gippsland Hills (Gunson 1968, 6). The Bunurong hunting group returned at the beginning of March, 1840, and were observed by European settlers with pieces of human flesh, which was consumed in a feast (Gunson 1968, 7-8). Massola (1959) also mentioned this raid, stating that it took place in 1838, and that the Kurnai Aboriginal group set out to retaliate in 1840, but attacked the European settler, Dr. Robert Jamieson's station, Yalloak instead (Massola 1959, 182-183). Barak explained that these riads, including the attack at Yalloak, stemmed from one incident that took place 'long before the white men came to Melbourne' (Smyth 1878: I 453-455, II 13-14 in Barwick 1984, 116) where Aboriginal people from `Mordiallock' went to the Tarwin to feast on native cabbage, then followed and killed some of the Port Albert Kurnai Aboriginal people who had taken the cabbage without permission. This brought about reprisal raids by the Kurnai on the Western Port Aboriginal people (Barwick 1984, 116).

In 1835 land began being settled by European colonists with Aboriginal resources depleted by the introduced cattle. The Aboriginal people living in the region sought refuge in various stations around Western Port set up by William Thomas between 1839-1843 (Barwick 1998, 31). Thomas hoped that the stations would encourage Aboriginal people to take up an agricultural lifestyle but spent most of his time unsuccessfully trying to keep Aboriginal people out of Melbourne. He was eventually forced to leave Western Port to deal with Aboriginal camps around Melbourne (Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984, 84-85).

Thomas did however manage to secure 832 acres of land at Mordialloc in 1852 where Aboriginal people were known to have camped since 1835 and spent years trying to 'defend the interests of the Bunurong' who had strong attachments to the Mordialloc reserve, by preventing its cancellation. Despite his efforts the Mordialloc Reserve was eventually revoked and sold in 1863, with some of the Aboriginal residents moving to Coranderrk Aboriginal Station, and the remainder staying in camps at Mordialloc and Cranbourne where the last of them died in 1877 (Barwick 1998, 35, 52, 66). Another Western Port

23 ED19/67661

Aboriginal camp from around this time period was reported by Ben Brett, a European settler who arrived in Western Port in 1863, he recalled that three or four Aboriginal people lived in a 'mia-mia' at Tooradin (Brett in South Gippsland Development League 1966, 380).

4.9 Review of Reports and Published Work about Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Geographic Region

Previous archaeological research consists of regional studies, which assist in characterising the general pattern of archaeological site distribution across a broad region, and localised studies, which assist in developing an understanding of archaeological sensitivity and the extent and scope of prior investigation in a relatively limited area or environment.

Gaughwin undertook a regional archaeological study of the Western Port Catchment (Gaughwin 1981, 1983) which provides detailed information on the nature and distribution of sites in the region. Gaughwin did survey parts of the Phillip Island coastline as part of this study, however information on survey coverage and archaeological potential is only presented in general terms. Gaughwin and Brennan carried out an excavation of a shell midden at Stinker Bay, on the south coast of Phillip Island (Gaughwin & Brennan 1986). Gaughwin also undertook a survey of land at Cape Woolamai, however no new sites were documented (1984). Two archaeological assessments of residential subdivisions in close proximity to Northern Shore (Light & Schell 2003a; 2003b) provide comparable results. The only other documented archaeological surveys undertaken in the region consist of archaeological inspections of locations at Phillip Island carried out as part of the Coast Action / Coastcare grant assessment process, however these only provide limited information on specific localities (Edmonds et. al. 1999, Schell & Light 2002).

Regional Studies

The following studies have examined the archaeology of Phillip Island within a regional, rather than a localised context.

The archaeological survey of the Western Port Catchment undertaken by Denise Gaughwin (1981; 1983) provides useful information on the regional distribution of sites. Gaughwin used data on site location, site contents, landforms, and subsistence resources in conjunction with historical records to develop a subsistence model for the Western Port Catchment. Gaughwin (1981; 1983)

Gaughwin sample surveyed the three landforms which made up the catchment: coastal margins, upland hills and coastal plains (1983, 33). The coastal plains encompass the study area and her results for this landform are discussed in detail.

Within the coastal plains Gaughwin surveyed an area of 266 hectares, 34% of this surveyed area was on Phillip Island. A total of 14 sites were identified within this area comprised entirely of stone artefact occurrences (1983, 109, 114). The majority of sites were located on the interface between higher ground in proximity to wetlands and swamps (1983, 113). Gaughwin recorded detailed information on stone artefact raw materials at one site on Phillip Island located on the coastal plain. The artefact scatter 7921- 0163 (Drennan 1) was documented to contain 81 stone artefacts with quartz the predominant raw material (79% of assemblage), although silcrete (16%), volcanic (1%), sandstone (1%) and ochre (1%) artefacts were also present. Compared to other Phillip Island sites, 7921-0163 was unusual in that there C.D was an absence of coastal flint artefacts. The quartz raw material at the site was believed to be derived from local sources on Phillip Island with quartz veins present in granite and as pebbles on beaches and J streams. The closest source of silcrete was on the Mornington Peninsula (Gaughwin 1983, 127-129). An o o o in z a a 24 ED19/67661

analysis of stone artefact types at 7921-0163 determined the majority of the assemblage was comprised of flakes and blades (60%), with tools (6%), cores (30%) and manuports also represented (3%). Compared to other Phillip Island sites, 7921-0163 contained a much higher proportion of cores (Gaughwin 1983, 130). Gaughwin established that 7921-0163 was located on a prior cliff line formed during the mid- Holocene high sea-level 5,000-6,000 years ago, however she was unable to determine whether the site dated to this period or reflected more recent occupation activities (Gaughwin 1983, 139). Using the results of her studies Gaughwin proposed that Aboriginal subsistence in the Western Port Catchment was based primarily on the coastal plains, particularly plains adjacent to wetlands with the coastal margin relatively unimportant in terms of subsistence resources and utilisation (1983, 158).

Localised studies

There are several localised studies of Phillip Island that have relevance to the current project, although none of these studies has been undertaken in the Rhyll area.

Stinker Bay Shell Midden (Gaughwin & Brennan 1986)

Gaughwin and Brennan carried out an excavation of 7920-0120 (Jessie Island 3, Stinker Bay), a shell midden located on a high energy coastline at Stinker Bay on the south coast of Phillip Island. The site, situated in a shelter at the base of a low cliff, had previously been identified as well preserved with potential to contain stratified deposits (1986, 63). The excavation determined that the site consisted of a single stratigraphic layer which could represent a single discard event. Two radiocarbon dates provided present.6 the following results: 280±55 years before present and 250±50 years before Gaughwin and Brennan concluded that the contents of the site indicated only limited exploitation of the site and surrounding area, with emphasis on the utilisation of marine resources (1986, 67).

Cowes Region Residential Subdivisions (Light and Schell 2003)

Various proposed residential subdivisions on the outskirts of Cowes, west of the current study area, and away from the coastline, have been subject to archaeological assessments (Light & Schell 2003a; 2003b).

Light and Schell (2003a; 2003b) carried out surveys of two areas of freehold land subject to rezoning applications which occur in close proximity to Northern Shore housing estate, approximately 7.8 Km northwest of the current activity area. The surveys were constrained by poor ground surface visibility and no Aboriginal sites were identified. However both survey areas were determined to have moderate potential to contain Aboriginal sites due to the location of nearby sites on similar landforms (2003a, 15- 16; 2003b, 15-16).

South Coast Residential Subdivisions (Feldman and Howell Meurs in prep)

Two areas proposed for residential subdivision development on the south coast of Phillip Island have been subject to archaeological field assessments (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. a; Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b). One of these assessments (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. a) was located

6 These dates indicate that the site was deposited between 1615 and 1750 with 'before present' referring to the year 1950.

25 ED19/67661

approximately 5.5km south west of the current study area on a property in Sunderland Bay, c. 350m north of the coastline, comprised of low-lying volcanic plain, determined to contain low Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity, and a ridgeline, determined to contain low-moderate Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. a, 22). At the time of the survey, however, a thick grass cover causing low ground surface visibility (<2%) hindered the effectiveness of the survey and no Aboriginal archaeological sites were identified (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. a, 20).

The other assessment (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b) was located approximately 6.5 km southeast of the current study area on a property north of the coast at Forrest Bluff. The property was comprised of the lower landward slopes of dunes containing Mutton Bird rookeries, determined to be of moderate archaeological sensitivity (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b, 26) and flat, low-lying land running north from this dune slope determined to be of low-moderate archaeological sensitivity (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b, 26). At the time of the survey, however, a thick grass cover causing low ground surface visibility (<10%) hindered the effectiveness of the survey (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b, 23). One Aboriginal cultural heritage place was identified and recorded, an isolated flake with one retouched lateral margin made of coastal flint. This artefact was located on an area of exposed soil adjacent to a fence line on the flat ground within the zone of low-moderate archaeological sensitivity (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b, 23). Further investigations, in the form of subsurface testing, were recommended for both of these properties (Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. a, 36-37; Feldman & Howell Meurs in prep. b, 38-39).

Pyramid Rock Road 11 (Murphy 2005)

Murphy (2005) conducted a field survey of 140 hectares of land to the east of Pyramid Rock Road, Ventnor, approximately 9.5Km southwest of the current activity area. The land comprised cleared and level grazing paddocks with a gentle slope towards the east. At the time of the survey, however, a thick grass cover causing low ground surface visibility (<0-30%) hindered the effectiveness of the survey and no Aboriginal archaeological sites were identified (Murphy 2005, 36). The eastern section of this property, incorporating the area between the break of slope and the eastern boundary close to the cliff edges, was determined to be of low-moderate Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity (Murphy 2005, 44) while the remainder of the property was determined to contain very low Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity.

Shearwater Residential Estate, Cowes (Murphy 2004a; 2004b)

Murphy (2004a) undertook a study of a property 2.5 km west of the current activity area. The property was characterised by gently undulating grazing land, with dense ti-tree in low-lying swampy areas (Murphy 2004a, 3). The survey was hampered by heavy grass cover, with the few areas with visibility limited to erosion scars caused by cattle ruts. The field survey identified two isolated stone artefacts, made from quartzite and chert, located within dam spoil (7921-0614, CE IA1) and on a lunette (7921- 0615, CE IA2). The presence of further isolated stone artefacts was predicted on the property with dunes and a lunette present in the northern half of the property identified as having higher archaeological potential than the remainder of the area (Murphy 2004a, 43).

An archaeological assessment was undertaken of a property 6 km south west of the current activity area (Murphy 2004b). The area comprised undulating grazing land with localised pockets of thick ti-tree indicating the presence of former wetlands (Murphy 2004b, 3). A field assessment involved examining the entire property via pedestrian transects, with particular focus on areas with surface visibility. Due to extensive grass and vegetation cover, surface visibility conditions were poor (0-10%) influencing the effectiveness of the results (Murphy 2004b, 32-33). No Aboriginal cultural heritage places were identified

26 ED19/67661

during the survey, however on the basis of comparative archaeological information for the wider region one area of low-moderate archaeological potential was identified. This comprised of gentle hill slopes situated adjacent to a former wetland area. Low density Aboriginal stone artefact scatters were predicted to occur at this location (Murphy 2004b, 37-39).

Shea rwater Residential Estate, Cowes East (Murphy and Thompson 2008)

Subsequent to Murphy's 2004 survey, Murphy and Thompson (2008) undertook a subsurface investigation of the property as part of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan. This investigation focussed on a range of landforms present within the study area excluding the wetlands area (five hectares of this area is a proposed reserve). It was also considered that any archaeological information that may be gathered from the remainder of the wetlands would be of very low scientific significance due to taphonomic processes such as flooding.

The gently undulating landform of the activity area is situated predominately in the centre, west and south sections of the activity area. This landform is characterised by cleared and grazed land that was previously subject to repeated ploughing. A total of ten 300x300 mm shovel probes were excavated 220- 450 mm to clay, seven 1x1 m test pits were excavated 300-500 mm to a clay deposit, and three mechanical transects were excavated to a compact ironstone/clay deposit at 200-600 mm. Aboriginal cultural material was identified in a disturbed context in one shovel test pit, one test pit and two mechanical transects at a depth range of 150-200mm within a slight rise. The five quartz artefacts found within this landform represent 7921-0904, which Murphy concluded was not in situ. Subsurface testing near the previously registered artefact scatter 7921-0614 also revealed that this area was highly disturbed.

A deflated sand dune landform was identified in the north eastern portion of the activity area, characterised by a slight sandy rise north east of an existing drainage channel. This area has been cleared and grazed although it appears to have undergone less extensive ploughing than the remainder of the property (Murphy & Thompson 2008, 54). A total of nine lx1 m test pits and four mechanical transects were excavated within this landform. No basal clay was recorded in subsurface deposits within this area. There was Aboriginal cultural material identified within three test pits and two mechanical transects at a depth range of 200-300 mm, resulting in the recording of 7921-0902 represented by 21 Aboriginal stone artefacts manufactured from silcrete and quartz, and an associated in situ Aboriginal hearth feature that was identified at a depth range of 170-250 mm. A radio carbon date from the hearth feature provided a date of 473 ± 47 BP.

A lunette landform, characterised by a gentle sandy slope, was identified on the south east side of the drainage channel. This area had been cleared of original vegetation and subjected to repeated ploughing. A total of five lx1 m test pits were excavated to 350-550 mm depth. Clay was recorded at the base of two test pits, with brown loam and sand in the base of the remainder. Two mechanical transects were excavated to a clay/ironstone base at 500 mm depth. Aboriginal cultural material was identified in two test pits and one mechanical transect at a depth range of 180-250 mm, resulting in the recording of 7921-0903 represented by two Aboriginal quartz stone artefacts associated with the previously recorded Aboriginal place 7921-0615.

A sand bank, located on the southern side of the drainage channel, was also subject to subsurface testing. A total of nine lx1 m test pits were excavated with no basal clay recorded in this area. Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified in six test pits at a depth range of 130-400 mm, comprising the Aboriginal place 7921-0905, represented by 31 Aboriginal stone artefacts that were manufactured by a range of raw materials. A total of 61 Aboriginal stone artefacts were identified across the activity area

27 ED19/67661

Murphy and Thompson (2008, 54) concluded that the identified Aboriginal places are likely to reflect ephemeral, low intensity stone artefact discard behaviour. Aboriginal stone artefact density was very low, possibly associated with occasional infrequent occupation of the area over the past 900 years, and most likely associated with late Holocene economic terrestrial exploitation strategies. The Aboriginal cultural heritage places identified during the testing programme were considered by Murphy and Thompson (2008) to be of low to very low scientific significance and low archaeological sensitivity. Murphy and Thompson considered that there was limited potential for further low density Aboriginal stone artefact scatters to occur within the activity area (Murphy & Thompson 2008, 69-70).

Shearwater Estate, Cowes (Mitchell and Richmond 2008)

Mitchell and Richmond (2008) undertook a 9 day salvage excavation of 7921-0902 (CE3) at Shearwater Estate, Cowes East, approximately 4.5Km southwest of the current activity area. A total of eleven 1x1m test pits were hand excavated in the area adjacent to the trench excavated by Murphy et al. in 2008 which uncovered the artefact scatter and hearth site, 7921-0902 dated to 473 +/- 47BP. A total of 86 artefacts were identified during the excavation of these 11 test pits. Mechanical excavations were then undertaken to assist in the recovery of additional Aboriginal cultural heritage material, to complete a sufficient stone tool analysis in accordance with the guidelines of the Tardis CHMP 10109 (Mitchell et al 2008, 26). A total of 14 mechanical transects were excavated in the area containing 7921-0902, and 270 stone artefacts were recovered. Analysis of these artefacts revealed that locally available raw materials were utilised at the site, with silcrete being the predominant raw material used, as well as marine chert and quartz present in smaller quantities, and a basalt hammerstone. There was a paucity of cores represented within the artefact assemblage, and Mitchell concluded that an intensive reduction strategy was employed at the site (Mitchell et al 2008, 41). The majority of the artefacts recovered during the salvage programme came from the upper 40cm of the soil deposit, which, according to geomorphologic evidence, is dated to the late Holocene.

