Cultural Heritage Management Plan AV CHMP No

La Trobe University Eco

Corr idor, Bundoora Campus

Cultural Heritage Management Plan AV CHMP No. 15724 Activity size: Large Sponsor: La Trobe University ABN: 64 804 735 113 Heritage Advisor: Melinda Albrecht Author: Melinda Albrecht With a contribution by Dr. Jacqui Tumney Date of Completion: **** 2019

www.alassoc.com.au

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

La Trobe University Eco Corridor, Bundoora Campus Cultural Heritage Management Plan

AV CHMP No. 15724 Size of Activity Area: Large Assessment: Desktop/Standard/Complex Aboriginal cultural heritage present: YES

Sponsor: La Trobe University (ABN 64 804 735 113) Heritage Advisor: Melinda Albrecht Author: Melinda Albrecht With a contribution by Dr. Jacqui Tumney

Date of Completion: **** 2019

This page in intentionally left blank

Executive summary Compliance requirements are set out in Part 1 of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan. This Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been prepared by the Sponsor, La Trobe University (ABN: 64 804 735 113), as a mandatory CHMP under Section 46 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (the Act) to allow the management and protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage during the course of activities associated with the proposed development that may disturb Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area. In addition, this cultural heritage management plan provides contingency arrangements for managing the discovery of any further Aboriginal cultural heritage places identified during construction works associated with the development. The activity consists of the development of the La Trobe University eco corridor. La Trobe University is currently working on plans for the development of the University’s Melbourne campus, located in Bundoora. These projects include increase flood storage at Gresswell Lakes through construction of a levy bank for the lake to expand into, cycling and primary pedestrian network and revegetation. The likely impact on land surfaces across the majority of the activity area will be relatively minimal with localised construction activities relating to the proposed activity. The proposed cycling and pedestrian pathways include the removal of topsoil and some excavation into the underlying subsoil to a maximum depth of 200mm. The proposed pathways will be a mixture of gravel and concrete pathways. There may be some deeper excavations to increase flood storage at Gresswell Lakes, with the construction of a levy bank for the lake to expand into, however the intent is to build where possible on the existing ground surface limiting excavation only to areas where it is necessary. The remainder of the activity area will be subject to some revegetation works, with relatively minimal disturbance to the ground surface. The revegetation works will include local planting and weeding. The activity area contains areas of cultural heritage sensitivity according to Regulation 46, Regulation 47 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) and the proposed activity constitutes a high impact activity as defined in Regulation 47(1)(b) and (f). Under Regulation 7, a mandatory CHMP is therefore required for the activity. The activity area has been subject to desktop, standard and complex assessments. For the purposes of the desktop assessment, a geographic region consistent with that used for the previous CHMP 13756 (a 1 km buffer on that activity area) was considered appropriate to capture information about the relevant environmental context and past evidence for Aboriginal occupation. A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register identified 54 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the geographic region: artefact scatters (n=38) and low-density artefact distributions (n=4), scarred trees (n=9), a quarry (n=1) one multi-component site (n=1; with an artefact scatter sand quarry component) and one historical reference (n=1). There were five Aboriginal cultural heritage places previously recorded within the activity area, one scarred tree (VAHR 7922-0218), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922- 0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one low density artefact distribution (7922-1366). Based on the distribution of known surface and subsurface places in relation to landform, geology, and vegetation, and the location of part of the activity area adjacent to Darebin Creek and other water sources such as Strathallan Creek, it was considered possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage may be present within the activity area. A standard assessment was carried out under Regulation 62(1). The activity area was divided into five investigation areas (IAs), based on location, landform and levels of disturbance. IA-1 comprised Darebin Creek Reserve and was subject to a systematic pedestrian survey, as were IA-5A (Sports Fields Lake and surrounding area bounded by Darebin Creek reserve to the west) and IA-4c (Gresswell lakes area adjacent to a golf course). Due to the highly modified land surfaces within IA-5B (characterised by heavily developed parts of the current campus) and the lack of visibility within IA- 4a (La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary - there are no impacts proposed within this area) these investigation areas were subject to an opportunistic, targeted survey rather than transects. Ground surface visibility was impeded by ground cover and paved surfaces. All of the five previously registered Aboriginal places within the activity area were inspected as part of the standard assessment. Only one of these Aboriginal places was re-identified within IA-1, an artefact scatter, VAHR 7922-0210. During the current CHMP assessment, a number of Aboriginal stone artefacts were identified in the vicinity of 7922- 0210 and were later registered as part of the assemblage from 7922-0210 The activity area was assessed as containing an archaeological potential rating ranging from moderate-high (IA-1) to low (IA-5b). Given the generally low ground surface visibility and the possibility that Aboriginal cultural heritage may be present, it was deemed necessary to undertake a complex assessment in accordance with Regulation 64(1). A thorough subsurface testing program was conducted across IA 1, IA 5a, and IA 4c, and a total of seven 1x1m test pits and seventy- six 0.5x0.5 m shovel test pits were excavated. Testing targeted the areas of proposed impacts from the activity, and predominantly occurred within IA 1. Excavations within IA 1A were capped to a maximum depth of 200mm which is the maximum depth of impact from the proposed activity in this area. Soil types, colours and textures were relatively consistent across much the activity area and matched the soil profiles established by the stratigraphic 1x1m test pits. The majority of the test pits excavated contained evidence of modification and disturbance, with introduced material such as plastic, glass, rubber, gravel, concrete, porcelain and brick inclusions as well as mottled and mixed fill soil materials. A total of 23 stone artefacts were identified in subsurface contexts and 20 surface artefacts were also identified. One low-density artefact distribution (LDAD), **** was registered. The previously registered Aboriginal artefact scatter, 7922-0210 was updated with the additional surface and subsurface artefacts identified during the CHMP assessments. The results of the evaluation have also demonstrated that outside of the location of the identified Aboriginal cultural heritage places, no dense deposits of stone artefacts or other materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places of higher scientific significance are likely to occur within the activity area in the areas subject to proposed construction impacts.