Industrial subdivision of Lot 2 P5444983 and Lot B PS523033, Cowes(Schell and Barker 2009)

In 2009, Schell and Barker undertook a cultural heritage management plan on behalf of T. Bowler and K&M Hill for a proposed industrial subdivision of a property in Cowes. The property consisted of cleared, gently undulating land with low-lying wetlands in the north eastern portion of the activity area covered by dense tall trees, swamp grasses, tea tree and swamp paperbark trees (Schell and Barker 2009, 23). Five open drains dissect the property. Imported fill deposits cover the original ground surface across most of the south, west, north west and central portions of the activity area, creating a hummocky topography over sections of the property. These fill deposits were sourced from various locations on Phillip Island. There were also soil heaps located within the low lying north eastern section of the property that Schell and Barker stated may have derived from the excavation of the open drains (Schell and Barker 2009, 24). A pedestrian field survey was undertaken of the property, with limited ground surface visibility noted due to thick grass cover and hummocks of introduced fill, as well as dense scrub and deep surface water which restricted access to the low-lying wetland area (Schell and Barker 2009, 55). Schell and Barker noted that the wetland area may have been subject to less ground disturbing activities than the remainder of the activity area. One Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-0921) was identified during the field survey, an isolated stone artefact that was located within introduced fill in the north central portion of the property, and was probably introduced into the activity area with these fill deposits. A subsurface investigation of the activity area was then undertaken, with the hand excavation of shovel test pits, lx1m test pits and auger probes, as well as the mechanical excavation of trenches to z (I) o clear fill from the south, central and western sections of the property, as well as from areas in the north < and north east prior to hand excavations (Schell and Barker 2009, 58). Two Aboriginal cultural heritage Lou cc cc o o(f)Z(1) < 28 ED19/67661

places were located during the testing programme, 7921-1138, a diffuse subsurface artefact scatter, and an extension of 7921-0921. The artefact scatter 7921-0921 comprised basalt, flint, chalcedony and fine- grained lithics with one surface and two subsurface stone artefacts within and on the surface of introduced fill deposits (Schell and Barker 2009, 73). The artefact scatter 7921-1138, represented by 6 stone artefacts comprising quartzite, silcrete, quartz and chalcedony lithics, was identified in the north eastern section of the activity area and west of the wetland. Schell and Barker concluded that 7921-0921 most likely came from other locations on Phillip-Island when the fill deposits were introduced to the property. Both of these sites were assessed as having low scientific significance.

4.10 A Review of the History of the Use of the Activity Area

Aboriginal peoples' occupation of the study area likely extends over thousands of years. This occupation would have taken the form of temporary camps used on a seasonal basis, making use of diverse resources in the area. The landscape was undoubtedly well known to generations of people and it is probable that associations extended to spiritual attachments (see Section 4.8).

Western Port was first discovered by European settlers when Surgeon George Bass travelled west from Port Jackson, arriving at Western Port on the 5 January 1798 (Bowden in Gliddon 1963, 150-153). His discovery was celebrated as it located a useful harbour in southern New South Wales (as it was known at the time). After Bass returned to Port Jackson, Lieutenant James Grant was sent south in 1801 aboard the Lady Nelson to further explore and record the area. His mapping of the bay showed that French Island (so named by a French scientific expedition in 1800) was, in fact, an island rather than a head of the mainland as previously thought (Bowden in Gliddon 1963, 150-153).

Another expedition was sent south to Western Port in 1804, this time led by Robbins, in order to find an appropriate location for settlement. This was something that the Governor of New South Wales was particularly eager to initiate, as there was some concern that the French had their eyes on the region for more than just scientific purposes. The expedition reported low swampy land with low soil quality and very few large trees and concluded that none of the area was appropriate for settlement (Bowden in Gliddon 1963, 155).

Sealers and whalers had been visiting the area since 1798. Sealers, along with escaped convicts and Aboriginal 'wives' (mainly women often taken by force from Tasmania) set up unofficial settlements on Phillip Island, using it as their Western Port base until they exhausted the seal population by 1840 (by 1860 only 100 seals remained on Seal Rocks) (Edgecombe 1989, 13-15).

In 1824 Hume and HoveII embarked upon an expedition to Western Port Bay but mistook Port Phillip for Western Port and sent word that it was an excellent place for settlement. In response, Captain Wright led 20 soldiers and 20 convicts to Western Port, arriving and settling on Phillip Island (near Rhyll) in December 1926 and Western Port was formally claimed under England's flag (Bowden in Gliddon 1963, 157). They named this area near Rhyll Fort Dumaresq (or Flagstaff) (Edgecombe 1989, 14). Just over a week later they moved to a more strategic point near Corinella. Later that same year a French scientific expedition led by Captain D'Urville landed on Phillip Island and collected the remaining sealers and their Aboriginal 'wives' and took them to Sydney (Bowden in Gliddon 1963, 158-159).

Joseph Tice Gellibrand reports on his visit to Phillip Island in January 1836, in an attempt to find good grazing land for sheep. Gellibrand mentions the abandoned military post that had been established near Rhyll;

A person of the name of Thom was on board the vessel for the purpose of acting as Pilot at Western Port... he represented that there was a beautiful tract of Land with plenty of water about 10 miles further up the Bay, and near to the Government Settlement which had been abandoned in 1827. After some deliberation and hesitation on the part of the Captain, it was determined that

29 ED19/67661

a party should proceed at day light to Philip Island to examine that Station and if we could not find good land and water to proceed at once to the spot pointed out by Mr. Thom (Joseph Tice Gellibrand 1836 in Bride 1898 [1969], 7).

The activity area was once part of the Phillip Island (North Portion) Run which was gazetted on December 11 1850, comprising 2,560 acres. In 1842, this lease was held by W J and J D McHaffie, and by John David McHaffie in 1868 (Spreadborough and Anderson 1983, 179). In 1842 two brothers, William and John McHaffie, who heard of the island from two Aboriginal people of the Western Port District, leased the island as a pre-emptive right 'to occupy Waste Lands of the Crown known as Phillip Island' (Edgecombe 1989, 17; Allom Lovell and Associates, in prep.). They cleared the ti-tree scrub, grazed cattle and built a homestead (McHaffie's Homestead, HV Site 7921-58) on the western shore of the island (Edgecombe 1989, 17).

In 1860 after strong opposition to the sole ownership of Phillip Island, one third of the island was opened for selection. Harsh living, isolation, strong winds and the lack of fresh water and large trees led to abandonment by this new population (when Gellibrand landed on Philip Island in 1836 he stayed for a brief time, proclaiming it "totally unfit" for settlement, Joseph Tice Gellibrand 1836 in Bride 1898 [1969], 7). The Cowes Township was surveyed in 1868 and opened for sale the following year following the enacting of the Land Act of 1869 (Allom Lovell and Associates, in prep) with 132 lots of rural land on the island sold by ballot. This land was described as 'undulating, grassy plains, some well watered, nearly all good agricultural soil' (Edgecombe 1989, 19). Township lots around Cowes, Ventnor, Newhaven and Rhyll sold at auction, with 31 township sites at Rhyll selling for eight pounds per acre (Edgecombe 1989, 19).

In 1871 Phillip Island was declared an official district. At that stage there were 318 rate payers, however this number was reduced to 52 by 1874 due to the harsh conditions and the isolated location of the island. Nonetheless, the island slowly developed in the 1870s particularly as a result of the introduction of chicory processing equipment to accommodate the large quantities being grown on the island; the construction of the Cowes jetty in 1870; and, the opening of a state school in 1874 (Edgecombe 1989, 20-28). Other types of industries undertaken on the island included growing vegetables and fruit, running poultry, dairy farming, growing mustard and fishing (Edgecombe 1989, 20). Boat building was one of the early industries that look place at Rhyll (Edgecombe 1989, 52).

Tourism has been an element of the Phillip Island and Cowes economies since the late 19th century. The location of the settlement of Cowes was originally known as Mussel Rock, however, in 1865 the town was renamed Cowes after the English holiday resort (Allom Lovell & Associates in prep). Rhyll was probably named after 'Rhyl' a holiday resort in north Wales renowned for its beaches and scenery (Edgecombe 1989, 52). Between the end of World War I and the 1960s, Phillip Island was the destination of holidaymakers of the celebrity and upper classes (and sometimes royalty) who came to stay in the grand guesthouses, particularly in Cowes. The introduction of car and motorcycle races in 1928 increased the island's popularity both within Victoria and interstate. However, it was not until 1940 (Edgecombe 1989, 63) when the bridge to San Remo was built that accessibility further enhanced the appeal of the island, both for holidaymakers and residents. Up until then, Cowes was the first contact point on the island for visitors and residents arriving by ferry from Stony Point (Austin 1972, 28).

The former land use history of the activity area reflects the recreational and tourism elements that Phillip Island and the township of Rhyll have become renowned for. The activity area has been formerly used as a cabin and caravan park, with approximately 10 permanent structures, including offices, sheds, conveniences and other resident facilities. Currently there are some temporary cabins and caravans, although most have been removed, with a number of temporary building pads remaining. There are also a network of asphalt roads and footpaths across the property, as well as evidence of underground utilities to service individual sites and the complex as a whole, with water, electricity, stormwater and sewerage. Sections of landscaped garden areas also remain on the property, with several large

30 ED19/67661

eucalyptus and pine trees that have been planted at some stage during the residential and recreational land use history of the activity area.

4.11 Implications

By comparing the results of previous archaeological investigations across the broader study area, and within the areas adjacent to the current activity area, the following conclusions can be drawn. These assist in formulating site predictive statements for the activity area, and provide comparative data against which the results of the standard assessment and subsurface testing programme can be assessed; • Ethnographic observations indicate that the activity area is located within the traditional language boundary of the Bun wurrung Aboriginal people. The Yallock Balug are the clan from this language group who are associated with the Phillip Island region.

• Stone artefact occurrences varying in density from scatters to isolated finds are the most frequent Aboriginal cultural heritage places occurring within the study region. In the majority of instances these have been located either on hillsides, undulating land and flat plains, although Barker and Schell (2009) identified a diffuse subsurface artefact scatter adjacent to a low-lying wetland in Cowes.

• Quartz is the predominant raw material represented in artefact scatters within the geographic region containing the activity area, with quartzite, flint, chert, silcrete, chalcedony and basalt also present in smaller quantities within the wider study area.

• Wetlands and swamps were important locations for Aboriginal people exploiting the resources of the Rhyll swamp and smaller swamps and marshes within the Rhyll region, therefore there is a possibility that Aboriginal cultural heritage places may be identified in association with these water sources.

• Development of the land for residential and other land use activities will have impacted upon the preservation of archaeological materials relating to Aboriginal occupation of the area. Historical activities that would have occurred within the activity area would have been directly associated with the development of the township. Vegetation clearance and residential uses of the activity area will have contributed to the disturbance of surface and shallow subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage places. The utilisation of the activity area for a caravan park may also have impacted upon surface and shallow subsurface Aboriginal archaeological deposits.

• The previous archaeological field surveys and subsurface testing programmes undertaken across the broader study region have provided adequate assessment of obtrusive site types such as scarred trees, however poor ground surface visibility has been a major factor in the identification of stone artefact scatters and any shallow subsurface remains such as stone artefact scatters and burials.

• There are no registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area, and only two previously recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the geographic region containing the activity area. This may be due to the previous land use history of the region; the activity area has been modified as a result of previous land clearing and residential and recreational land uses of the property. The modifications that have occurred to the activity area (such as land clearing and other land uses of the property) may have impacted the survival of intact archaeological

31 ED19/67661

deposits, although the potential for archaeological materials to be present cannot be discounted. Including the two Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the geographic region containing the activity area, there are nine registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within a 5km radius of the proposed conference centre/hotel, with the majority of these sites comprising surface artefact scatters. As shown by the results of the desktop assessment, it is possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage will be present within the activity area therefore a standard assessment was carried out under Regulation 58 (1).

32 ED19/67661

STANDARD ASSESSMENT

5.1 Introduction

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the field survey undertaken for the activity area, including descriptions of individual survey areas.

5.2 Previous Sites

There were no previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places at the time of the current survey.

5.3 Method of Assessment

The aims of the current field survey were threefold:

• to inspect all areas with ground surface visibility for Aboriginal archaeological cultural heritage places within the activity area; • to undertake a general assessment of the overall archaeological potential of the activity area.

The field survey strategy was dictated by a need to systematically examine all landforms present in the activity area.

Due to the size of the activity area it was possible to undertake a comprehensive survey. The field survey was conducted on 15 February 2010 by Melinda Albrecht, Henry Lion and Karl Van der Hilst (Andrew Long & Associates, or ALA), with assistance from Iris Pepper (BLCAC) and Jamie Thomas (BWF). The survey strategy was dictated by the generally low ground surface visibility, focusing on the relatively limited distribution of surface exposures across this area, such as unpaved footpaths, clearings underneath trees and fences and other erosion features.

The field team examined the activity area utilising a systematic survey design comprising a pedestrian survey of the entire property (Map 7). The survey was undertaken by pedestrian transects with each individual examining all surface exposures within the activity area. The pedestrian transects were walked north to south across the property, with the five people undertaking the survey walking approximately 2 metres apart.

Ground surface visibility across the activity area was very limited due to a dense ground cover of thick short surface grass and weeds species. Effective survey coverage across the majority of the area was calculated at approximately 3.8%, with ground surface visibility across the activity area generally poor (Tables 6 to 7). Areas containing small patches of exposed soil such as unpaved pathways across the

33 ED19/67661

property and cleared areas around some of the structures and fences and particularly underneath the large pine trees growing across the southern section of the property and around the other trees and shrubs across the property better ground surface visibility and these areas were extensively targeted during the survey.

The landscape of the activity area comprises flat to very gently undulating sandy dune landform, with the north eastern corner and northern boundary of the activity area containing a very gently inclined sandy rise. The activity area was separated into two survey areas (SA-1 and SA-2) (Tables 6 to 7) based on these differing topographic and landform features identified across the property, with Survey Area 2 encompassing the gently inclined sandy rise in the north eastern portion of the activity area and Survey Area 1 taking in the remainder of the activity area.

The survey was undertaken by pedestrian transects generally on a west-east axis with each person in the field team approximately 2m apart, and each individual examining all surface exposures within the activity area in accordance with archaeological practice outlined in Burke and Smith (2004, 65-69). Ground surface visibility across the activity area was extremely limited due to a dense ground cover of introduced grass species. Gravel driveways bisect several sections of the activity area, and existing structures and the remains of removed caravan cabins also provided limitations to ground surface visibility. Pedestrian spacing was sufficient to identify any areas of significant ground exposure, such as cleared areas around some of the fences, and exposures underneath trees and along unpaved walking tracks, and these areas were extensively targeted. The average ground surface visibility of the activity area was <10% at the time of the survey.

5.4 Obstacles

Thick grass cover over much of the activity area hampered the ground surface visibility.

5.5 Participants Involved in the Standard Assessment

Participant Organization Position Component Date(s) Melinda Albrecht ALA Project Manager Standard Assessment 15-02-10 Henry Lion ALA Project Archaeologist Standard Assessment 15-02-10 Karl Van der Hi1st ALA Assistant Standard Assessment 15-02-10 Jamie Thomas BLCAC Representative Standard Assessment 15-02-10 Iris Pepper BWF Representative Standard Assessment 15-02-10 Table 5: Participants involved in the Standard Assessment.

5.6 RAP Information

Please note no oral information was collected during the standard assessment.

5.7 Results

For the purposes of the field survey the activity area was separated into two survey areas (see Section 5.3 and Map 7). These survey areas were based on the differing topographic and landform features z identified across the activity area. o A detailed description of each survey area is presented below.

34 ED19/67661

Overview map of location 352300 352400 352500 LOCK ROAD

MOMONGTOti French Island PENI.NsULA t-;„- ,

Wememport Btlt • *Rhylt

Phillip Island

2 APPLICATION

!Cakes So

Drown try, Jos+. do Lange Legend Project Code: 1-11 Lock Road, Rhyll CHMP 11151 - LRR Data .Januat 200 Map of the ClAckvity area boundary Survey area 11 IWater area Road survey areas ANDREW LONG + Survey area 2 —Watercourse Property parcel GDA94 Bass Coast Shire MGA Zone 55 ASSOCIATES

70 Welk A.ns has taken every care to enure yeaccurae, any currency 01 5$prod. DLAt,au.atc epteSerknor s Or rrarrentles ascot,,s enc,rak sonplekness or suaam ity Sn an'. spoon. 0,0asse Data Saaket DOE Verlap 25,9 2.2 cannot 0,held natele krany krent or inkrent erpenses losses omegas ankor costs nkurred as a reskl product beErg lanc+rak n

Map 7: Survey Areas (SA) used during the Standard Assessment.