Table of contents Executive summary ...... 5 Table of contents ...... i Part 1 - Cultural heritage management conditions ...... 1 1. Specific cultural heritage management conditions ...... 2 1.1 Specific cultural heritage management conditions ...... 2 1.2 General conditions ...... 6 Condition 1 – Cultural Heritage Management Plan induction and manual ...... 6 Condition 2 – Storage and repatriation ...... 6 Condition 3 – Compliance Inspections ...... 7 1.3 Specific conditions for VAHR 7922-**** ...... 7 Condition 4 – Surface Salvage ...... 7 1.4 Specific conditions for VAHR 7922-0210 ...... 8 Condition 4 – Surface Salvage ...... 8 Condition 5 –Salvage excavation ...... 8 1.5 Salvage methodologies ...... 8 1.5.1 Surface salvage methodology...... 8 1.5.2 Salvage excavation methodology ...... 8 2. Contingencies ...... 10 2.1 Introduction ...... 10 2.2 Unexpected discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage ...... 10 2.2.1 Unexpected discovery of Human Remains ...... 10 2.2.2 Unexpected discovery of Aboriginal places or objects other than Human Remains ...... 11 2.2.3 Unexpected discovery of an LDAD ...... 11 2.2.4 Unexpected discovery of a non-LDAD ...... 12 2.3 Custody and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered ...... 13 2.4 Reviewing compliance with the management plan ...... 14 2.5 Compliance review checklist ...... 15 2.6 Dispute resolution ...... 17 2.7 Delays and other obstacles ...... 19 2.8 Authorised Project Delegates and the handling of sensitive information ...... 19 Part 2 - Assessment ...... 20 3. Introduction to the cultural heritage assessment ...... 21 3.1 Reason for conducting the cultural heritage management plan ...... 21 3.2 The name of the Sponsor ...... 22 3.3 The name of the Heritage Advisor ...... 22 3.4 The location of the activity area ...... 22 3.5 The owners and occupiers of the land ...... 23 3.6 Notice of intention to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan...... 23 3.7 Registered Aboriginal Parties ...... 23 4. Activity Area ...... 27 4.1 Description of the activity ...... 27 5. Extent of the activity area ...... 29 5.1 Introduction ...... 29 5.2 Extent of the activity area ...... 29 6. Documentation of Consultation ...... 30 6.1 Notice of intention to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan...... 30 6.2 Registered Aboriginal Party for the activity area ...... 30 6.3 Participants in the assessment ...... 31 6.4 Summary of consultation ...... 32

7. Desktop Assessment ...... 36 7.1 Method of assessment ...... 36 7.2 Obstacles ...... 36 7.3 Persons involved in the desktop assessment ...... 36 7.4 RAP information ...... 37 7.5 Geographic region ...... 37 7.6 A review of the landforms or geomorphology of the activity area ...... 37 7.6.1 Landforms/geomorphology ...... 37 7.6.2 Environment ...... 40 7.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register search ...... 47 7.8 Review of historical and ethnohistorical accounts of Aboriginal occupation in the geographic region .. 55 7.8.1 Ethnohistorical accounts ...... 55 7.8.2 Post-contact history ...... 56 7.9 Review of reports and published work about Aboriginal cultural heritage in the region ...... 57 7.9.1 Regional studies ...... 58 7.9.2 Localised studies ...... 60 7.10 A review of the history of the use of the activity area ...... 66 7.11 Conclusions ...... 69 8. Standard Assessment ...... 71 8.1 Introduction ...... 71 8.2 Previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places ...... 71 8.3 Method of assessment ...... 71 8.3.1 Aims ...... 71 8.3.2 Survey methodology ...... 71 8.3.3 Establishing investigation areas ...... 72 8.3.4 Establishing archaeological sensitivity and levels of ground disturbance ...... 73 8.4 Obstacles ...... 74 8.5 Participants involved in the standard assessment ...... 74 8.6 RAP information ...... 74 8.7 Results ...... 75 8.8 Archaeological Potential Ratings ...... 84 8.9 Conclusions ...... 85 9. Complex Assessment ...... 87 9.1 Introduction ...... 87 9.2 Subsurface testing or excavation methodology ...... 87 9.2.1 Aims ...... 87 9.2.2 Testing strategy ...... 88 9.2.3 Excavation methods ...... 88 9.3 Obstacles ...... 88 9.4 Name of the Supervisors ...... 89 9.5 Names of Participants ...... 89 9.6 RAP information ...... 90 9.7 Results of the complex assessment ...... 90 9.7.1 Co-ordinates of testing locations ...... 90 9.7.2 Establishing stratigraphy ...... 92 9.7.3 Summary of the nature and character of soil deposits ...... 98 9.7.4 Archaeological deposits ...... 99 9.8 Conclusions ...... 106 10. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment ...... 110 10.1 Introduction ...... 110 10.2 VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 ...... 110

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 ii

10.2.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 ...... 110 10.2.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5...... 110 10.3 VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 ...... 116 10.3.1 Nature, Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 ...... 116 10.4 VAHR 7922-0219– Darebin 7 ...... 120 10.4.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0219 – Darebin 7 ...... 120 10.4.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-0219 – Darebin 7...... 120 10.5 VAHR 7922-0986– La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1...... 123 10.5.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 123 10.5.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 123 10.6 VAHR 7922-1366– La Trobe University LDAD ...... 125 10.6.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 125 10.6.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 125 10.7 VAHR 7922-****– La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1 ...... 126 10.7.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-**** – La Trobe University Eco-Corridor LDAD 1 ...... 126 10.7.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 127 11. Section 61 Matters ...... 131 11.1 Introduction ...... 131 11.2. La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1 (7922-****)...... 132 11.2.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-****? ...... 132 11.2.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-****? ...... 132 11.2.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-**** before, during and after the activity ...... 132 11.3. Darebin 5 (7922-0210)...... 132 11.3.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-0210? ...... 132 11.3.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0210? ...... 132 11.3.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-0210 before, during and after the activity ...... 133 11.4 Darebin 7 (7922-0219)...... 133 11.4.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-0219? ...... 133 11.4.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0219? ...... 133 11.4.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-0219 before, during and after the activity ...... 133 11.5 La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 (7922-0986) ...... 134 11.5.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-0986? ...... 134 11.5.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0986? ...... 134 11.5.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-0986 before, during and after the activity ...... 134 11.6 La Trobe University LDAD (7922-1366) ...... 134 11.6.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-1366? ...... 134 11.6.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-1366? ...... 134 11.6.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-1366 before, during and after the activity ...... 134 11.7 Cumulative Impact Statement ...... 135 11. References ...... 137 12. Site Gazeteer ...... 141 13. Additional Tables ...... 142 Appendix 1: Planning Scheme...... 168 Appendix 2: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) ...... 179 Appendix 3: Darebin Planning Scheme and Schedule to Public Use Zone - Education (PUZ2) ...... 186

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 iii

Appendix 4: Heritage significance assessment ...... 192 Appendix 5: Glossary of terms ...... 198 Appendix 6: Qualifications ...... 202 Appendix 7: Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for Cultural Heritage Awareness Induction ...... 204 Appendix 8: Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for Reburial of Cultural Heritage Material ...... 206 Appendix 9: Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for CHMP Implementation RaP inspections ...... 209

Figures Figure 1: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1A ...... 93 Figure 2: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1B ...... 95 Figure 3: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1C ...... 96 Figure 4: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1D (expanded from STP 28) no additional artefacts identified ... 98 Figure 5: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1F (expanded from STP 35) no additional artefacts identified ... 99 Figure 6: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1G (expanded from STP 38) no additional artefacts identified ... 99 Figure 7: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 28 - north elevation ...... 102 Figure 8: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 31 - north elevation ...... 102 Figure 9: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 35 - north elevation ...... 103 Figure 10: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 38 - north elevation ...... 103 Figure 11: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 48 - north elevation ...... 104 Figure 12: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 1x1B S5 - north elevation ...... 104 Figure 13: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 28 N10 - north elevation ...... 105 Figure 14: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 25 S5 - north elevation ...... 105 Figure 15: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1E (expanded from STP 31) with additional artefacts found .. 106 Figure 16: Extent plan for VAHR 7922-0210 ...... 112 Figure 17: Context plan for VAHR 7922-0210 ...... 113 Figure 17: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 ...... 121 Figure 18: Extent plan of 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 (Weaver 1991) ...... 122 Figure 19: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 124 Figure 20: Detailed extent plan of 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 126

Tables Table 1: Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and management conditions ...... 2 Table 2: Summary of management conditions ...... 3 Table 3: Timeline for the implementation of management conditions ...... 3 Table 4: Recommended compliance review checklist...... 16 Table 5: Owners and occupiers of the activity area ...... 23 Table 6: Participants in the assessment ...... 32 Table 7: Summary of consultation ...... 35 Table 8: Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region ...... 54 Table 9: Historical Aboriginal references located within the Geographic Region ...... 54 Table 10: Effective Survey Coverage ...... 73 Table 11: Participants involved in the standard assessment ...... 74 Table 12: Investigation Area 1 (IA-1)...... 77 Table 13: Investigation Area 5a (IA-5a)...... 78 Table 14: Investigation Area 5b (IA-5b)...... 79 Table 15: Investigation Area 4a (IA-4a)...... 80 Table 16: Investigation Area 4c (IA-4c)...... 81 Table 17: Archaeological Sensitivity / Disturbance Ratings ...... 84 Table 18: Archaeological Potential Rating scale ...... 84 Table 19: Archaeological Potential Ratings of IAs ...... 85 Table 20: Participants in the complex assessment ...... 90