35 ED19/67661

Survey Area 1 Aboriginal Place Identified NO Survey Unit - Survey Method Pedestrian Type Sampling Strategy Systematic List No. of Participants 5 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 2m Type Transect Spacing n/a Archaeology Sensitivity Rating Low to moderate Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate Exposure(s) Comments Generally flat, highly disturbed sandy dune with dismantled cabins % ground cover on exposure(s) 5% caravan °A) surface visibility on 20% exposure(s) % ground cover off exposure(s) 95% ... % surface visibility off 3 - - ,.. jg, Average ground surface 3.8% - : visibility , , , it Environment '''. ,.. ' -'• • • .. Environmental Settings Coastal • . - Landform and Land systems Lowland % Slope Flat to very gently inclined (>0.5- soma. '.-41;-.01"PlisP1 Locality Landforms Coast/Coastal Water Rhyll Inlet Western Port Bay - . Disturbance Residential purposes - Caravan park , . Previous + Current Land use Caravan park with cabins , Vegetation Vegetation Condition Modified native vegetation P ' Vegetation Type Grassland/woodland , Major Vegetation Types Grassland ,:- r' C.,.. -- - , .ii, .•,,,,o • - .. -. ,:j,,• ' ,-;•..._ ' -....- ....: Plate 1: Flat to gently inclined landform of SA- 1_15FeblO_Melinda Albrecht.jpeg Table 6: Survey Area 1

37 ED19/67661

Survey Area 2 Aboriginal Place Identified NO Survey Unit - Survey Method Pedestnan Type _ Sampling Strategy Systematic List No. of Participants 5 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 2m Type Transect Spacing n/a Archaeology Sensitivity Rating Low to moderate Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate Exposure(s) Comments Very gently inclined-low sandy dune along north % ground cover on exposure(s) 10% eastern corner and northern boundary of property % surface visibility on 90% exposure(s) . % ground cover off exposure(s) 90% % surface visibility off 1% .1 exposure(s) . Average ground surface 9 9%% visibility Environment Environmental Settings Coastal ..,,1 Landform and Land systems Lowland Slope Very gently inclined (>0.5-1.5) * Locality Landforms Coast/Coastal — .. .. _ Water Rhyll Inlet — Western Port Bay Disturbance Residential purposes — Caravan park Previous * Current Land use Caravan park with cabins Vegetation Vegetation Condition Modified native vegetation Vegetation Type Grassland/woodland

Major Vegetation Types Grassland — ... Plate 2: Very gently inclined landform of SA-2_15FeblO_Melinda Albrecht.jpeg Table 7: Survey Area 2

38 ED19/67661

5.8 Implications

On conclusion of the systematic field survey no Aboriginal cultural heritage places were identified within the activity area. At the time of survey grass cover greatly inhibited ground surface visibility and obscured sediments across the majority of the activity area. Many sections of the activity area have undergone a variety of disturbances mainly associated with the recreational and residential uses of the land, particularly the construction and dismantling of the former caravan park cabins across the property.

As a result of standard assessment and incorporating the results of the desktop assessment (see Section 4.11) the very gently inclined low dune located in the north eastern corner and northern portion of the activity area adjacent to Lock Road was considered to be of low to moderate Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity, and was identified as being a priority area for testing (Survey Area 2). The highly disturbed flat to gently inclined sandy dune landform of much of the remainder of the activity area, as represented by Survey Area 1 was determined to be of low sensitivity, with further archaeological investigation required to examine the archaeological sensitivity of this landform. There were no mature eucalypt trees within the activity area nor were there any caves or overhangs present within the activity area. Due to the likelihood that Aboriginal cultural heritage could be present within the activity area further archaeological investigation was required. It was therefore deemed necessary to undertake subsurface testing as part of a complex assessment to identify the nature, extent and significance of potential Aboriginal cultural heritage in accordance with Regulation 60 (lb).

39 ED19/67661

COMPLEX ASSESSMENT

6.1 Introduction

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the complex assessment undertaken for the activity area, including descriptions of subsurface testing results.

The aims of the subsurface testing were to fully define the actual archaeological sensitivity of activity area, to determine the presence / absence of archaeological subsurface deposits and to collect data on the nature and significance of any deposits identified.

6.2 Subsurface Testing or Excavation Methodology

Testing Strategy

Based on the results of the Desktop and Standard Assessments as well as taking into consideration the views and recommendations of the Traditional Owner Group community members (See Section 3.2), a testing programme combining a controlled lxlm hand excavation and the controlled hand excavation of shovel test pits was implemented as the most effective means of investigating the archaeological potential across the flat to gently inclined sandy dunes landform present within the activity area (see Section 5.7 & 5.8).

The testing was undertaken between 15th February 2010 to the 17 February 2010, with a total of 3 days of excavation and field recording. A total of 35 shovel test pits and one 1x1m test pit were hand excavated in a grid pattern across the activity area, with 4 shovel test pits excavated across the gently inclined sandy dune in the north eastern corner and northern portion of the activity area (identified during the standard assessment as Survey Unit 2) and 31 shovel test pits excavated across the remainder of the activity area (identified during the standard assessment as Survey Unit 1). The 1x1m test pit was positioned on a cleared area of the property that contained less ground disturbance than the remainder of the property.

The locations any artefacts identified throughout the testing programme were then subject to targeted shovel test pitting where shovel test pits were radiated at 5m intervals around artefact find spots.

The specific aims of the subsurface testing programme were as follows: 5. Initially establish the stratigraphy through controlled hand excavation;

6. determine the presence / absence of subsurface archaeological deposits and gather more information on the nature of soil deposits through a programme of shovel test pits;

7. determine the boundaries of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area, through targeted shovel test pitting; and

41 ED19/67661

8. determine the nature and significance of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage places.

Mechanical testing was not employed during the complex assessment.

Plate 3: Excavation of lxl-A facing south-15Feb1O_Melinda Albecht.jpeg

Excavation Methods

The subsurface hand excavation testing programme of the activity area was specifically designed as a broad level investigation of shovel test pits roughly every 20 m along the transects (Transects A to 0) to determine the presence / absence of Aboriginal archaeological deposits. The spacing of these shovel test pits often depended on whether the section of the activity area was in a relatively clear area, free of paved driveways and footpaths, and building debris from the former caravan park. Shovel test pits of —400x400mm in area were excavated stratigraphically by shovel in 100 mm spits to a maximum depth of 1650mm. Note that the level of stratigraphic control decreases with depth, and the precise depth provenance of artefacts becomes less certain below —600mm given the risk of vertical contamination by dislodgement of artefacts from higher levels. The majority of deposits encountered were quite deep (generally 1000-1200mm) decreasing the level of stratigraphic certainty within the shovel test pits.

The methodology employed during this phase of testing involved the hand excavation of 35 shovel test pits across the activity area. The geomorphologic history of each landform (Section 4.6) and the comparative data from testing programmes elsewhere in the region (Section 4.9, and others) were drawn upon to determine the depth of excavation in each trench. In general, this level corresponded with the mid to dark brownish red to yellow 'coffee rock' deposits with brown grey clay overlain by generally paler coloured silty sand deposits.

Site Definition

For the purposes of this report, an Aboriginal cultural heritage place is defined as the occurrence of one or more stone artefacts or other cultural material. While this definition is straightforward, its application to a sample testing programme is less so, particularly in terms of defining the boundaries between individual sites.

42 ED19/67661

This process of site definition was achieved using radial subsurface testing, employing the excavation of shovel test pits to determine the extent and density of artefacts in a subsurface context. Shovel test pits were radiated at 5m intervals around artefact find spots. Radiometric dating

No radiometric dates were taken during testing. No suitable samples for radiometric dating were collected during the subsurface testing programme as the charcoal deposits identified during the testing programme were generally small flecks of charcoal, or powdery deposits. None of the charcoal found during the excavations was associated with any cultural heritage material. This charcoal has probably resulted from the clearing and subsequent burning of shrubs and other vegetation that would have originally covered the property.

6.3 Establishing Stratigraphy

In order to confirm the stratigraphy and the general subsurface nature of the area by controlled excavation in compliance with r. 61(4) Part 3, Division 1, a 1 x lm test pit was initially hand excavated on the flat to gently inclined sandy dune landform in the north eastern portion of the activity area.

This location was chosen as being representative of the general landform of the activity area, and was also cleared of trees and of the building debris from the former caravan park which was strewn over many sections of the property. Controlled hand excavation involved the removal of sediments in controlled spits (generally in 50 or 100mm thickness) with a focus on identifying artefacts in situ within their stratigraphic context. All excavated materials were 100% hand sieved using a 5 mm mesh to determine the presence / absence of stone artefacts and to provide an indicator on the preservation of other types of culturally deposited material (such as faunal remains, burnt clay etc.). The presence of bioturbation markers (such as cicada burrows, earthworm burrows, tree roots, sediment mixing etc.) and other forms of site disturbance were documented (See Section 13 — lx1m Test Pit). 1 x 1 m-A revealed a pH neutral (pH 7) dark grey brown weak humic sandy silt to approx. 100mm on a dark grey brown firm sandy silt (10YR 3/2) to approx. 400mm on a dark yellowish brown weak silty sand deposit (10YR 4/4) to approx. 850mm on a firm reddish brown silty sand (7.5YR 4/6) overlying a dark brownish red compact coffee rock base at approx. 1200mm. No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified during the excavation of this 1x1m test pit (Figure 1). There was evidence of ground disturbance to approximately 200mm with European rubbish and bluestone gravel deposits. The soil deposits of the 1 x 1 m test pit conform to the landform and geomorphological information discussed for the activity area in Section 4.

43 ED19/67661

Plate 4: Base of lxlm test pit Al facing north. Range pole has increments of 250mm _15Febl0_Henry Lion.jpeg

North Elevation lxl-Al

Dark greyish brown (10YR 2/2) weak O sandy silt and humic. pH 7. 0 mm 11) Dark greyish brown (10YR 3/2) firm sandy silt. pH 6. O Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) 100 weak silty sand. pH 6.5. O Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) weak silty sand. pH 6.5. 200 O Reddish brown (7.5YR 4/6) firm silty sand. pH 6. O Dark brownish red (7.5YR 4/6) compact coffee rock. pH 6.5. 300 • Onexcavated • Tree root 400 ECharcoal

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

500mm

Figure 1: Stratigraphic profile drawing of lxl-Al

44 ED19/67661

Artefacts Present Raw Material Depth 1 x 1m Test Pit 1 x 1m — A 0 Table 8: Establishing the stratigraphy

6.3 Obstacles

There were no obstacles encountered during the complex assessment.

6.4 Name of the Supervisors

In accordance with Regulation 61 (3) excavations were supervised by a qualified archaeologist (qualifications are detailed in Appendix 5) and were carried out in accordance with proper archaeological practice.

The supervisors of the Complex Assessment of this CHMP were:

• Melinda Albrecht, Project Manager • Henry Lion, Project Archaeologist

6.5 Names of Participants

Participant Organization Position Component Date(s) Melinda Albrecht ALA Project Manager Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16- 02-10, 17-02-10 Henry Lion ALA Project Archaeologist Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16- 02-10, 17-02-10 Karl Van der Hilst ALA Project Archaeologist Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16- 02-10, 17-02-10 Iris Pepper BWF Representative Complex Assessment 15-02-10 Darren Symington BWF Representative Complex Assessment 16-02-10, 17- 02-10 Jamie Thomas BLCAC Representative Complex Assessment 15-02-10, 16- 02-10, 17-02-10 Table 9: Participants in Complex Assessment

6.6 Co-ordinates of Testing Locations

A detailed description of all shovel test pits and lm x lm test pits, including the co-ordinates of testing location is located in Section 13. All geographic co-ordinates are in Victorian Government Standard GDA94 (Zone 55) format.

6.7 RAP Information

Please note that no oral information was provided during the Complex Assessment.

45 ED19/67661

6.8 The Results of Testing

Nature and Character of Soil Deposits

The results of the subsurface testing programme are presented in Tables 10 to 12 (See Map 8). There were fifteen shovel test pit transects excavated in a grid pattern across the activity area (Transects A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1,1, K, L, M, N and 0). A total of 35 shovel test pits were excavated along these transects.

There were two general soil profiles identified across the activity area, with the majority of the shovel test pits excavated across the activity area containing light to mid greyish brown loose silty fine sand to approx. 300mm overlying light yellowish grey loose sand with darker brown grey coffee rock deposits at the base at approx. 1000-1200mm. Several of the shovel test pits revealed soil profiles that were relatively consistent to the initially excavated stratigraphic test pit (lxlm A). The deposits of these shovel test pits were generally darker in colour with mid greyish brown loose silty sand to approx. 250mm overlying mid reddish brown friable coarse sand deposits with coffee rock at approximately 1100- 1200mm (Plate 5).

Clay and coffee rock (the sterile base of the deposit) was generally encountered at approximately 1000- 1200mm depth. Soil deposits in the north to north western section of the property containing the low sandy rise tended to be deeper, with coffee rock generally encountered at approximately 1100-1400mm. No suitable samples for radiometric dating were collected during the subsurface testing programme as there were generally small flecks of charcoal, or powdery deposits identified throughout the complex assessment. None of the charcoal found during the excavations was associated with any cultural heritage material. This charcoal has probably resulted from the clearing and subsequent burning of shrubs and other vegetation that would have originally covered the property.

Plate 5: Shovel test pit 1-1 facing north. Range pole has increments of 200mm _17Feb1O_Henry Lion.jpeg

Archaeological Deposits

A total of one lxlm test pit, and 35 shovel test pits were excavated within the activity area. One shovel test pit (El) contained a single subsurface stone artefact while the remainder were archaeological sterile.

46 ED19/67661

This artefact was located at a depth range of 180-360mm, in a disturbed context with deposits such as bluestone gravel, and European rubbish consisting of ceramic, metal and bottle glass. The location of this artefact bearing shovel test pit was in the north western portion of the activity area, on the flat to very gently inclined sandy dune landform (identified as Survey Area 1 during the standard assessment).

Three shovel test pits were radiated 5m to the west, east and south of the artefact bearing shovel test pit El. A shovel test pit was not excavated to the north of this artefact find spot due to a gravelled driveway and residential dwelling to the north. An additional artefact was located in shovel test pit E1-E at a depth of approx. 560-900mm in a disturbed context with bluestone gravel, animal bone fragments, glass, and some small powdery shell fragments. A shovel test pit (El-E-S) was radiated 5m to the south of this artefact find spot, with no additional Aboriginal cultural heritage material identified. This test pit (El-E-S) contained a similar disturbed deposit with bone, glass, ceramic and metal objects found to a depth of approximately 300mm. Shovel test pits were not radiated to the north and east due to the gravelled drive way spoken of above, nor to the west due to the presence of the shovel test pit El.

Excavations not Excavations containing Pit type containing artefacts artefacts Grand Total lxlm 1 0 1 STP (40x40cm) 37 2 39 Grand Total 38 2 40 Table 10: Excavations completed during the complex assessment.

Field Name VAHR No. Type Artefacts Present lx1- A 1xlm 0 El 7921-1221 Shovel test pit 1 E1-E 7921-1221 Shovel test pit 1 Grand Total 2 Table 11: Artefacts identified during the complex assessment.

Test Pit VAHR No. Test Pit Depth Raw Technological Artefact Manufacture Grand Name Type (mm) Material Class Industry Type type Total 7921- Fine Flake with 1221 180- Grained bipolar STP-E1 STP 360mm silcrete Flake Flaking Flake termination 1 7921- Longitudinally 1221 560- broken STP-El-E STP 900mm Quartzite Flake Flaking Flake medial flake 1 Grand Total 2 Table 12: Details of artefacts identified during the subsurface testing programme

STP El At a depth of 180-360mm in mid greyish brown loose silty sand, a silcrete stone artefact was collected. The shovel test pit reached a depth of 1120mm before it encountered light grey loose fine sand with unconsolidated coffee rock nodules and coffee rock at base.

47 ED19/67661

North Elevation STP-E1

O Mid greyish brown (10YR 5/1) loose- weak silt and fine-medium sand with 0 mm 0 mm occasional bluestone gravel. pH 6.5. O Mid greyish brown (10YR 5/1) loose- weak silt and fine-medium sand with European rubbish metal, 100 100 • ceramic, bottle glass. pH 6.5. O Light grey (10YR 6/1) loose-weak fine sand with unconsolidated coffee rock 200 200 nodules and coffee rock at base. pH 6.5. Unexcavated

300 300

400 400

500 500

600 600

700 700

800 800

900 900

1000 1000

1100 1100

1200 1200

Figure 2: Stratigraphic profile drawing of Shovel Test Pit El

Plate 6: Shovel test pit El facing north. Range pole has increments of 200mm _16Febl0_Melinda Albrecht.jpeg

48 ED19/67661

STP E1-E At a depth of 560-900mm in light grey weak fine sand, a quartzite stone artefact was collected. The shovel test pit reached a depth of 1070mm when it encountered light grey weak fine sand with coffee rock at the base. The excavation of this shovel test pit was terminated at 1070mm due to the presence of the coffee rock deposits, and due to depth.

Plate 7: Area containing Aboriginal cultural heritage, facing north-east_16Feb1O_Melinda Albrecht.jpeg

49 ED19/67661

North Elevation STP-E1-E

O Mid greyish brown (10YR 5/1) weak silt and fine sand with bone fragments and 0 mm 0 m m road gravel. pH 6.5. Light grey (10YR 6/1) weak fine sand e with very occasional small shell fragments and bone fragments. Coffee 100 100 rock at base. pH 6.5. Unexcavated

200 200

300 300

400 400

500 500

600 600

700 700

800 800

900 900

1000 1000

1100 1100

1200 1200

Figure 3: Stratigraphic profile drawing of El-E.