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 iv

Table 21: Excavation co-ordinates (GDA 94, MGA Zone 54) ...... 92 Table 22: Results of the CHMP - stone artefacts sorted by test pit ...... 100 Table 23: Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and depth ...... 100 Table 24: Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and raw material ...... 101 Table 25: VAHR 7922-0210 Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and technological class ...... 101 Table 25: VAHR 7922-**** Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and technological class ...... 101 Table 26: Extent and significance of 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 ...... 110 Table 28: Depth and average maximum dimension (MD) of artefact technological class by raw material in the 7922-0210 assemblage ...... 111 Table 29: Platform and termination types on silcrete artefacts in the 7922-0210 assemblage ...... 112 Table 28: Extent and significance of 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 ...... 116 Table 29: Extent and significance of 7922-0219 – Darebin 7 ...... 120 Table 30: Extent and significance of 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 123 Table 31: Extent and significance of 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 125 Table 32: Extent and significance of 7922-**** – La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1 ...... 126 Table 33: Location, depth and average maximum dimension (MD) of artefact technological class by raw material in the 7922-xxxx assemblage ...... 129 Table 35: Platform and termination types on silcrete artefacts in the 7922-xxxx assemblage ...... 129 Table 34: Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and management conditions ...... 131 Table 35: VAHR 7922-**** and management conditions ...... 132 Table 36: VAHR 7922-0210 and management conditions ...... 133 Table 37: VAHR 7922-0219 and management conditions ...... 133 Table 38: VAHR 7922-0986 and management conditions ...... 134 Table 39: VAHR 7922-1366 and management conditions ...... 135 Table 40: 1x1 m pit excavation data ...... 144 Table 41: 1x1 m pit spit depths and reduced levels (mm) ...... 146 Table 42: 0.5x0.5 m pit database ...... 163 Table 43: Artefact database – 7922-0210 ...... 164 Table 47: Artefact database – 7922-**** ...... 166 Table 44: Variables recorded in the technological and typological analysis of the stone artefacts identified as part of this CHMP ...... 167

Maps Map 1: Management Conditions for CHMP 15724 – overview ...... 4 Map 2: Management Conditions for CHMP 15724 – Detail ...... 5 Map 3: Location of the activity area ...... 24 Map 4: Map of the Activity Area showing all registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within 200m ..... 25 Map 5: Photomap of the Activity Area ...... 26 Map 6: Map of activity area showing VAHR information and geographic region ...... 42 Map 7: Map of activity area showing VAHR information and geographic region – Detail Maps ...... 43 Map 8: Geomorphology of the activity area and geographic region ...... 44 Map 9: Geology of the activity area and geographic region ...... 45 Map 10: Pre-1750 Ecological Vegetation Classes in the activity area and geographic region ...... 46 Map 11: Standard Assessment results demonstrating all Investigation Areas ...... 82 Map 12: Investigation Areas assessed during the standard assessment with Archaeological Potential Ratings ...... 83 Map 13: Results of the complex assessment - overview ...... 107 Map 14: Results of the complex assessment – Detail ...... 108 Map 15: All registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places in the activity area ...... 109 Map 16: Aerial map showing current aerial image and registered location of 7922-0218 with location of debris and tree remains ...... 118

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 v

Map 17: Aerial map showing 1945 aerial image, registered location of 7922-0218 and overlay of site location from Weaver report 540 ...... 119

Plates Plate 1: 1972, Union Building Construction La Trobe University Bundoora...... 68 Plate 2: 1967, Construction of carpark Kingsbury Drive La Trobe University Bundoora...... 68 Plate 3: 1968, Construction of moat La Trobe University Bundoora ...... 69 Plate 4: Location of previously registered Aboriginal place 7922-0218 looking south east ...... 77 Plate 5: Typical ground surface visibility of IA-1 at location of previously registered artefact scatter 7922-0210, looking south west ...... 77 Plate 6: Example of mature red gum within IA, facing north west ...... 77 Plate 7: IA-5a looking west ...... 78 Plate 8: Location of previously registered Aboriginal place 7922-0219, looking south ...... 78 Plate 9: Location of previously registered Aboriginal place 7922-1366 looking north ...... 79 Plate 10: Modified land surfaces of IA-5b looking west ...... 79 Plate 11: IA-4a looking south east from registered location of 7922-0986 ...... 80 Plate 12: Typical ground surface visibility of IA-4a, looking north east ...... 80 Plate 13: Example of mature red gum within IA-4a, looking east ...... 80 Plate 14: IA-4c looking north west near Gresswell Lake ...... 81 Plate 15: Area of good surface visibility within IA-4c, looking west ...... 81 Plate 16: Example of mature red gum tree within IA-4c, looking south east ...... 81 Plate 17: 1x1A, north elevation_Jay Yost_05March19 ...... 93 Plate 18: General location of 1x1A facing east_Jay Yost_05March19 ...... 94 Plate 19: 1x1B, base of excavation facing north_Alex Ariotti_05March19 ...... 95 Plate 20: 1x1C, base of excavation facing north_Alex Ariotti_07March19 ...... 97 Plate 21: 1x1C, showing soil stratigraphy facing north_Alex Ariotti_07March19 ...... 97 Plate 22: Location of Aboriginal stone artefacts located adjacent to original registered place extent of 7922- 0210 facing north west_AnnieReich_28August2018 ...... 114 Plate 23: Aboriginal stone artefact identified as part of 7922-0210_MelindaAlbrecht_28August2018 ...... 114 Plate 24: Aboriginal stone artefact identified as part of 7922-0210_AnnieReich_28August2018 ...... 115 Plate 25: Aboriginal stone artefact identified as part of 7922-0210 within 1x1A_AshleyBentleigh_26June2019 ...... 115 Plate 26: Photograph showing location of 7922-0218 facing south east_Annie Reich_28Aug2018 ...... 117 Plate 27: Photograph showing location of 7922-0218 facing north east_Annie Reich_28Aug2018 ...... 117 Plate 28: Photograph showing location of 7922-0219 facing north_MelindaAlbrecht_28Aug2018 ...... 121 Plate 29: Photograph showing location of 7922-0986 facing south_AnnieReich_28Aug2018 ...... 124 Plate 30: Photograph showing location of 7922-1366 facing southwest_AnnieReich_28Aug2018 ...... 125 Plate 31: Subsurface artefacts from STP 25 representing part of 7922-****_AshleyBentleigh_26June2019 128

ABBREVIATIONS AV: Aboriginal Victoria NW: Northwest ALA: Andrew Long and Associates RAP: Registered Aboriginal Party AV: Average S: South BP: Before Present (Years) SE: Southeast CHMP: Cultural Heritage Management Plan SW: Southwest CHP: Cultural Heritage Permit SU: Survey unit E: East TA: Testing area HA: Heritage Advisor W: West LDAD Low-density artefact distribution WWCHAC: Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural N: North Heritage Aboriginal Corporation NE: Northeast

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 vi

This page in intentionally left blank

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 vii

PART 1 - CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS

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

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 1

1. SPECIFIC CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS

1.1 Specific cultural heritage management conditions

This section outlines the specific cultural heritage management conditions to be complied with as a condition of the approval of this cultural heritage management plan. Table 1 outlines place specific management requirements for the Aboriginal cultural heritage located within the activity area (Maps 1 and 2). A summary of the management conditions is presented in Table 1 and an overview of the conditions with respect to the proposed activity timeline is presented in Table 3. Management conditions are detailed below in accordance with Section 61(c) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Repatriation Induction Surface Salvage Name impact Salvage excavation **** La Trobe LDAD Partial Yes Yes Yes No University Eco Corridor LDAD 1 7922-0210 Darebin 5 Artefact If Sponsor Yes Yes Yes 100% salvage Scatter cannot avoid required if impacts to the Sponsor registered place cannot avoid extent, then impacts to the partial impact registered may be place extent required, and via design 100% salvage solutions will occur to the area impacted *7922- Darebin 6 Non site None No No No No 0218 7922-0219 Darebin 7 Artefact None No Yes No No Scatter 7922-0986 La Trobe Artefact None No Yes No No Wildlife Scatter Reserve 1 7922-1366 La Trobe LDAD None No Yes No No University LDAD Table 1: Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and management conditions * Please note that the former scarred tree VAHR 7922-0218 has been deemed a non-site and its status updated on the VAHR. Therefore, no management conditions are detailed below for this former site.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 2

Condition Condition Number 1a Induction of key personnel by HA 1b Preparation of induction manual by HA 1c Induction of relevant staff and subcontractors

1d Hard copy of approved CHMP and induction manual available on site 2a Storage 2b Repatriation 3 Compliance Inspection/s by RAP 4 Surface salvage 5 Salvage excavation of 7922-0210 if Sponsor is unable to avoid impacts to registered place extent via design solutions Table 2: Summary of management conditions

When Relevant Condition VAHR Before commencement 7922-****, 1(a) Induction of key personnel by HA of activity 7922-0210, 1(b) Preparation of induction manual by HA 7922-0219, 1(c) Induction of relevant staff and subcontractors 7922-0986 2(a) Storage and 7922- 4 Surface salvage 1366 5 Salvage excavation of 7922-0210 if Sponsor is unable to avoid impacts to registered place extent via design solutions During activity 7922-****, 1(c) Induction of relevant staff and subcontractors as required 7922-0210, 1(d) Hard copy of approved CHMP and induction manual available on site 7922-0219, 2(a) Storage 7922-0986 3 Compliance Inspection/s by RAP and 7922- 1366 After completion 7922-****, 2(a,b) Storage and repatriation 7922-0210 Table 3: Timeline for the implementation of management conditions Section 1.2 below presents information about the general conditions relating to the Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area. Sections 1.3 and 1.4 present information about the specific conditions for the two Aboriginal places VAHR 7922-**** and 7922-0210. There are no specific conditions for the previously registered Aboriginal places VAHR 7922-0219, 7922-0986 and 7922-1366 as these Aboriginal places are not located in areas that will be subject to impacts from the proposed activity.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 3