50 ED19/67661

Plate 8: Shovel test pit El-E facing north. Range pole has increments of 200mm _16Feb10_Melinda Albrecht.jpeg

The results of the testing programme are summarised in Tables 10-12. A detailed description of the shovel test pits and the 1 x lm test pit can be found in Section 13.

51 ED19/67661

ANNCOURT El • El-W El-E • •

El-S • El-E-S •

AD 0 25 5 10 11111. I I Im

C2 C1 Nil • ixim, no artefact(s) • • BI • • • STP, no artefact(s)

• STP. artefact(s) .MI D1 B2 • • 01 Fl • • %; Refer to Inset Map 01 • JANSSONROAD E2 B3 a D2 • 02 • • F2 lx1 Al • 111 A • E3 • 03 OG3 • F3 • 04 A2 • •

G4 • K1 Ll • • H1 •

L2K2 H2 Port Phillip •

11 J2 • PORTS • J1 • H3 •

12 • Phillip Island NVONTHAOGI

0 15 30 60 0 15 30 60 I m

Lock Road, Rhyll Development •••• ANDREW LONG + 1-11 Lock Road, Rhyll. PhtIllip Island Victoria =I • • Activity Area Boundary •••• ASSOCIATES

Cultural Heritage Management Plan VVaterbody Date 15/06/2010 Drawn by Andrew Long Associates Roads + Drainage Excavation Locations - Property parcel Locality (main) Protection/Horizontal Datum Map God Australia asasw ever y car. w .nso, • may anon., anal sun..of Ints yanadmfat ALA nun,. no mpresen.nern saa ,,, anout rty,nwa, ana sr.,.W.. At .rusayl no M1.1 Wt.tor any droact or wralanant • •pense e.as inna-ars Aral, ,oals ,br,r1,1 as a Zone 55/Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 restall yr...mgmanna,. ay....,unsurlabla ana y Or.ana na.on GDA94 MGA Zone 551

Map 8: Location of test excavations during the Complex Assessment.

52 ED19/67661

6.9 Implications

A thorough subsurface testing program was conducted across the entire activity area, where a total of 39 shovel test pits, and one 1 x lm test pit were excavated to a maximum depth of 1650 mm. The results of the complex assessment resulted in the identification of two Aboriginal stone artefacts - one silcrete flake and one quartzite flake that comprise the Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221). These stone artefacts were collected by the cultural heritage advisor for scientific investigation, and are held at 54-58 Smith Street, Collingwood 3066.

This Aboriginal cultural heritage place is located in the north western portion of the property on the flat to very gently inclined sandy dune landform which comprises the majority of the activity area. This Aboriginal cultural heritage place was located in an area with high degree of ground disturbance. The two stone artefacts were identified in association with European debris such as glass, metal pieces, bluestone gravel, animal bone and ceramic which appeared to be items from a European rubbish dump that were probably buried in this location whilst the property was utilised as a cabin and caravan park. To determine the boundary and extent of this Aboriginal cultural heritage place, the artefact locations were subject to comprehensive testing, with a series of shovel test pits excavated around these locations which identified no additional Aboriginal cultural heritage material.

No suitable samples for radiometric dating were collected during the subsurface testing programme, as there were generally only small flecks or powdery charcoal deposits identified throughout the complex assessment, and these were not found in conjunction with either of the Aboriginal stone artefacts identified during the testing programme.

The results provided valuable information about subsurface soil deposits and help to contribute towards some quantified understanding of the likelihood of Aboriginal subsurface material being present in the geographic region.

On the basis of the comprehensive testing programme and results it was determined that no further subsurface investigations were warranted as part of this CHMP in the activity area.

53 ED19/67661

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

This section presents an overview of the Aboriginal heritage values of the activity area, considering evidence from each task undertaken as part of this evaluation, namely desktop and background studies, filed survey and controlled subsurface testing.

7.2 Detailed Description and Concise Maps of All Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

This section describes the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage place identified within the activity area, including a full cadastral description of the land on which this Aboriginal cultural heritage is located.

55 ED19/67661

LEGEND

(E) Primary CO-Ordlnate 00,55 MIArtefact extent II Shovel test. pits (artefacts,

11 • ,• ' • pits (no c,-

Figure 4: Place Extent Plan for Lock Rd 1, 7921-1221 ED19/67661

Plate 9: Location of the Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221) found during complex assessment, facing north-east_16Feb1O_Melinda Albrecht.jpeg

A total of 1 silcrete flaked artefact and 1 quartzite flaked artefact were identified on the flat to gently inclined sandy dune landform of in the north western portion of the activity area (Figure 4, Plate 9). The silcrete artefact was identified during the excavation the shovel test pit El, at approximately 180-360mm depth. Shovel test pits were radiated 5m to the east (El-E), 5m to the south (El-S) and 5m to the west (El-W) of the artefact bearing shovel test pit El. A shovel test pit was not excavated to the north of El, due to a gravelled driveway and residential dwelling to the north.

57 ED19/67661

Scientific Significance Assessment

VAHR No. Site Type Site Site Representativeness Scientific Contents Condition Significance

7921-1221 Artefact scatter 1 1 1 Low Table 14: Scientific Significance of Aboriginal Sites Identified During the Assessment.

The scientific significance assessment for Aboriginal sites identified during the assessment is provided above (Table 14). These significance determinations may change on the basis of future examination, research and analysis.

Aboriginal Traditional Significance Assessment

In addition to the scientific significance assessment (Table 14) of Aboriginal sites, the cultural heritage significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is presented below (Table 15).

VAHR No. Site Type Aboriginal Traditional Significance Assessment (BWF and BLCAC)*

792 1-122 1 Artefact scatter High Table 15: Aboriginal traditional significance assessment.

*Note that this assessment was provided by field representatives during the course of the survey and testing programmes on behalf of BWF and BLCAC.

58 ED19/67661

7.4 Photographs

Plate 10: Silcrete artefact from 7921-1221_25June1O_David Mathews.jpeg

Plate 11: Quartzite artefact from 7921-1221_25June10_David Mathews.jpeg

59 ED19/67661

7.5 Results of the Assessment

The current evaluation has assessed the archaeological potential of the Lock Street, Rhyll Activity Area where ground disturbing works are planned associated with the development of a residential hotel and conference centre. The complex assessment explored the archaeological potential across the activity area and resulted in the identification of two subsurface artefacts associated with one previously unregistered Aboriginal cultural heritage place. This artefact scatter represented by a single silcrete stone artefact and a single quartzite stone artefact is located in the north western portion of the activity area. These artefacts were located in a disturbed context, with introduced materials such as animal bone, glass and ceramic fragments, and pieces of metal that appeared to be items from a rubbish dump that were probably buried in this location whilst the property was utilised as a cabin and caravan park. This Aboriginal cultural heritage place was comprehensively investigated during the complex assessment, with radial shovel test pits excavated around each of the artefact locations, to examine the extent of this site. The former residential and recreational land-use history of the activity area has caused much of the ground disturbance across the property. Residential and recreational uses, such as the development of a caravan park and construction of cabins generally involves the clearing of vegetation, the removal and stockpiling of top soil that results in the levelling of the land surface, the installation of services, as well as the installation of the temporary building pads that are currently still evident within sections of the activity area, and then the return of the top soil as landscaping.

The results of the evaluation have demonstrated that no dense deposits of stone artefacts or other material of cultural origin representing Aboriginal cultural heritage places of higher significance are likely within the activity area. This investigation has established that one Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221) of low scientific significance occurs within the activity area.

Given the rigor applied to the evaluation methodology through a standard assessment and complex assessment, it is possible to conclude that there is low potential for dense or stratified deposits of stone artefacts or other materials of cultural origin to be disturbed by the proposed activity.

There are no rocks, caves or overhangs within the activity area, and so no possibility for rock art sites. No stone outcrops were identified within the activity area, and the potential for quarry or workshop sites is extremely limited.

60 ED19/67661

Overview map of location 352300 352400 352500 LOCK ROAD

(7-MORNINGTON French Island PENINSULA

Phillip Island 0

...menet < 0 5 10 20 o _71 a. 20 0_

Inset map ROAD 20 co , ROOF JANSSON

VAHR 7921-1221 LOCK ROAD 1

2 APPLICATION

Metres 25 so 100 1-11 Lock Road, Rhyll CHMP 11151 Project Code: Drawn by. Josata de Lange - Legend LRR Mei25 January 2011 Map of Aboriginal cultural heritage =Activity area boundary•Place extent ED Water area —Road within the activity area + Primary coordinate — Watercourse Property parcel GDA94 AN LONG + Bass Coast Shire NIGA Zone 55 ASSOCIATES 2011 PAN. Ari, has miun ovary car. to ensure tne accuracy ace currency el this prod. ALA manna nu repradan Panora or orairan has about ita accurac, petal's, or suitabiiitti tor ant specific purpose Data Sources. DOE VicMan 2000 ALA cannot Os held liable for any Oration indirect expense.. losses damages andror costs tuned as a result or Oaproduct being inaccdrane, moony.. cr ursd table in any.,ontor any reason

Map 9: Map showing place extent of 7921-1221 within construction plan

61 ED19/67661

SECTION 61 MATTERS

8.1 Introduction

This section reviews the matters to be considered in relation to the approval of a management plan for the activity (Section 8.2 to 8.4).

On the basis of current definitions of site boundary, one Aboriginal cultural heritage place occurs within the activity area. This place (7921-1221) occurs within the construction footprint and will be impacted by the proposed construction activities.

No deposits of stone artefacts or other materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places of higher significance are likely to be present within the development area and the scientific significance of the one known Aboriginal heritage places is low.

The activity can thus be undertaken without a substantial impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage. Key Aboriginal heritage issues and management responses are presented in Table 16.

VAHR Site name Site type Site contents Total impact by Management response number construction (approximate)

7921-1221 Lock Rd 1 Artefact 1 quartzite 100% Artefacts collected by CHA. No Scatter artefact, 1 salvage or protection measures silcrete artefact required Table 16: Key Aboriginal Heritage Issues

Map 8 shows the location of the Aboriginal cultural heritage place in relation to the proposed construction footprint.

8.2 Will the Activity be Conducted in a way that Avoids Harm to Aboriginal Heritage?

The evaluation undertaken as part of this CHMP has determined that the activity can be undertaken without harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage over the majority of the activity area, however one Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221, Lock Rd 1) is located within the activity area and will be impacted by the activity. This Aboriginal cultural heritage place has been investigated in detail as part of this CHMP and the two stone artefacts comprising this site have been collected by the CHA and the place extent for each of this location has been comprehensively investigated through a programme of radial shovel test pitting.

63 ED19/67661

The stone artefacts that represent 7921-1221 have been collected by the CHA and are being held at 54- 58 Smith Street, Collingwood 3066. Please see Section 9 in regards to the specific recommendations for the Aboriginal cultural heritage place.

8.3 Will the Activity be Conducted in a way that Minimises harm to Aboriginal Heritage?

The extensive subsurface testing and evaluation undertaken as part of this CHMP resulted in identification of one Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921-1221), an artefact scatter represented by 2 stone artefacts found in a disturbed context. The location of this cultural heritage place is within an area intended for high impact activity, therefore the activity will not be conducted in a way that minimises harm to this Aboriginal cultural heritage place. However, the Aboriginal cultural heritage place (7921- 1221) present within the activity area has been investigated in detail as part of this CHMP and the stone artefacts comprising this site have been collected by the CHA for scientific investigation, and the place extent for this location has been comprehensively investigated through a programme of radial shovel test pitting. There is no evidence of further archaeological deposits in a surface or subsurface context. The Aboriginal cultural heritage place is located within a disturbed context, with both artefacts found with glass, ceramic, animal bone and bluestone road gravel and metal deposits.

84Specific Measures Required of the Management to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Likely to Be affected by the Activity, Before, During and After the Activity

o Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage.

o Label and package the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage with reference to provenance;

o With the RAP (if present), arrange storage of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in a secure location nominated by the CHA together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation.

o Facilitate the reburial of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in an appropriate location, preferably in close proximity to the original find spot, upon completion of the activity.

o Aboriginal cultural heritage material is to be placed in a non-plastic, permeable container for reburial.

o The location of the reburied material is to be recorded and clearly entered on the existing site card for the registered place.

64 ED19/67661

Lock Rd 1(7921-1221)

Based on the results of the assessment there is no requirement for salvage excavation of this Aboriginal cultural heritage place of low scientific significance. The area containing this site has been extensively tested and only two subsurface stone artefacts have been identified, both of these located within a disturbed context. The subsurface artefacts were collected by the Cultural Heritage Advisor for scientific investigation during the testing programme for this CHMP. The stone artefacts that represent 7921-1221 are currently being held at 54-58 Smith Street, Collingwood 3066. After the implementation of the activity, the CHA with the RAP (if one exists), will arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. A repatriation location will be determined by the CHA in consultation with the RAP (if one exists). The location of any area in which Cultural Heritage is relocated will be recorded by a CHA using appropriate Heritage Record and Object Collection Forms and associated documentation in accordance with the relevant standards (e.g. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria's Guide for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plans 2007 (Appendices 3 and 4), and reported to the Secretary DPCD. Please see Section 9 in regards to the specific recommendations for the Aboriginal cultural heritage place.

65 ED19/67661

PART 2- CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations become compliance requirements once the Cultural Heritage Management Plan is approved.

S7 ED19/67661

RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Recommendations for 7921-1221

A. The following management measures are required prior to the implementation of the activity:

B. The following management measures are required during the implementation of the activity:

C. The following management measures are required after the implementation of the activity;

• With the RAP (if one exists), the CHA will arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. A repatriation location will be determined by the CHA in consultation with the RAP (if one exists). The location of any area in which Cultural Heritage is relocated will be recorded by a CHA using appropriate Heritage Record and Object Collection Forms and associated documentation in

69 ED19/67661

accordance with the relevant standards (e.g. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria's Guide for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plans 2007 (Appendices 3 and 4), and reported to the Secretary DPCD.

70 ED19/67661

CONTINGENCIES

10.1 Introduction

The following contingency plans are to be implemented during the activity.

10.2 Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Found During Works

If Aboriginal places or objects are found during construction works for the activity the following steps must be applied:

• The person who identified the find will immediately notify the person in charge of the activity. • The person in charge of the activity must then suspend any relevant works at the location of the discovery and to a distance within 25 m of the relevant site extent and isolate the find via the installation of safety webbing, or other suitable barrier and the material to remain in situ. • Works may continue outside of 25 m of the barrier, however if further archaeological deposits are identified, these works must also be suspended. • The person in charge of works must notify the Cultural Heritage Advisor (CHA) and the RAP of the find within 24 hours of the discovery. • Within 24 hours of notification, a CHA is to attend the site and evaluate the find to determine if it is part of an already known site or should be registered as a new site and to update and/or complete site records as appropriate and advise on possible management strategies. This will be done with consultation with a RAP, where one exists and chooses to participate. • Within a period not exceeding three (3) working days a decision/recommendation will be made by the CHA in consultation with the Sponsor, and a RAP, where one exists and chooses to participate, 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. • It is preferable to avoid impacts to all Aboriginal cultural heritage. Where this is not achievable attempts should be made to minimise impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage. • Following the inspection, if it is determined that the Aboriginal cultural heritage discovered comprises an isolated or diffuse artefact scatter (less than five (5) artefacts) this material is to be recorded in situ and then removed from the works area. All relevant Aboriginal cultural heritage records are to be updated and/or completed. In order to determine the nature and extent of the Aboriginal cultural heritage the following measures will be required:

o A cultural heritage advisor will inspect the Aboriginal cultural heritage within two (2) days of its discovery. o The Sponsor and the CHA will discuss the possibility of avoiding and minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible.

71 ED19/67661

o The CHA will undertake radial shovel test probing around the Aboriginal cultural heritage to determine its extent and content. o In the event that the place is determined to comprise less than five (5) artefacts no further management is required, however, where avoidance is possible this is preferable. o Where it is determined that the place comprises more than five (5) artefacts and avoidance of impact is not possible salvage excavation to mitigate the impact must be undertaken (see below). o Any artefacts recovered during investigations are to be secured by the CHA.