Map 1: Management Conditions for CHMP 15724 – overview

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 4

Map 2: Management Conditions for CHMP 15724 – Detail

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 5

1.2 General conditions

Condition 1 – Cultural Heritage Management Plan induction and manual (a) HA induct key personnel Prior to the commencement of ground disturbance works for the activity, a cultural heritage induction must be presented by The RAP with the HA in attendance, in line with the RAP Induction policy (Appendix 7) at a reasonable cost to the Sponsor or Sponsor’s delegate. The induction is for all persons involved in ground disturbance works. All key personnel identified by the Sponsor or Sponsor’s delegate must be inducted regarding the requirements and procedures defined in Sections 1, 2, 10 and 11 of this Cultural Heritage Management Plan. The Sponsor will be responsible for all costs relating to the cultural heritage induction. (b) HA prepare CHMP induction manual To facilitate the induction of all relevant personnel, as per Condition 1(c), the HA must prepare and provide a CHMP induction manual containing part 1 of the CHMP outlining the following: • the existence of the CHMP • the role of the CHMP • the role of a RAP • the type and nature of Aboriginal cultural heritage likely to be encountered • appropriate responses to Aboriginal cultural heritage encountered • the implications of no-go zones • the consequences of non-compliance with the CHMP (c) Sponsor or Sponsor’s delegate must ensure all relevant staff and subcontractors receive a CHMP induction Prior to and during the activity as required, key personnel will present the CHMP induction to all relevant staff and subcontractors. Relevant staff and subcontractors will receive a summary of their obligations under the requirements of the CHMP as part of their overall project induction. Induction of construction staff must ensure all relevant staff and subcontractors involved in ground disturbing works are aware of the information contained in the induction manual, as per Condition 1(b). (d) CHMP and induction manual kept on site During the activity a hard copy of the approved CHMP and the induction manual must be retained by the site manager, where they will be readily available to all relevant personnel.

Condition 2 – Storage and repatriation a) Storage Any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered or salvaged from the activity area remains the property of a Registered Aboriginal Party (if present). Prior to and during the activity, for any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered during the course of the CHMP or salvaged under Section 1 of the CHMP, it will be the responsibility of a HA to: i. Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage; ii. Label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance; iii. Submit all relevant forms and spatial data to the VAHR to facilitate registration; iv. Arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location nominated by the HA together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 6

Note – all Aboriginal cultural heritage material collected during the complex assessment of this CHMP are currently stored at: 54-58 Smith Street, Collingwood, VIC 3066. AV must be notified of any changes to the agreed storage arrangements. (b) Repatriation Following the activity, repatriation of Aboriginal cultural heritage collected during the CHMP assessment or salvage (if required) must occur. i. The Sponsor is responsible for notifying the HA with custody of the Aboriginal cultural heritage of the completion of the activity; this notification must occur as soon as practicable following the activity completion; ii. Repatriation must occur within 12 months of the notification of the completion of the activity; iii. The HA must consult with the relevant RAP (should they choose to participate) as to the preferred method of repatriation; all Aboriginal cultural heritage materials that may be discovered during works for the activity within the activity area and made available for later reburial in accordance with the provisions of the Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for Reburial of Cultural Heritage Material (Appendix 8). iv. In the event that no agreement can be reached, the HA will determine an appropriate repatriation location; v. Reburial will only take place with the agreement of the RAP; vi. Where repatriation involves reburial, Aboriginal cultural heritage should be placed in an appropriate container, the reburial location should preferably be close to the original find spot, and the relevant RAP must be invited to participate; vii. The location of any repatriated material is to be recorded using a dGPS and submitted to the Heritage Registrar via the appropriate VAHR forms.

Condition 3 – Compliance Inspections The Sponsor will facilitate a minimum of one and a maximum of two on-site compliance inspections over the life of the activity. All inspections are to be undertaken by a representative of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (WWCHAC), in accordance with the general provisions of the Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for CHMP Implementation RAP Inspections (Section 2.5 and Appendix 9). The compliance inspections must be undertaken during ground disturbing works and will focus on the proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathway following ground stripping works. The compliance inspections will include inspection of stockpiles, and soils must remain on-site. Notification must be provided to the WWCHAC at least one week in advance of the commencement date for earthworks. A HA may attend these compliance inspections in conjunction with the RAP at the request of the Sponsor. Any Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during the compliance inspections will be subject to the contingency plans as set out in Section 2. Following any collection, the cultural heritage is to be analysed and the corresponding site records updated. All costs associated with the compliance inspections must be borne by the Sponsor or the Sponsor’s delegate.

1.3 Specific conditions for VAHR 7922-****

Condition 4 – Surface Salvage Prior to the commencement of the activity, a surface salvage must occur. The surface components of VAHR 7922-0210 and VAHR****, as area shown on Maps 1 and 2, must be subject to surface artefact collection according to the procedure described in Section 1.5.1.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 7

1.4 Specific conditions for VAHR 7922-0210

Condition 4 – Surface Salvage Prior to the commencement of the activity, a surface salvage must occur. The surface components of VAHR ****, as area shown on Maps 1 and 2, must be subject to surface artefact collection according to the procedure described in Section 1.5.1.

Condition 5 –Salvage excavation Prior to the commencement of the activity, if the Sponsor is unable to avoid impacts to the registered place extent of 7922-0210 via design solutions such as raising the proposed pathway, 100% salvage excavation (hand salvage) of the registered place extent of 7922-0201 that will be subject to proposed impacts from the activity must occur. If required, the salvage programme must occur across the area of 7922-0210 as shown on Map 2, according to the procedure described in Section 1.5.2. All costs associated with the compliance inspections must be borne by the Sponsor or the Sponsor’s delegate.

1.5 Salvage methodologies

1.5.1 Surface salvage methodology • The surface artefact collection will take place in accordance with Regulation 63(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 and must be supervised by a person appropriately qualified in archaeology. • Representatives from the RAP must participate in the surface artefact collection. • The HA in conjunction with the RAP must undertake a surface inspection of the location of each place and collect all readily visible surface artefacts from within the Aboriginal cultural heritage place; o An attempt must be made to relocate and collect all surface artefacts designated for collection; o If the artefacts cannot be relocated at their registered location, an area within a 5 m radius should be inspected and any artefacts collected. • The dGPS co-ordinate location must be recorded for each artefact identified on the ground surface. • Consistent with the contingency arrangements in this CHMP, the HA must label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance. • Storage of Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered during the salvage program will be in accordance with Condition 2.