• In the instance that the CHA in consultation with the Sponsor determines that the Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises more than five (5) artefacts, or if there are any other Aboriginal site types found, a salvage excavation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage must be undertaken. A salvage strategy must comprise: o The cultural heritage advisor will facilitate the involvement of a RAP in the on-site investigation and assessment of the significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage. o The Sponsor, the CHA and a RAP, where one exists and chooses to participate, will discuss the possibility of avoiding and minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible. o Where harm cannot be avoided, the CHA and a RAP, where one exists and chooses to participate, will salvage the cultural heritage with the initial aim of establishing the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage o Salvage excavations will include controlled excavation (as per r.61(7) and Guide to Preparing Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans Appendix 12) o Subsequent aims of the salvage excavations will be to establish: • The relative and absolute (if possible) age of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage; • The character of the excavated artefact assemblage if extant; and • As far as possible, the nature of occupation of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage. o In cases where cultural material is considered in-situ and where suitable material is available, appropriate age determinations (e.g. radiocarbon, TL, OSL) are to be made to establish the age of the cultural material. o Any artefacts recovered during excavations are to be secured by the CHA until the salvage has been concluded. o Details regarding the methodology of any collection or salvage of Aboriginal cultural heritage located during the project will be determined by the cultural heritage advisor. Without limiting the options, a cultural heritage advisor will: • Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage; • Label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance; • Ensure all excavated deposits are sieved, and the presence of any additional cultural heritage material recorded in detail; • With the appropriate Aboriginal community representative/s relating to the activity area, arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. o Any excavations will take place in accordance with Regulation 61(3-7) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 and be supervised by a person appropriately qualified in archaeology. This person will also facilitate the involvement of a RAP in these excavations and subsequent management discussions. o Works may recommence at completion of the salvage excavation. o A report detailing the findings of any collection, salvage or analysis of material recovered as a result of this activity will be complete and lodged with the Heritage Registrar, AAV as

72 ED19/67661

soon as possible and within a maximum of 6 months. This report will include plans and/or maps that accurately present the location and extent of any excavation, and the details of any exposed sediments and stratigraphy. Failure of parties to reach an agreed course of action in this manner will be classed as a dispute under this agreement.

• Work may recommence within the area of exclusion: o When the appropriate protective measures have been taken; o Where the relevant Aboriginal cultural heritage records have been updated and/or completed; o Where all parties agree there is no other prudent or feasible course of action, or; o Once any relevant dispute has been resolved. o Where relevant, the sponsor and a RAP will ensure that the above steps are followed and that legal obligations and requirements are complied with at all times. In the case of the discovery of human remains, separate procedures relating to the discovery of human skeletal remains must be adhered to (Section 10.3).

10.3 Custody and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Recovered

• Any Aboriginal Cultural Heritage recovered or salvaged from the activity area remains the property of the RAP(s) (if present). The land owner has waived his rights of ownership to the artefacts in favour of the RAP(s) (if present). In the current instance where a RAP has not been appointed Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered or salvaged from the activity area remains the common law property of the land owner(s). In this case the land owner(s) undertakes that any recovery or salvage will be undertaken by the CHA. In any such instance it will be the responsibility of the CHA to: o Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage; o Label and package the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage with reference to provenance; and o With the RAP (if present), arrange storage of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in a secure location nominated by the CHA together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. o Facilitate the reburial of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in an appropriate location, preferably in close proximity to the original find spot, upon completion of the activity. o Aboriginal cultural heritage material is to be placed in a non-plastic, permeable container for reburial. o The location of the reburied material is to be recorded and clearly entered on the existing site card for the registered place.

• In compliance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, where no RAP(s) exists for the activity area, any Aboriginal Cultural Heritage recovered during the production of the CHMP or salvaged from the activity area remains the property of the: o Relevant Native Title holder; o Relevant Native Title party; o Relevant Aboriginal persons with traditional or familial links; o Relevant Aboriginal organisations with historical or contemporary links; o Owner of the land; o Museum Victoria.

10.4 The Management of the Discovery of Human Remains

The following steps must be taken if any suspected human remains are found in the activity area:

73 ED19/67661

1. Discovery:

• If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must cease immediately to ensure minimal damage is caused to the remains; and, • The remains must be left in place, and protected from harm or damage. 2. Notification:

• Once suspected human skeletal remains have been found, the Coroner's Office and the Victoria Police must be notified immediately; • If there is reasonable grounds to believe that the remains could be Aboriginal, the DSE Emergency Co-ordination Centre must be immediately notified on 1300 888 544; and • 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 that the discovered remains are Aboriginal skeletal remains, the person responsible for the activity must report the existence of the human remains to the Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development in accordance with s.17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

3. Impact Mitigation or Salvage:

• The Secretary, after taking reasonable steps to consult with any Aboriginal person or body with an interest in the Aboriginal human remains, will determine the appropriate course of action as required by s.18(2)(b) of the Act. • An appropriate impact mitigation or salvage strategy as determined by the Secretary must be implemented (this will depend on the circumstances in which the remains were found, the number of burials found and the type of burials and the outcome of consultation with any Aboriginal person or body). 4. Curation and further analysis:

• The treatment of salvaged Aboriginal human remains must be in accordance with the direction of the Secretary.

5. Reburial:

• Any reburial site(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to AAV; • Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure that the remains are not disturbed in the future.

10.5 Reviewing Compliance with the Management Plan

In order to ensure that the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is adhered to and to prevent possible dispute, auditing or stop-works orders, it is imperative that all steps discussed above are followed. To ensure this the following procedure must be applied:

• All parties must be familiar with the (CHMP). • All personnel involved in the activity/activity area must be inducted with regards to the procedures defined in the CHMP by a cultural heritage advisor. • A 'Compliance Review Checklist' (Appendix 6) should be completed by the Sponsor prior to the commencement of the activity, and at regular intervals during the course of the activity (fortnightly).

74 ED19/67661

• Communication between the parties must remain available and any changes to contact details be communicated to the other party immediately. • Any query should be handled immediately in order to prevent non-compliance with the CHMP. • All instances of non-compliance must be reported to AAV who may send an Inspector under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 to investigate. If the Inspector finds that non-compliance has resulted in harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, then the Sponsor may be charged under Part 3 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

10.6 Dispute Resolution

No dispute resolution contingencies have been provided as no RAP existed at time of submission in relation to the activity area. However, under Part 8 (Division 1, Subdivision 2 (116)) of the Act outlines dispute resolutions in the absence of a RAP. The sponsor of a CHMP may apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for review of a decision of the Secretary under section 65 to refuse to approve the plan. An application for a review must be made within 28 days after the later of —

a) the day on which the applicant is notified of the decision; b) if, under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the applicant requests a statement of reasons for the decision, the day on which the statement for reasons is given to the applicant or the applicant is informed under section 46(5) of that Act that a statement of reasons will not be given.

10.7 Delays and Other Obstacles

If delays or other obstacles that may affect the conduct of the activity occur (i.e. a change of the development footprint), a process will be developed between the sponsor and the CHA to resolve these issues. Advice will be sought from AAV and the RAP(s) or other agreed Aboriginal stakeholder(s), as applicable. A five working day period will be appropriate for this process.

10.8 Authorised Project Delegates and the Handling of Sensitive Information

For the purpose of communication between, the following persons will act as project delegates:

Sponsor

Authorised Project Delegate: [to be advised]

Cultural Heritage Advisor

Authorised Project Delegate: [to be advised]

Any change in personnel appointed as APDs in one party will be promptly notified to all other parties. The parties will agree upon what constitutes sensitive information and will maintain the confidentiality of all communications regarding information agreed to be such.

Note: These contingencies cannot prescribe the duties of future RAP(s). RAP(s) may take part in the contingencies outlined in this CHMP, if they wish to do so.

75 ED19/67661

SITE GAZETTEER

Grid Raw "Manufacture Flake Flake L W Th MD Site Name Reference Material type" Platform Termination 7921- E352383 1221 N5741367 (Lock Rd 1) Silcrete Flake Flaked Bipolar 6.22 6.96 2,00 9.05 7921- E352383 1221 N5741367 Longitudinally (Lock Rd broken medial 1) Quartzite flake 1.77 10.01

77 ED19/67661

N r-4

REFERENCES

CT) N ED19/67661

Allom Lovell & Associates. (in prep.). Bass Coast Shire Heritage Study.

Austin, K.A. 1972. Phillip Island Sketchbook. Rigby Limited: Melbourne.

Barwick, D. 1984. Mapping the Past: an atlas of Victorian clans 1835-1904. In Aboriginal History Vol. 8, Part 2, 100-131.

Barwick, D. 1998. Rebellion at Coranderrk. Aboriginal History Monograph 5, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Melbourne.

Berndt, R. 1982. 'Traditional Concepts of Aboriginal Land', in Berndt, R. (ed.) Aboriginal Sites, Rights and Resource Development. Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Fifth Academy Symposium, 11th November 1981, Proceedings. University of Western Australia Press, Perth, 1-11.

Bird, E. 1993. The Coast of Victoria: The Shaping of Scenery. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Bride, T. F. (ed). 1898 [1969]. Letters from Victorian Pioneers. Heinemann Ltd., Melbourne.

Burke, H. and A. Smith. 2004. The Archaeologist's Field Handbook. Allen and Unwin. New South Wales.

Clark, I. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: an Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800- 1900. Monash Publications in Geography, no. 37.

Edgecombe, J. 1989. Phillip Island and Western Port. J.M. Edgecombe: Sydney.

Edmonds, V., A. Long. & P. Schell. 1999. Coast Action / Coastcare Grant Applications; Port Phillip East, Gippsland South & Gippsland East. Unpublished report to DNRE.

Feldman, R. & J. Howell-Meurs. (in prep. a). Property at Phillip Island Tourist Road, Sunderland Bay, Phillip Island: An Aboriginal and Historical Archaeological Assessment. Unpublished report to Beveridge Williams & Co. P/L.

Feldman, R. & J. Howell-Meurs. (in prep. b). Property at Phillip Island Tourist Road, Forrest Caves, Phillip Island: An Aboriginal and Historical Archaeological Assessment. Unpublished report to Beveridge Williams & Co. P/L.

Gaughwin, D. 1981. Sites of Archaeological Significance in the Western Port Catchment. Environmental Studies Division, Ministry for Conservation, Victoria, Publication 367.

Gaughwin, D. 1983. Coastal Economies and the Western Port Catchment. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Division of Prehistory, La Trobe University.

Gaughwin, D. & Sullivan, H. 1984. Aboriginal Boundaries and Movements in Western Port, Victoria. Aboriginal History 8(1): 80-98.

Gaughwin, D & Brennan, G. Stinker Bay Shell Midden. Excavation Report.

Gliddon, J.W. (ed.). 1963. Phillip Island in Picture and Story. Wilke & Co. Ltd.: Melbourne.

Gunson, N. 1968. The Good Country; Cranboume Shire. F.W.Cheshire, Melbourne.

80 ED19/67661

Hiscock, P. and Mitchell, S. 1990. Type Profiles: Stone Artefact Quarries, Stone Reduction Sites and Ochre Quarries. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission.

Historical Place Report. AAV. 20/07/2001. 1.1-13. Phillip Island Sealers Camp.

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

Light, A. and Schell, P. 2003a. Land to the Southwest of McKenzie Rd & Settlement Rd, Cowes: Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished Report to Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd.

Light, A. and Schell, P. 2003b. Land to the Southwest of Justice Road & Settlement Rd, Cowes: Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished Report to Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd.

Marquis-Kyle, P. and Walker, M. 1992. The Illustrated Burra Charter. Australia ICOMOS, Sydney.

Massola, A. 1959. 'History of the Coast Tribe' in The Victorian Naturalist, Vol 76, No. 7., pp 180-183.

Mitchell, J. and Richmond, J. 2008. Shearwater Estate, Cowes East, Phillip Island, Victoria: Salvage Report. A report to FKP Lifestyle Pty Ltd.

Mulvaney, D. and J. Kamminga. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd., St Leonards.

Murphy, A. 2004a. Cowes East: Cultural Heritage Investigation. Unpublished Report to Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd.

Murphy, A. 2004b. Eco Resort Development, Cowes: Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished Report to Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd.

Murphy, A. 2005. Pyramid Rock Road 11, Phillip Island: Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished Report to Beveridge Williams & Co. Pty Ltd.

Murphy, A., and Thompson, A. 2008. Shearwater Residential Estate, Cowes East: CHMP 10109. Cultural Heritage Management Plan for FKP Lifestyle Pty Ltd.

Schell, P. and Light, A. 2002. Coast Action/Coastcare 2001-2002 Statewide Projects: Aboriginal Impact Assessment. Unpublished report to DNRE.

Schell, P. and Barker, A. 2009. Industrial_subdivision of Lot 2 P5444983 and Lot B PS523033, Cowes. Cultural Heritage Management Plan for T. Bowler, K&M Hill.

South Gippsland Development League. 1966. The Land of the Lyre Bird. A Story of Early Settlement in the Great Forest of South Gippsland. Being a description of the Big Scrub in its Virgin State with its Birds and Animals, and of the Adventures and Hardships of its Early Explorers and Prospectors. Also Accounts by the Settlers of the Clearing, Settlement, and Development of the Country. Shire of Korumburra, Korumburra.

Spreadborough, R. and Anderson, H. 1983. Victorian Squatters. Red Rooster Press, Melbourne.

Sullivan, M. and Simmons, S. 1979. `Silcrete: a Classification for Flaked Stone Assemblages', The Artefact 4: 51-60.

81 ED19/67661

Sullivan, H. 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria. Victoria Archaeological Survey, Occasional Reports Series Number 6.

LEGISLATION:

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. (Vic)

Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. (Vic)

WEBSITES:

Department of Sustainability and Environment - Biodiversity Information: http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bim — accessed 03M2/10

BOM climate statistics - BOM BOM -http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_090069.shtml — accessed 03/02/10

Department of Primary Industries — GeoVic: http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=geovic — accessed 16/12/09

Victorian Planning Schemes Online http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/basscoast/maps/basscoast29zn.pdf - accessed 29/11/10. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/aavpp/32 04.pdf - accessed 29/11/10.

82 ED19/67661

CY) 1-1

cf) w 1—; r4 gtC E-1 ED19/67661

SIP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) Transect A gravel Al 400x400x1410 352457.5 5741334.5 Flat to very gently 0-150mm- Mid greyish brown friable silty sand 0-150mm - Silty sand with bluestone road pebbles inclined sandy 150-380mm — Mid to Dark greyish brown 150-380mm — Very occasional ironstone dune friable silty sand 380-1100mm — With occasional small to medium 380-1100mm — Mid yellowish brown weak to rounded ironstone rocks and occasional small red friable medium to coarse grained sand ochre pebbles 1100-1410mm — Mid to light yellowish brown 1100-1410mm — Numerous small to medium weak medium to coarse grained sand ironstone rocks and 'coffee rock' nodules A2 400x400x1430 352457.2 5741310.7 Flat to very gently 0-190mm - Mid greyish brown friable silty sand 0-190mm —Sandy silt with granite and gravel stones inclined 4/2; sandy 190-330mm - Mid to Dark greyish brown and pebble inclusions. Munsell: 10 YR p1-1: 7 dune friable sandy silt 190-330mm — Sandy silt with occasional ironstone 330-1400mm - Mid yellowish brown friable pebble inclusions medium to coarse grained sand 330-1400mm — With occasional small to medium 1400-1430mm — Mid yellowish brown weak to ironstone pebbles with moisture increasing with friable coarse sand depth. Munsell: 10YR 5/8; pH: 7 With 1400-1430mm - occasional small to medium ironstone pebbles with moisture increasing with depth. Occasional medium ironstone rocks and 'coffee rock' layer with liquid clay approximately 50mm underneath this Transect B B1 400x400x1210 352436.2 5741396.2 Very gently 0-210mm - Mid greyish brown loose to weak 0-210mm — With rootlets inclined landform medium sand 210-840mm — With nodules of dark brown to black 210-840mm — Mid to light greyish brown fine unconsolidated coffee rock. Moisture increasing with to medium sand depth 840-1210mm — Mid greyish brown weak 840-1210mm — With large clumps of unconsolidated medium sand coffee rock with consolidated rock at base Flat B2 400x400x1650 352434.9 5741376.0 to very gently 0-300mm - Mid greyish brown loose to weak 0-300mm — With rootlets inclined sandy medium sand 300-510mm — With occasional nodules and large coffee dune 300-510mm - Mid to light greyish brown fine clumps of dark brown to black unconsolidated to medium sand rock. Munsell: 10YR 6/3; pH: 6 510-1180mm — Light greyish brown loose fine 510-1180mm - With occasional nodules and to medium sand frequent large clumps of dark brown to black 5/2; 1180-1650mm - Mid yellowish brown friable unconsolidated coffee rock. Munsell: 10YR pH: medium to coarse sand 6.5 1180-1650mm — With occasional small ironstone pebbles and nodules of clayey sand. Damp clayey sand at base. Munsell: 10YR 4/4; pH: 6.5

85 ED19/67661

SIP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) B3 400x400x1100 352434.1 5741353.8 Flat to very gently 0-250mm — Mid greyish brown loose to weak 0-250mm — Slightly moist with rootlets inclined sandy silty medium grained sand 250-830mm —Reddish sand with tree rootlets, and dune 250-830mm — Mid reddish brown friable nodules of unconsolidated coffee rock with medium to coarse grained sand occasional small to medium ironstone pebbles 830-1100mm — Mid reddish brown friable 830-1100mm — Coffee rock nodules at base coarse sand Transect C and bottle glass fragments Cl 400x400x1440 352416.5 5741400.0 Very gently 0-250mm — Mid greyish brown loose silty fine 0-250mm —Ceramic old inclined landform to medium sand found adjacent to shovel test pit. Very loose deposit 5/1; 250-920mm — Mid to light greyish brown loose with rootlets. Munsell: 10Yr pH: 5.5 fine sand 250-920mm — With unconsolidated coffee rock 920-1440mm — Mid greyish brown weak nodules and very occasional medium ironstone medium sand inclusions. Munsell: 10YR 6/3; ph: 5.5 920-1440mm- With unconsolidated coffee rock nodules and very occasional medium ironstone inclusions with coffee rock at base. Munsell: 10YR 5/2; pH: 6 rootlets, eucalypt C2 400x400x1140 352399.9 5741399.7 Very gently 0-290mm — Mid greyish brown weak silty 0-290mm — With numerous tree inclined landform medium grained sand roots and European glass. rootlets, eucalypt 290-880mm — Mid to light greyish brown weak 290-880mm — With numerous tree to friable fine to medium sand roots and European glass, and occasional nodules of unconsolidated coffee rock 880-1140mm — Mid to light greyish brown loose fine to medium sand 880-1140mm — Large tree roots hampering excavation. Coffee rock nodules at base Transect D of D1 400x400x1520 352404.3 5741374.6 Flat to very gently 0-120mm — Mid greyish brown friable silty fine 0-120mm — Silty sand with pieces terracotta, inclined sandy to medium sand rootlets, bluestone gravel. Munsell: 10YR 6/2; pH: 6 and plain 120-430mm — Mid greyish brown weak fine to 120-430mm — Sandy silt with tree roots some medium sandy silt bluestone road gravel. Munsell: 10Yr 5/1; pH: 6 unconsolidated coffee rock and 430-1350mm — Light grey loose fine sand 430-1350mm — With pebbles. Munsell: 1350-1520mm — Mid yellowish brown weak very occasional ironstone 10Yr medium to coarse sand 7/1; pH: 5.5 1350-1520mm — Moisture increasing with depth. Nodules of clay and coffee rock. Very wet and liquid clay with sand at base. Munsell: 10YR 5/4; ph: 6.5 D2 400x400x1330 352403.8 5741349.5 Flat to very gently 0-160mm — Mid greyish brown loose silty 0-160mm — Very loose with bark chips, grass rootlets inclined sandy medium sand 160-340mm — Sandy silt with rootlets plain 160-340mm — Mid greyish brown weak to 340-1330mm — Moisture increasing with depth. friable fine to medium sandy silt Nodules of unconsolidated coffee rock and soil

86 ED19/67661

STP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) 340-1330mm - Light grey friable fine to darkening with depth medium sand U 3 400x400x1290 352401.3 5741324.7 Flat to very gently 0-90mm — Mid greyish brown loose to weak 0-90mm — Silty sand with grass roots, quartz pebble, inclined sandy silty fine sand gravel, charcoal flecks, bark chips plain 90-310mm- Mid greyish brown weak fine 90-310mm-Sandy silt with decaying tree root, glass sandy silt shard, occasional quartz pebble and charcoal flecks 310-1290mm - Light grey weak fine sand 310-1290mm —Moisture increasing with depth. Nodules of unconsolidated dark brown to black coffee rock at base with colour of deposit darkening with depth. D4 400x400x960 352411.8 5741311.9 Flat to very gently 0-240mm- Mid greyish brown weak silty fine to 0-240mm- coal 'slag'; red scoria inclusions. Grass inclined sandy medium sand rootlets and bluestone gravel. Munsell: 10YR 4/2; plain 240-770mm-Mid reddish brown weak medium pH: 7 sand 240-770mm-With occasional small volcanic 770-960mm- Mid to dark reddish brown friable conglomerate pebbles and nodules of medium to coarse sand unconsolidated coffee rock. Munsell: 10YR 6/6; pH: 6.5 770-960mm-Soil darkening with depth. Coffee rock pieces increasing with depth. Large vertical root hampering excavation. Munsell: 10YR 5/4; pH: 6.5 Transect E El 400x400x1120 352385.0 5741368.2 Flat to very gently 0-180mm-Mid greyish brown loose to weak 0-180mm-With rootlets, leaf litter, bluestone gravel. 1 x inclined sandy silty fine to medium sand Munsell: 10YR 5/1; pH: 6.5 artefact plain 180-360mm- Mid greyish brown loose to weak 180-360mm-European rubbish — ceramic, metal, sandy silt bottle glass 360-1120mm- Light grey loose to weak sand 360-1120mm-Soft loose sand with unconsolidated coffee rock nodules and coffee rock at base. Munsell: 10YR 6/1; pH: 6.5 2 400x400x1230 352382.8 5741353.2 Flat to very gently 0-90mm— Mid greyish brown weak to friable 0-90mm— Silty sand with grass rootlets and leaf litter inclined sandy silty sand 90-290mm— Sandy silt with numerous pieces of small plain 90-290mm—Mid greyish brown weak fine to bluestone road gravel, rootlets and coal slag medium sand 290-1090mm- With nodules of unconsolidated 290-1090mm-Light grey loose fine to medium coffee rock and moisture increasing with depth sand 1090-1230mm-With hard layer of dark brown to 1090-1230mm-Mid to light grey weak to black coffee rock at base friable fine to medium sand E3 400x400x1130 352381.0 5741328.5 Flat to very gently 0-90mm- Mid greyish brown weak silty fine to 0-90mm- Rootlets inclined sandy medium sand 90-180mm-Leaf litter, bluestone gravel inclusions dune 90-180mm-Mid to light greyish brown weak 180-290mm- Sandy silt with some bluestone 87 ED19/67661

SIP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) fine to medium sandy silt inclusions 180-290mm-Mid greyish brown weak fine 290-1130mm- With unconsolidated coffee rock sandy silt nodules at base 290-1130mm-Light grey weak fine sand Transect El (radial STPs) E1-E 400x400x1070 352386.8 5741367.6 Flat to very gently 0-560mm- Mid greyish brown weak fine sandy 0-560mm- Rootlets, animal bone fragments, lx inclined sandy silt bluestone road gravel artefact dune 560-1070mm-Light grey weak fine sand 560-1070mm-Very occasional small powdery shell fragments, animal bone, metal pieces. Coffee rock at base EFS 400x400x1230 352382.2 5741365.3 Flat to very gently 0-200mm-Mid greyish brown weak silty fine to 0-200mm- With bark chips, bluestone gravel, animal inclined sandy medium sand bone, fragments of shell and quartz dune 200-460mm-Mid to light greyish brown weak 200-460mm-Tree roots, metal pieces, glass and fine to medium sandy silt ceramic pieces 460-1230mm- Light grey loose to weak fine 460-1230mm-With nodules of unconsolidated coffee sand rock and some metal, glass fragments and shell E1-W 400x400x1130 352380.4 5741367.3 Flat to very gently 0-140mm-Mid greyish brown loose silty fine 0-140mm-With rootlets, leaf litter, bluestone gravel, inclined sandy sand pieces of glass dune 140-340mm-Mid to dark greyish brown loose 140-340mm- With occasional glass, ceramic and fine sandy silt metal pieces 340-1130mm-Light grey loose fine sand 340-1130mm-Unconsolidated coffee rock nodules and solid coffee rock at base Transect El-E (radial STP) El-E-S 400x400x740 352385.5 5741364.4 Flat to very gently 0-290mm-Mid greyish brown loose silty fine to 0-290mm-With leaf litter, tree roots, animal bone undulating medium sand fragments, glass, ceramic, metal objects 290-350mm-Mid to light greyish brown weak 290-350mm- With leaf litter, tree roots, animal bone fine to medium sandy silt fragments, glass, ceramic, metal objects with large 350-740mm-Light grey weak fine sand tree root running across shovel test pit 350-740mm-With roots — very soft sand. Roots hampering excavation Transect F Fl 380x370x1170 352364.7 5741365.8 Level ground 0-60mm-Dark brownish grey firm humic sandy 0-60mm-Fine rootlets silt 60-190mm-Fill layer with frequent brick, gravel, 60-190mm-Dark brownish orange compact mottled white silty clay 190-310mm-With some fill deposits 190-310mm-Mid grey firm medium sand 310-1170mm- Coffee Rock at base 310-1170mm-Light yellowish brown weak medium sand

88 ED19/67661

STP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) F2 450x430x1250 352363.0 5741340.8 Level ground 0-120mm-Dark grey firm humic silty sand 0-120mm-Thick grass and root matrix layer 120-490mm-Dark grey firm medium sand 120-490mm-Frequent brick, glass, bluestone gravel 490-1250mm-Light yellowish grey weak and worms medium sand 490-1250mm-Frequent glass, bluestone gravel and worms with coffee rock at base F3 400x380x1150 352363.7 5741316.5 Level ground 0-80mm-Black firm humic silty sand 0-80mm-Thick grass and root matrix layer 80-280mm-Black firm silty sand 80-280mm-Small to medium tree roots with 280-1150mm-Light grey weak medium sand occasional gravel 280-1150mm-Coffee rock beginning in last 60mm of deposit Tra n sect G G1 420x410x620 352347.9 5741366.0 Level ground 0-50mm-Dark brown humic sandy silt 0-50mm- Lumps of brown clay, fine rootlets, 50-320mm-Dark greyish brown firm sandy silt frequent bluestone gravel 320-620mm-Mid brownish grey weak silty sand 50-320mm-Lumps of brown clay and frequent bluestone gravel 320-620mm-Frequent gravel, lumps of brown clay. Cement pipe at 540mm. Excavation terminated due to pipe G2 420x410x1050 352350.1 5741346.0 Level ground 0-110mm-Dark grey firm humic sandy silt 0-110mm-Fine rootlets 110-400mm-Dark grey weak silty sand 110-400mm- Occasional glass, small shell fragments. 400-1050mm-Light grey weak medium sand Frequent small to medium roots 400-1050mm-Shovel test pit terminated due to depth G3 420x420x1200 352349.7 5741321.7 Level ground 0-40mm-Dark grey firm humic sandy silt 0-40mm-With fine rootlets, moderate bluestone 40-320mm-Dark grey weak silty sand gravel 320-1200mm-Light grey weak medium sand 40-320mm-Frequent small to large roots and gravel 320-1200mm-Terminated due to depth G4 420x410x1150 352347.1 5741298.3 Level ground 0-90mm-Dark grey compact sandy silt 0-90mm-Compacted fill layer with lumps of brown 90-400mm-Dark grey firm silty sand clay 400-1150mm-Light grey weak medium sand 90-400mm-Frequent small to large roots 400-1150mm-Terminated due to depth Transect H H1 400x400x1210 352370.6 5741282.8 Flat to very gently 0-90mm-Mid brown firm silty medium sand 0-90mm-Silty sand with grass rootlets. Glass, iron inclined 90-390mm-Mid yellowish brown compact to and bluestone gravel inclusions cemented clayey silt 90-390mm-Fill deposits of clay, bluestone gravel, 390-550mm-Mid greyish brown weak to friable bluestone pebbles and medium stones, glass and fine to medium sand cement pieces 550-1210mm-Light grey loose fine to medium 390-550mm-With tree roots, occasional pieces of sand bottle glass 89 ED19/67661

STP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWx0(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) 550-1210mm-Soft sand with decomposing tree roots. Terminated due to depth. H2 400x400x1210 352371.4 5741265.7 Flat ground 0-80mm-Mid greyish brown loose to weak silty 0-80mm-With grass rootlets, leaf litter, bluestone sand gravel 80-350mm-Mid yellowish brown compact to 80-350mm-Fill deposits containing bluestone gravel, cemented clayey silt glass and iron pieces 350-410mm-Mid greyish brown weak fine to 350-410mm-With tree roots, some bluestone gravel medium sandy silt 410-1210mm-With nodules of unconsolidated coffee 410-1210mm-Light grey loose fine sand rock and coffee rock across base H3 400x400x930 352371.0 5741246.1 Flat ground 0-310mm-Mid greyish brown weak silty fine to 0-310mm-With rootlets, leaf litter, bluestone gravel medium sand 310-930mm-With numerous coffee rock pieces 310-930mm-Mid brownish red firm medium to throughout the deposit and coffee rock at base coarse sand Transect I 430x420x1300 352347.3 5741255.3 Flat ground 0-80mm-Dark grey firm humic sandy silt 0-80mm-Fine rootlets, spiders 80-230mm-Dark greyish brown cemented 80-230mm-Compacted fill layer with lumps of glass, sandy clay gravel and medium tree roots 230-1000mm-tight grey weak medium sand 230-1000mm- Fill layer with lumps of glass, gravel 1000-1300mm-Mid greyish brown weak clayey and medium tree roots sand 1000-1300mm-Moderate coffee rock, increasing with depth. Clay content and moisture increasing with depth. Terminated due to depth 12 400x400x990 352350.4 5741233.4 Flat to very gently 0 110mm-Mid yellowish brown weak to friable 0-110mm-With leaf litter, blue stone gravel, tree inclined silty medium sand roots 110-340mm-Mid greyish brown weak fine to 110-340mm-Sandy silt with roots medium sandy silt 340-990mm-With nodules of unconsolidated coffee 340-990mm-Mid reddish brown friable rock and coffee rock across base medium to coarse sand Transect J 11 430x430x1150 352337.9 5741247.7 Level ground 0-130mm-Dark greyish brown firm humc silty 0-130mm-Lumps of brown clay, frequent fine to sand medium rootlets 130-290mm-Dark grey weak silty sand 130-290mm-Small to medium roots 290-760mm-Light grey weak silty sand 290-760mm- Small to medium roots 760-1150mm-Dark brown weak clayey sand 760-1150mm-Increasing clay and moisture with depth J2 400x400x1100 352314.7 5741250.0 Flat to very gently 0-90mm-Mid greyish brown weak to friable 0-90mm-Rootlets, gravel inclusions inclined silty fine to medium sand 90-230mm-Rootlets 90-230mm-Mid greyish brown weak fine to 230-700mm-Moisture increasing with depth and

90 ED19/67661

SIP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) medium sandy silt colour darkening 230-700mm-light grey loose medium sand 700-1100mm-Very wet and smells like sewerage. 700-1100mm-Mid to dark grey loose medium Excavation discontinued. sand Transect K K1 400x400x470 352322.4 5741290.1 Flat to very gently 0-290mm-Mid greyish yellow firm to compact 0-290mm-Fill deposits, bluestone rubble, cement inclined clayey silty sand 290-470mm-With rootlets and poly-pipe running 290-470mm-Mid to dark greyish brown weak across base fine to medium sandy silt K2 410x410x1230 352322.2 5741268.4 Level ground 0-40mm-Dark grey firm humic sandy silt 0-40mm-Fine rootlets, gravel 40-440mm-Mid greyish brown cemented clay 40-440mm-Compacted clay layer, frequent gravel, 440-570mm-Dark grey firm silty sand sandy clay 570-1100mm-Light grey firm medium sand 440-570mm-Occasional gravel 1100-1230mm-Mid greyish brown weak 570-1100mm- Occasional gravel medium sand 1100-1230mm-Increasing moisture with depth Transect L

11 400x400x1440 352307.3 5741286.8 Flat to very gently 0-150mm-Mid greyish brown friable silty fine 0-150mm-With rootlets, leaf litter, bluestone gravel inclined sand 150-320mm-With tree roots, occasional gravel 150-320mm-Mid to dark loose to weak fine pieces sandy silt 320-1440mm-Soft sand. Moisture increasing with 320-1440mm-Light grey loose fine sand depth. Unconsolidated coffee rock at base L2 420x420x1200 352310.8 5741266.9 Level ground 0-410mm-Dark greyish brown cemented clay 0-410mm-Compacted clay layer with frequent gravel 410-600mm-Dark grey firm silty sand 410-600mm-Occasional gravel 600-1200mm-Light grey weak medium sand 600-1200mm-Terminated due to depth Transect M M1 400x400x650 352362.4 5741379.9 Flat ground 0-80mm-Mid greyish brown loose silty fine 0-80mm-Grass rootlets, bluestone road gravel sand 80-140mm-Clayey fill deposits 80-140mm-Mid to light yellowish grey compact 140-650mm-Nodules of 'sandstone' clay and coffee to cemented silty clay with coarse sand rock 140-650mm- Mid to light yellowish grey compact to cemented silty clay with coarse sand Transect N

Ni 400x400x1350 352444.9 5741399.7 Flat to very gently 0-140mm-Mid greyish brown loose silty fine to 0-140mm-Rootlets, road gravel inclined medium sand 140-260mm-Occasional rootlets 140-260mm-Mid greyish brown weak fine 260-1350mm-With unconsolidated coffee rock at sandy silt base 260-1350mm-Light grey loose sand