1.5.2 Salvage excavation methodology • Salvage excavations must include controlled excavation (as per Regulation 65(7) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) and Appendix 3 of the AV Guide to Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan) and be supervised by a person appropriately qualified in archaeology; • All excavated deposits must be sieved (maximum 5mm sieve), and the presence of any additional Aboriginal cultural heritage material recorded in detail; • Where Aboriginal cultural heritage material is considered in situ, suitable material is available (e.g., in situ charcoal or other organic material, sediments with clear stratification and associated archaeological deposits), and where dating will add significantly to an understanding of the cultural heritage, appropriate samples for age determinations must be collected and processed (e.g., radiocarbon, TL, OSL);

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 8

• Subsequent aims of the salvage excavations will be to establish: o The character, if extant, of the excavated artefact assemblage; and o As far as possible, the nature of occupation of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 9

2. CONTINGENCIES

2.1 Introduction

This section describes contingency plans for the unexpected discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage during the activity and for other matters that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as disputes, delays and other obstacles. This section also includes custody and management arrangements for Aboriginal cultural heritage that has been recovered or salvaged from the activity area and mechanisms for reviewing ongoing compliance with the management and contingency requirements of the cultural heritage management plan (CHMP).

2.2 Unexpected discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage

2.2.1 Unexpected discovery of Human Remains The following steps must be taken if any suspected human remains are found in the activity area. 1. Discovery: • If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must stop; • The remains must be left in place, and protected from harm or damage; • All activity within 10 m of the suspected human remains must cease immediately to ensure minimal damage is caused to the remains; and, • Protective fencing must be erected around the 10 m buffer and signage stating that the area is a “no‐ go zone” must be erected to ensure that any further damage is minimised. 2. Notification: • Once suspected human remains have been found, the State Coroner’s Office and the Victoria Police must be notified immediately; • If there are reasonable grounds to believe the remains are Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, the Coronial Admissions and Enquiries hotline must be immediately notified on 1300 888 544; 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 the discovered remains are Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, the person responsible for the activity must report the existence of them to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council in accordance with section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (the Act). 3. Impact mitigation or salvage: • The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council, after taking reasonable steps to consult with any Aboriginal person or body with an interest in the Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, will determine the appropriate course of action as required by section 18(2)(b) of the Act; • An appropriate impact mitigation or salvage strategy as determined by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council must be implemented by the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate. 4. Curation and further analysis:

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 10

• The treatment of salvaged Aboriginal Ancestral Remains must be in accordance with the direction of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council. 5. Reburial: • Any reburial site(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to Aboriginal Victoria (AV); • Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure the remains are not disturbed in the future.

2.2.2 Unexpected discovery of Aboriginal places or objects other than Human Remains If unexpected Aboriginal places or objects other than human remains are found during 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 of 10 m, isolate the find via the creation of a temporary exclusion zone using safety webbing or other suitable method, and the material is to remain in situ; • All relevant personnel must be made aware of the exclusion zone; • Works may continue outside of the 10 m exclusion zone. However, if further Aboriginal cultural heritage is identified, these works must also be suspended, and additional exclusion zones created as described above; • The person in charge of works must notify a Heritage Advisor (HA) of the find within two business days of the discovery; • Within two business days of notification, the HA is to attend and inspect the find; • Within two business days of the inspection, the HA will notify the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate and relevant RAP of the outcomes of the inspection and which of the three following scenarios apply: o The find is not Aboriginal cultural heritage and works may recommence within the exclusion zone; o The Aboriginal cultural heritage is part of an existing managed VAHR place, and the material will be managed under the relevant compliance conditions detailed in Section 1; or, o The Aboriginal cultural heritage is not part of an existing managed VAHR place and will be dealt with in accordance with Section 2.2.3 or 2.2.4; • The Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate will be responsible for all costs associated with the involvement of the RAP in fulfilling the requirements of these contingencies.

2.2.3 Unexpected discovery of an LDAD Following the inspection, if it is determined that the discovered Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises a low- density artefact distribution (LDAD), the following steps must be applied: Note: An LDAD is defined as the occurrence of stone artefacts at densities of up to 10 counted artefacts in any area of approximately 10 m x 10 m, or 100 m2, including within a single test pit of ≤1 m2.1

1http://www.vic.gov.au/system/user_files/Documents/av/Low-Density-Artefact-Distributions-Updated-Recording- Guidelines_20_June_2014.pdf

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 11

• The Sponsor, the HA and the RAP will discuss the possibility of avoiding or minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible: o All practicable efforts must be made by the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate to avoid impacts to the Aboriginal cultural heritage. Where this is not achievable, all practicable attempts must be made to minimise impacts to the Aboriginal cultural heritage. Where impact avoidance or minimisation is achievable, appropriate protection measures may need to be established; • If it is determined by the HA and the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate that impacts to the LDAD cannot be avoided, the following measures are required: o The HA, with the assistance of the RAP will collect the Aboriginal cultural heritage within two business days of the inspection period listed in Section 2.2.2; o To fulfil the legislative requirements for the registration of an LDAD, the material is to be recorded in situ where feasible and then collected and bagged with attention to provenance. The location of each collection point must be recorded with a dGPS; • Any artefacts recovered during investigations are to be secured by the HA as per Section 2.3 (see below). Work may recommence within the temporary exclusion zone: • When the appropriate protective measures (if any) have been taken; • Where the relevant data required to update, and/or complete Aboriginal cultural heritage records has been collected.