91 ED19/67661

SIP Dimensions Easting Northing Landform Soil-Profile Comments Artefacts No. LxWxD(mm) (GDA 94) (GDA 94) Transect 0 01 400x400x1240 352458.3 5741361.2 Flat to very gently 0-120mm-Mid to light greyish brown loose to 0-120mm-Grass rootlets inclined weak silty fine sand 120-310mm-Some grass rootlets 120-310mm-Mid to light greyish brown loose 310-1240mm-Unconsolidated coffee rock at base fine sandy silt 310-1240mm-Light yellowish grey loose fine sand

92 ED19/67661

lx1 m — Al (E352434.86 N5741338.95)

Spit Depth Om below ground surface) Sod Profile Comments Charcoal Ants Worms European Munsell pH Artefacts NW NE SE SW Material 1 -93 -94 -103 -95 Dark greyish brown weak humic sandy silt Fine rootlets, bottle cap, gravel, grubs NO NO NO YES 10YR 212 7 NO 2 -185 -181 -203 -199 Dark greyish brown firm sandy silt Streaks of mid brown sandy silt, bottle cap, NO NO NO NO 10YR 2/2 5.5 NO moderate ironstone small pieces and grubs 3 -280 -291 -301 -291 Dark brown weak sandy silt Frequent small ironstone pieces and NO NO NO NO 10YR 3/3 6 NO moderate small roots and grubs 4 -392 -407 -405 -392 Dark yellowish brown weak silty sand Occasional small charcoal pieces and YES NO NO NO 10YR 3/6 6 NO frequent small ironstone pieces -496 -508 -510 -501 Mid brown weak silty sand Frequent ironstone small to medium pieces YES NO NO NO 10YR 4/4 65 NO Moderate small charcoal pieces 6 -594 -602 -605 -600 Yellowish brown weak silty sand Frequent small to medium ironstone pieces YES NO NO NO 10 YR 4/4 6.5 NO Moderate small charcoal pieces Occasional small to medium basalt pieces Occasional small quartz pebbles 7 -711 -713 -702 -702 Yellowish brown weak silty sand Frequent small to medium ironstone pieces. YES NO NO NO 10YR 4/6 6.5 NO Moderate small charcoal pieces. Occasional small to medium basalt pieces Occasional small quartz pebbles -786 -790 -796 -792 Yellowish brown weak silty sand Frequent small to medium ironstone pieces. NO NO NO NO 10 YR 4/4 6.5 NO Moderate small charcoal pieces. Occasional small to medium basalt pieces Occasional small quartz pebbles 9 -911 -931 -916 -910 Firm reddish brown silty sand mottled with yellowish Frequent small to medium basalt pieces YES NO NO NO 5Th 3/4 6 NO brown Frequent small charcoal pieces 10 -1001 -995 -998 -992 Firm brownish red silty sand Frequent small charcoal pieces. Frequent YES NO NO NO 5YR 4/6 6.5 NO small to large basalt pieces. Patches of dark brownish red compact sandy conglomerate (unconsolidated coffee rock) 11 -1092 -1088 -1108 -1103 Compact dark brownish red unconsolidated coffee rock 25% small to large basalt pieces with NO NO YES NO 5YR 3/4 6.5 NO occasional worms 12 -1241 -1226 -1224 -1212 Compact dark brownish red coffee rock 30% small to large basalt pieces and NO NO YES NO 5YR 4/6 6.5 NO occasional worms Terminated due to depth

93 ED19/67661

Appendix 1: Statutory Regulations Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 ED19/67661

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

New Victorian legislation for Aboriginal heritage protection (the Aboriginal 28th Heritage Act 2006) commenced operation on May 2007.

This act provides blanket protection for all Aboriginal heritage sites, places or items in Victoria.

The main aspects of the Act in relation to the development process are as follows:

• An Aboriginal Heritage Council (AHC) has been appointed by the Minister, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, made up of 11 Victorian Aboriginal people.

• Aboriginal community groups with traditional interests in cultural heritage are to apply to the AHC for registration as a Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP). RAPs will have the role of endorsing Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMP) within a given area of interest. There may be two or more RAPs for an area, provided it does not hinder the operation of the legislation.

• Under Section 48, a developer ('sponsor') may be required to submit a CHMP before the issue of a statutory authority by local government or other agency ('decision maker'). A CHMP must be registered with the Secretary, Planning and Community Development (AAV), and all relevant RAPs notified in writing. If an RAP does not respond, AAV will act in lieu. A CHMP will contain details of research, field evaluation, consultation and management provisions in regard to the Aboriginal heritage of an area at risk from a development. A Cultural Heritage Advisor must be appointed to assist in the preparation of a CHMP. It is the role of an RAP to approve a CHMP if it meets prescribed standards.

• A CHMP will not be considered approved unless it has been approved by all relevant RAPs.

The regulations accompanying the Act specify when a CHMP will be required by law, and prescribe minimum standards for the preparation of a CHMP (Section 53). The approved form for CHMPs specifies the format in which a CHMP should be prepared by a sponsor in order to comply with the Act and the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, and is an approved form under section 190 of the Act.

Other provisions of the Act include Cultural Heritage Permits (Section 36), as required for other works affecting Aboriginal heritage sites, Cultural Heritage Agreements (Section 68), in respect to land containing an Aboriginal heritage site, Inspectors (Part 11) appointed to enforce the Act, Cultural Heritage Audits (Section 80) to be ordered by the Secretary in relation to compliance with a CHMP and a VCAT appeals procedure.

96 ED19/67661

Appendix 2: Notice of intent to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

97 ED19/67661

Notice of Intent to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

Th4 tom can be used Us the Sponsor of a Culture rinstaga Management Pan 10 cos pkte the nesticasor proutsons purSuant tO lt-f4,1r2006 Ohs 'Olen

SECTION 1 - Sponsor Infer •

7:Oki 1-Iti Name of Soon Cr-rpc,rr-rfin IN °usury's Name c0z Pow Address 1 C35 Tetephoce Isomer fax number. 'V11,L t McCue

SECTION 2- Description of proposed activity and location

I Lock Street. Rhyll • Pr Ousie a progici same • trim me relevant munpar dietnrrs •:ie Local COunel O'Shea) RaSP C049 t Shire Courici

• Ciaariv icertly the proposed actvity tor vorid, the Calve heoaga management dm ala o• C•POwed ia nn.n. 101(1 construcecn !a:Name soblemsiont Residential hotel and coritncc rTentre

• Clearly derrely Me area (Well as listing Caidaalral ulCirrrialtir ending a a•spy ni ante seams. ca eicicaorig ne seeer address. 1-11 Lc-)ek Street, Rhyll

• Attach a map :le scale vrith a north arrow ard indicalne the munceol Oleic 1 an II-at clean, ,dere•tes area anis baundarea r •especl of erirch the cultural heritage maragement Oar 6 to, be prepared - Plea,* efililqe die map refers to eystmg roads and iastures (alter than proposed roads and features - Reese ensure the map has the :save), area gag= on It re6 map alsOuid nave a legend lorr arrow. scale at least 3 .eadey der !tabu peographcal SocallOnS !Sucr as (Cad runstacliana parcel Cs:nor:lanes or esdnver crosarnesi and should Pare Ms map a prcrectron

SECTION 3 - Cultural Hentoge Ads ,sor

would Oak. lax a Clitoral raerits,oe Advrar la parade viro has the weak:limns eaporterce bisttbj eut-ireal under sectior 189 al ale n4-11 Malled at rho slalue at enes Cattiest! Hesnage Management Psan please provide The toirmong (*kris or ifts1 person

Mel r.da A:brecht Artcireie Long & Associates Pty Ltd tteindaailuortLau

SECTION 4 - Expected start and finish dale tom' the cultural heritage management plan

cll. 12 1 C 1 38 Start date • Fnisrt, date

98 ED19/67661

SECTIONS-Why are you preparing this Cultural Heritage Man agcrnent Plan')

rx] A Cultural Hermqe Maragestert Pia- n rcruired by the Aboriginal 14gritago Flogualicns 2C07

R 45 What is the High Impact &hely Astor1.n tile A77,2441sItanG(7.0 — Awe L nye

le any °ad of the ACIfYi 171 atea ai cottrafhpitaga sacsinoty as *MIin trre regLe.36orts? YES NO

Other rei

I An Fnviconmental Etrects Slaternent a required

Li A CLItural Itefitage Managorient Plan ,a tei3Vhad by the Paritste. tor Atorglial Mats

.51 C I ON ii List the re4evant regksiered Aboriginal parties - ,

Ner.“11, ,otttnvi rjptsi party it, neaMen In /ha Ran

SECTION 7-Signature ot Sponsor

cent a 'mai t3 :he best Lv my tusswisti3e aid belief that the mrtom-taloar at.cptecl is °urea aid zoilplote

----.N Stoned'

[Sponsor)

SECTION i tinti.ica1,os

rrist. to ottestopr:ntrt attachment% are c3rso5ted arsi enacted to Ibis hotilicalizb :sea rPction 2 o thts forth:

Please ebs2re lba folios and all *awned *Ins arc wrl to the

Deputy Drecio• AbPrigral Attars Viaana Ceparthtest of Plansirg and Cpt-n,nt, newetoproPm GPO Pox 2:4112 MELBOURNE VIC 3001

&Tod: vahn:4%tpcd.vic.gor.au

Notes.

• Ensure that any reiterant registered Abonbinal party's !salsa ratted. A copy at' this reelies may be used for this purpose IA regieteted Aboriginsi party is allowed up to 14 days to Orew[10 a amen respone• to a nelirtGetIOn speclyng whOthe, Cr net it Intends to evaluate the management Meet

• le 4444.0." IQ r-retrying the napery ntrestor insany relevant reglsweed Abet telrei pirates a sponsor trust also pottry any owner arct oroccupter sr arty land &tithe Ire area inwhich the management elan relates. A copy a this notice !hey be verct tot this purpose

99 ED19/67661

Activity Area 1-11 Lock Road, Rhyll

Bass Coast Shire II Sh

42 At

II I 73 / kl A 23 21

4 IS I I 24 44 3 27 30 I II " 31 3 _ LEGEND E-1 whir, Ate. ri hoed 1--1 Land Parcel Coastline ED19/67661

Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms

101 ED19/67661

Terminology Used in this Report for Heritage Places

General Terms

Activity Area: The area or areas to be used or developed for an activity.

Registered Cultural Heritage Place: An Aboriginal place recorded in the Register.

Types of Aboriginal Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Artefact Scatter: A scatter of stone artefacts which is defined as being the occurrence of one (1) or more items of cultural material within 100 linear metres, with a distance of no greater than 20m between each item. Artefact scatters are often the only physical remains of places where Aborigines have camped, prepared and eaten meals and worked stone material.

Burial: A burial site is usually a sub-surface pit containing human remains and sometimes associated artefacts.

Quarry: (stone/ochre source): An Aboriginal quarry site occurs where stone or ochre is exposed and has been extracted by Aboriginal people in the past. The rock types most commonly quarried for artefact manufacture in Victoria include silcrete, quartz, quartzite, chert and fine-grained volcanics such as greenstone.

Scarred Tree: Scars on trees may be the result of removal of strips of bark by Aborigines 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 climbers after possums, koalas and/or views of the surrounding area.

Shell Midden: A scatter and/or deposit comprised predominantly 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.

Aboriginal Artefact Types

Backing: Steep retouch on an artefact (e.g. backed blade).

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

Block Fracturing Techniques: These consist of bipolar flaking, bending and flaw propagation. These techniques do not result in concoidal flakes and can be difficult to identify.

Blocky Piece: A piece of stone showing no diagnostic evidence for concoidal or block fracturing techniques (e.g. flake scars, crushing). Typically these items are foreign to the area and occur in association with diagnostic flaked artefacts of the same material (see also Manuport).

Concoidal flake: A flake possessing a positive bulb of percussion which can be found on the ventral surface of the flake close to where it was struck from the core. Concoidal fracturing can also be produced by natural processes.

102 ED19/67661

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

Cortex: Original or natural (unflaked) surface of a stone.

Debitage: Small unmodified flakes, flaked pieces and blocky pieces produced as part of the flaking process, but discarded unused.

Flake: A stone piece removed from a core by percussion (striking it) or by pressure. It is identified by the presence of a striking platform and bulb of percussion, not usually found on a naturally shattered stone.

Flake Scar: A negative impression on a piece of stone or rock surface from which a flake has been removed. Generally a flake scar will show the characteristics of a flake in reverse (i.e. negative bulb of percussion).

Flaked Piece: A piece of stone with definite flake surfaces which cannot be classified as a flake or core.

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

Geometric Microlith: A blade that has been trimmed on one or two margins to produce a symmetrical backed piece which is roughly triangular in plan.

Hammerstone: 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 hammerstone become 'bruised or crushed by impact with the core.

Implement: An artefact that has been designed, but not necessarily utilised (Hiscock & Mitchell 1990, 26).

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

Microlith: A flake or blade that has been abruptly retouched along one or more margins opposite an acute (sharp) edge. Backed pieces include backed blades and geometric microliths. They are thought to have been hafted onto wooden handles to produce composite cutting tools. Backed pieces are a feature of the 'Australian small tool tradition', dating from between 5,000 and 1,000 years ago in southern Australia (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999: 234-236).

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

Retouch: A flake, flaked piece or core with intentional secondary flaking along one or more edges.

Tool: An artefact that shows evidence that it has actually been used (e.g. edge damage) (Hiscock & Mitchell 1990, 26).

Thumbnail Scraper: A thumbnail scraper is defined as a microlithic flake with regular unifacial retouch.

Utilised Artefact: A flake, flaked piece or core which has irregular small flake scarring along one or more margins that does not represent platform preparation.

103 ED19/67661

Stone Artefact Raw Material Type

Basalt: A coarse grained basic volcanic material formed by the cooling of mafic lava at the earth's surface. Basalt generally does not generally fracture concoidally and is therefore rarely used for the manufacture of flaked stone artefacts. Basalt is more commonly used for the manufacture of ground edge axes.

Chert: A sedimentary rock type composed of amorphous silica which is extremely dense, compact, dull to semi-vitreous and cryptocrystalline. It is formed by silica crystallising from out of solution in ground water. Used for flaked stone artefacts.

Flint: A variety of chert which forms in limestone, characterised by a micro-crystalline texture (no grains visible), dull surface lustre and translucent appearance. Highly suitable for concoidal fracturing and the manufacture of flaked artefacts.

Greenstone: A rock type formed by the high grade action regional metamorphism of many different types of rocks, commonly mafic to intermediate volcanics and cherts. Greenstone is commonly used for ground edge axes.

Hornfels: A rock formed from the contact metamorphism of fine grained sediments, which are usually rich in silica. In appearance this rock type is dark grey to black, and can resemble basalt. Used for flaked stone artefacts.

Quartz: A mineral composed of silica with an irregular fracture pattern. Quartz used in artefact manufacture is generally semi-translucent, although it varies from milky white to glassy. Glassy quartz can be used for concoidal flaking, but poorer quality material is more commonly used for block fracturing techniques. Quartz can be derived from waterworn pebble, crystalline or vein (terrestrial) sources.

Quartzite: A very hard, sometimes almost glassy metamorphic rock formed from compression of sands or sandstones which consist entirely of quartz sand grains. It has a similar appearance to sandstone but can be distinguished by its crystalline structure as opposed to the granular structure of sandstone. It is generally coarse grained in texture. Used for flaked stone artefacts.

Silcrete: Soil, clay or sand sediments that have silicified under basalt through groundwater percolation. It ranges in texture from very fine grained to coarse grained (Sullivan & Simmons 1979, 56). At one extreme it is cryptocrystalline with very few clasts. It generally has characteristic yellow streaks of titanium oxide that occur within a grey and less commonly reddish background. Used for flaked stone artefacts.

Glossary bibliography

Hiscock, P. and S. Mitchell. 1990. Type Profiles: Stone Artefact Quarries, Stone Reduction Sites and Ochre Quarries. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission.

Mulvaney, D. and J. Kamminga. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd., St Leonards.

Sullivan, M. and S. Simmons. 1979. 'Silcrete: a Classification for Flaked Stone Assemblages', The Artefact 4: 51-60.

104 ED19/67661

Appendix 4: Heritage Significance Assessment

105 ED19/67661

ABORIGINAL SITES — ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The assessment of cultural heritage value or 'significance' is a fundamental component of the heritage management process, in that it assists in determining which sites, places, landscapes, environments and items are of sufficient importance that they require preservation.

As such, the significance assessment process underpins the legislative framework for heritage site protection by establishing a framework within which various types (assessment criteria) and levels (significance ratings) of heritage value can be defined. The effective assessment of these values will in turn facilitate the formulation of appropriate management decisions for a specific heritage item, whether a building, archaeological site, place or landscape.

Section 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 defines 'cultural heritage significance' as including:

• archaeological, anthropological, contemporary, historical, scientific, social or spiritual significance; and

• Significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition.

Note that Aboriginal tradition is not static and unchanging from a distant 'authentic past'. 'Tradition' is the handing down of beliefs from one generation to the next but that does not mean that significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition' requires an immutable value from 'time immemorial'. A scatter of discarded waste flakes from a one-off utilitarian task may acquire 'significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition' with the passage of time and cultural change.

A statement of the significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage found, discovered and/or subject to investigation in terms of this definition of 'cultural heritage significance' is an essential step in the process of developing cultural heritage management recommendations. All Aboriginal cultural heritage may have 'cultural heritage significance', but the preservation of all Aboriginal cultural heritage is not possible. Therefore, a process of assessing significance is necessary to determine which elements of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in an activity area require management. In this context, 'management' is not synonymous with 'preservation', but may involve salvage or controlled excavation.'

A process for establishing cultural significance is outlined in the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance, otherwise known as 'The Burra Charter' (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). The Burra Charter is, in turn, based on preceding international charters formulated by ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites).

The revised Burra Charter defines cultural heritage significance as the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.

The Burra Charter, and its associated documents define the basics principles, processes and practices upon which statutory assessments of heritage significance are based. In most cases the wording of the various sets of criteria will differ slightly: for example, the criteria used by the Victorian Heritage Council

7 Source: Guide to preparing Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans (AAV May 2007)

106 ED19/67661

are worded differently to those used by the Australian Heritage Commission. All, however, are based on the same principles and incorporate general criteria such as the following:

• Association with special events, developments or phases.

• Rarity due to its association with a distinctive way of life, custom, process, land use, function or design no longer practised.

• Importance for demonstrating principal characteristics of a particular type or class of human activities (for example stating a stone quarry is a classic example of its type as it has all the features typically associated with utilised stone sources in good condition).

• Aesthetic value to the local community (for example as a landmark).

• Value for demonstrating a particular technical or creative process.

• Strong or special association with a particular community or ethnic group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

• Special association with a famous person or group of people.

Generally these criteria can be grouped into three main categories: social (I), scientific (II) and historical (III), depending on the nature of a given place or item.

It should be noted that the approach advocated here is specifically designed for the assessment of archaeological sites, and may not necessarily apply to the assessment of other types of cultural heritage.

Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment

As required in the project brief, an assessment of the significance of the cultural heritage associations recorded during this project, and relocated previously recorded sites has been made. Assessment of archaeological site significance can be complex and encompass a range of heritage values. The heritage values of a site or place are broadly defined as the "aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values for past, present or future generations" (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992, 69).

The assessment of the significance of Aboriginal sites is a complex process, and involves the consideration of both scientific value and cultural value to the local Aboriginal community.

It should be noted that Aboriginal cultural significance may reflect Aboriginal community values not only in regard to individual sites and groups of sites but also in terms of the general landscape. Aboriginal values do not necessarily correspond to the scientific values placed on individual sites, but will reflect the social, educational and aesthetic values of such locations. These values may include ancestral or traditional associations, concern over environmental issues, possible uses of sites for interpretation and education and the importance of highly visible sites as tangible markers of Aboriginal occupation in a region.

Criteria for Assessing Scientific Significance

107 ED19/67661

The following evaluation is used to assess the scientific significance of the archaeological sites recorded. Scientific significance is assessed by examining the research potential and representativeness of archaeological sites recorded.

Research potential is in turn assessed by examining site contents and site condition. Site contents refers to all cultural materials and organic remains associated with human activity at a site. Site contents also refers to the site structure - the size of the site, the patterning of cultural materials within the site and the presence of any stratified deposits. Site condition refers to the degree of disturbance to the contents of a site at the time it was recorded. Ratings for site contents and condition are given below.

1. The site contents ratings used for Aboriginal archaeological sites are:

0 No cultural materials remaining. 1 Site contains a small number (e.g. 0-10 artefacts) or limited range of cultural materials with no evident stratification. 2 Site contains: (a) a larger number, but limited range of cultural materials: and/or (b) some intact stratified deposit remains. 3 Site contains: (a) a large number and diverse range of cultural materials; and/or (b) largely intact stratified deposit; and/or (c) surface spatial patterning of cultural materials that still reflect the way in which the cultural materials were laid down. 2. The site condition ratings used for Aboriginal archaeological sites are:

0 Site destroyed. 1 Site in a deteriorated condition with a high degree of disturbance; some cultural materials remaining. 2 Site in a fair to good condition, but with some disturbance. 3 Site in an excellent condition with little or no disturbance. For surface artefact scatters this may mean that the spatial patterning of cultural materials still reflects the way in which the cultural materials were laid down. Representativeness refers to the regional distribution of a particular site type. It is assessed on whether the site is common, occasional or rare in a given region. Assessments of representativeness are subjectively biased by current knowledge of the distribution and numbers of archaeological sites in a region. This varies from place to place depending on the extent of previous archaeological research. Consequently, a site, which is assigned low significance values for contents and condition, but a high significance value for representativeness, can only be regarded as significant in terms of current knowledge of the regional archaeology. Any such site should be subject to further re-assessment as additional archaeological research is carried out.

Assessment of representativeness also takes into account the contents and condition of a particular site. For example, in any region, there may only be a limited number of sites of any type which have suffered minimal disturbance. Such sites would therefore be given a high significance rating for representativeness, although they may occur commonly within the region.

The representativeness ratings used for Aboriginal archaeological sites are:

108 ED19/67661

1 Common occurrence 2 Occasional occurrence 3 Rare occurrence Overall scientific significance ratings for sites, based on a cumulative score for site contents, site integrity and representativeness are given as follows:

/-4 Low scientific significance

5-7 Moderate scientific significance

8-9 High scientific significance

Scientific Significance Assessment

VAHR No. Site Type Site Site Representativeness Scientific Contents Condition Significance

7921-1221 Artefact scatter 1 1 1 Low Table 17: Scientific Significance of Aboriginal Sites Identified During the Assessment.

The scientific significance assessment for Aboriginal sites identified during the assessment is provided above (Table 17). These significance determinations may change on the basis of future examination, research and analysis. A total of three of the artefact scatters identified during the complex assessment for this CHMP are of low scientific significance in regards to the low number of site contents that are either within a disturbed context or have some disturbance, and are of common occurrence within the region.

Aboriginal Traditional Significance Assessment

In addition to the scientific significance assessment (Table 18) of Aboriginal sites, the cultural heritage significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is presented below.

VAHR No. Site Type Aboriginal Traditional Significance Assessment (BWF and BLCAC)*

7921-1221 Artefact scatter High Table 18: Aboriginal Traditional Significance Assessment.

*Note that this assessment was provided by field representatives during the course of the survey and testing programmes on behalf of BWF and BLCAC.

109 ED19/67661

Appendix 5: Qualifications ED19/67661

• Melinda Albrecht, Project Manager Bachelor of Arts, Honours Degree in Classics and Archaeology at University of Melbourne (1997) Master of Arts- Archaeology at La Trobe University (2004) Industry experience — 5 years

• Henry Lion, Archaeologist Bachelor of Arts (Honours in Archaeology), Monash University (2007) Industry experience — 2 years

• Karl Van Der Hi1st (General Assistant)

112 ED19/67661

Appendix 6: Compliance Review Checklist

113 ED19/67661

Nrte

Name c eocrder

Position Y recorder

YES NO C OWE PIT Kave ai idersare- de.en ind4cred as to existence :f CHtPT I.:4e of CHIP' *cr:pna:e res.p:rses to :61tiza hentade^ irrp,cators of exclusion zortes'T ?ewes of non-compiance %%Oh the CHOP',

has any ca.ltura nettage been dsoovered' sinm the !devoid check's: smission:

tf yes was the person n charge of the a:tiv:!:y notfecil of the disc:veni .were al rele,ant works X the °calico et Ike cescooeny: rrineda:ey ceasc-d- was an ..a.^tw:). excliAicm zone estabisned wi*n a I Cr, radius :f :he disw,en" i yes now was ",is exatason zone egad' shed': were ail persornel made anaie at the excluscri =me^ .was a cuttioM herrade advisor not•red of the find withn 2L hates V cisco.enr was the RAP:s otifed :f :neFind in24 i4361.5 of the aiscooeny' was the SAP:s:. ited to nscect the d s,xvery: *33 cu13,a! fle•itazie acnAsce attend :ne se" what process was de:craned I: be accirocrate 0 the was ths rrocess Vowed'

ag-inerif has not teen reached regarcfry maop-cpdate cotrse of acten referto Drspute Resolueon sedian of CHAP

kid -.via. oarrrent

Sirati.res

Person hale

A completed copy of firs checklist must be submitted to the R4P(s) e very fontught Ina the, Authcr rsed Protect Delegat>

RAP(s) Use ONLY:

Date •diecklist rece..ed:

Corrments

114 ED19/67661

Appendix 7: Bass Coast Planning Scheme information

115 ED19/67661

32.04 MIXED USE ZONE 02/082010 VC69 Shown on the planning scheme map as MUZ.

Purpose

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function ofthe locality.

To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

32.04-1 Table of uses 02/062010 VC69 Section 1 — Permit not required USE CONDITION

Animal keeping (other than Animal Must be no more than 2 animals boarding)

Apiculture Must meet the requirements of the Apiary Code of Practice, May 1997

Bed and breakfast No more than 6 persons may be accommodated away from their normal place of residence. At least 1 car parking space must be provided for each 2 persons able to be accommodated away from their normal place of residence.

Carnival Must meet the requirements of A 'Good Neighbour Code of Practice for a Circus or Carnival, October 1997

Circus Must meet the requirements of A 'Good Neighbour' Code of Practice for a Circus or Carnival, October 1997

Dependent person's unit Must be the only dependent person's unit on the lot

Dwelling (other than Bed and breakfast) Greenhouse gas sequestration Must meet the requirements of Clause 52 08-6

Greenhouse gas sequestration exploration Home occupation Informal outdoor recreation Mineral exploration

Mining Must meet the requirements of Clause 52 08-2

Minor utility installation Natural systems

Place of worship Must be no social or recreation activities The gross floor area of all buildings must

MLXED USE ZONE PAGE 1 OF 6

116 ED19/67661

USE CONDITION not exceed 180 square metres The site must not exceed 1200 square metres The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone. Railway Residential aged care facility Road Search for stone Must not be costeaning Of bulk sampling

Telecommunications facility Buildings and works must meet the requirements of Clause 52.19.

Tramway

Section 2 - Permit required USE CONDITION Accommodation (other than Dependent person's unit, Dwelling and Residential aged care facility) Agriculture (other than Animal keeping and Apiculture) Animal boarding

Animal keeping (other than Animal Must be no more than 5 animals. boarding) - if the Section 1 condition is not met

Industry (other than Materials recycling Must not be a purpose listed in the table to and Transfer station) Clause 52 10

Leisure and recreation (other than Informal outdoor recreation) Mineral, stone, or soil extraction (other than Extractive industry, Mineral exploration, Mining, and Search for stone) Office The combined leasable floor area for all offices must not exceed any amount specified in the schedule to this zone. Place of assembly (other than Carnival, Circus, and Place of worship) Retail premises (other than Shop and Trade supplies) Shop (other than Adult sex bookshop) The combined leasable floor area for all shops must not exceed any amount specified in the schedule to this zone

Trade supplies The combined leasable floor area for all trade supplies must not exceed any amount specified in the schedule to this zone_ Utility installation (other than Minor utility installation and Telecommunications facility).

MDCED USE ZONE PAGE 2 OF 6

117 ED19/67661

USE CONDITION

Warehouse Must not be a purpose listed in the table to Clause 52 10

Any other use not in Section 1 or 3

Section 3 - Prohibited USE

Adult sex bookshop Brothel

Extractive industry

Materials recycling

Transfer station

32.04-2 Use for industry and warehouse 15/09/2008 '/C49

Amenity of the neighbourhood

The use of land for an industry or warehouse must not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, including through:

• The transport of materials or goads to or from the land.

• The appearance of any stored materials or goods.

• Traffic generated by the use.

• Emissions from the land.

Application requirements

Unless the circtunstances do not require, an application to use land for an industry or warehouse must be accompanied by the following information:

• The purpose of the use and the types of activities to be carried out.

• The type and quantity of materials and goods to be stored, processed or produced.

• Whether a Works Approval or Waste Discharge Licence is required from the Environment Protection Authority.

• Whether a notification under the Occupational Health and Safety (Major Hazard Facilities) Regulations 2000 is required. a licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 is required, or a fire protection quantity under the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations 2000 is exceeded.

• How land not required for inmiediate use is to be maintained.

• The likely effects, if any, on the neighbourhood, including noise levels, traffic, air-borne emissions, emissions to land and water, light spill. glare. solar access and hours of operation (including the hours of delivery and dispatch of materials and goods).

MIXED USE ZONE PAGE 3 OF 6

118 ED19/67661

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application to use land for an industry or warehouse, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• The effect that existing uses on adjoining or nearby land may have on the proposed use.

- The design of buildings, including provision for solar access.

- The availability and provision ofutility services.

• The effect of traffic to be generated by the use.

- The interim use of those parts ofthe land not required for the proposed use.

32.04-3 Subdivision

0911 CV200.6

Permit requirement

A permit is required to subdivide land.

An application to subdivide land, other than an application to subdivide land into lots each containing an existing dwelling or car parking space, must meet the requirements of Clause 56 and:

• Must meet all of the objectives included in the clauses specified in the following table.

• Should meet all of the standards included in the clauses specified in the following table.

CLASS OF SUBDIVISION OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS TO BE MET

60 or more lots All except Clause 56 03-5

16- 59 lots All except Clauses 5603-1 to 5603-3, 56 03-5, 56 06-1 and 5606-3.

3-15 lots All except Clauses 56.02-1, 5603-1 to 56.03-4, 56.05-2, 56.06-1, 56_06-3 and 56.06-6

2 lots Clauses 56 03-5, 56.04-2, 56 04-3, 5604-5, 5606-8 to 56 09-2

Exemption from notice and review

An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d). the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65. the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• The objectives and standards of Clause 56.

MIXED USE ZONE PAGE 4 OF 6

119 ED19/67661

32.04-4 Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot

1909r/008 VC49 Permit requirement

A permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on:

• A lot of less than 300 square metres.

• A lot of between 300 square metres and 500 square metres if specified in the schedule to this zone.

A pennit is required to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of a street if:

• The fence is associated with one dwelling on:

• A lot of less than 300 square metres. or

• A lot of between 300 and 500 square metres if specified in a schedule to this zone, and

• The fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 54.06-2. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 54.

No permit required

No permit is required to:

• Construct or carry out works normal to a dwelling.

• Construct or extend an out-building (other than a garage or carport) on a lot provided the gross floor area of the out-building does not exceed 10 square metres and the maximum building height is not more than 3 metres above ground level.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework. including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54.

32.04-5 Construction and extension of two or more dwellings on a lot, dwellings on IS/032008 common property and residential buildings VC49

Permit requirement

A permit is required to:

• Construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on the lot.

• Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

• Extend a dwelling if there are two or more dwellings on the lot.

• Construct or extend a dwelling if it is on common property.

• Construct or extend a residential building.

A permit is required to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of a street if:

MIXED USE ZONE PAGE 5 OF 6

120 ED19/67661

• The fence is associated with 2 or more dwellings on a lot or a residential building, and

• The fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 55.06-2.

A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of four or more storeys. excluding a basement.

A pennit is not required to construct one dependent person's unit on a lot.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 55.

32.04-6 Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55

19/01/2006 VC37 The schedule to this zone may specify the requirements of:

• Standards A3. A4, A.5, A10. A17 and A20 of Clause 54 of this scheme.

• Standards B6, B7, B8, B17. B28 and B32 of Clause 55 of this scheme.

If a requirement is not specified in the schedule to this zone, the requirement set out in the relevant standard of Clause 54 or Clause 55 applies.

32.04-7 Buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use 19/01/20(76 VC37 A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.04-1.

32.04-8 Advertising signs 19/01/2006 VC37 Advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 3.

Notes: Refer to the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement, for strategies and policies which may affect the use and development ofland.

Check whether an overlay also applies to the land.

Other requirements may also apply. These can be found at Particular Provisions.

MIXED USE ZONE PAGE 6 OF 6

122 ED19/67661

BASS COAST PLANNING SCHEME

19;01/2006 SCHEDULE TO THE MIXED USE ZONE VC37

Land Maximum Maximum Maximum combined combined combined leasable leasable leasable floor area floor area floor area (m2) for (m2) for (m2) for office. shop (other trade than adult supplies. sex book shop).

None specified

Is a permit required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of between 300 square metres and 500 square metres? No

Clause 54 and Requirement Clause 55 Standard

Minimum Standard A3 and None specified street setback Standard BS

Building height Standard A4 and None specified Standard 87

Site coverage Standard A5 and None specified Standard 138

Side and rear Standard A10 and None specified setbacks Standard 817

Private open Standard A•17 None specified space Standard B28 None specified

Front fence Standard A20 and None specified height Standard 832

PAGE 1 1 MIXED USE ZONE - SCHEDULE OF

123