2.2.4 Unexpected discovery of a non-LDAD Following the inspection, if it is determined that the discovered Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises a site type that is not an LDAD, the following steps must be applied: Note: If suspected human remains are identified see Section 2.2.1. • The HA, with the assistance of the RAP will inspect the Aboriginal cultural heritage. This inspection may take place in conjunction with the HA’s inspection in Section 2.2.2, in which case no additional inspection is required; • The Sponsor, the HA and the RAP will discuss the possibility of avoiding or minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible: o All practicable efforts must be made by the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate to avoid impacts to the Aboriginal cultural heritage. Where this is not achievable, all practicable attempts must be made to minimise impacts to the Aboriginal cultural heritage. Where impact avoidance or minimisation is achievable, appropriate protection measures may need to be established; • In the instance that impacts to the Aboriginal cultural heritage cannot be avoided and the Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises a place type conducive to salvage, a salvage excavation and/or collection of the Aboriginal cultural heritage must be undertaken. Details regarding the methodology of any collection or salvage will be determined by the HA in consultation with the RAP and the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate. The HA must: o Facilitate the involvement of the RAP in the on-site investigation and assessment of the significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage; o Ensure that any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered during the salvage are secured as per Section 2.3 (see below); o Prepare a report detailing the findings of any collection, salvage and analysis of material recovered as a result of this activity, to be complete and lodged with the Heritage Registrar,

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 12

AV and the RAP as 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; • Unless an appropriate alternative methodology has been agreed upon between the HA, the RAP and the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate, in the event that salvage excavations are required: o The initial aim of any salvage is to establish the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage; o Salvage excavations must include controlled excavation (as per Regulation 65(7) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) and Appendix 3 of the AV Guide to Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan) and be supervised by a person appropriately qualified in archaeology; o All excavated deposits must be sieved, and the presence of any additional Aboriginal cultural heritage material recorded in detail; o Where Aboriginal cultural heritage material is considered in situ, suitable material is available (e.g., in situ charcoal or other organic material, sediments with clear stratification and associated archaeological deposits), and where dating will add significantly to an understanding of the cultural heritage, appropriate samples for age determinations must be collected and processed (e.g., radiocarbon, TL, OSL); o Subsequent aims of the salvage excavations will be to establish: ▪ The character, if extant, of the excavated artefact assemblage; and ▪ As far as possible, the nature of occupation of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage; • In the instance that impacts to the Aboriginal cultural heritage cannot be avoided and it is determined that the Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises a place type that cannot be subject to a salvage excavation or collection (e.g., scarred tree, quarry), an appropriate management response will be determined by the HA in consultation with the RAP and the Sponsor. Work may recommence within the temporary exclusion zone: • When the appropriate protective measures have been taken; and • Where the relevant data required to update, and/or complete Aboriginal cultural heritage records has been collected.

2.3 Custody and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered

Any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered or salvaged from the activity area remains the property of a Registered Aboriginal Party. • For any Aboriginal cultural heritage managed under Section 2 of this CHMP, it will be the responsibility of a HA to: o Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage; o Label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance; o Arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location nominated by the HA together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. o Update the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register using appropriate Heritage Record and Object Collection Forms and associated documentation in accordance with the relevant

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 13

standards (e.g. Aboriginal Victoria’s Guide for Preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan 2018). • Within 6 months of the identification of the heritage or completion of the activity, the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate and a HA must facilitate the appropriate repatriation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage: o The HA must consult with the RAP as to the preferred method of repatriation; o In the event that no agreement can be reached, the HA will determine an appropriate repatriation location; o Where repatriation involves reburial, Aboriginal cultural heritage should be placed in an appropriate container, the reburial location should preferably be close to the original find spot, and the RAP must be invited to participate (refer to Appendix 9); o The location of any repatriated material is to be recorded and submitted to the Heritage Registrar via the appropriate VAHR forms. • The custody of Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered or salvaged from the activity area should comply with the requirements established by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, and be assigned according to the following order of priority, as appropriate: o Any relevant RAP for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; o Any relevant registered native title holder for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; o Any relevant native title party (as defined in the Act) for the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; o Any relevant Traditional Owner or Owners of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; o Any relevant Aboriginal body or organisation which has historical or contemporary interests in Aboriginal heritage relating to the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; o The owner of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is salvaged; and o Museum Victoria.

2.4 Reviewing compliance with the management plan

According to Part 11, Divisions 1 Section 159 and Part 11 Division 1A, Section 165A of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Authorised Officers and Aboriginal Heritage Officers have been appointed under the Act to carry out the Authorised Officer’s or Aboriginal Heritage Officer’s functions relating to compliance. The functions of Authorised Officers include (Part 11 Division 1, Section 159): (a) Monitoring compliance with this Act; (b) Investigating suspected offences against this Act; (c) Directing the conduct of cultural heritage audits under Part 6; (d) Issuing and delivering stop orders under Part 6; (e) When required by the Secretary, reporting to the Secretary on the carrying out by the authorised officer of his or her functions under this Act. The functions of Aboriginal Heritage Officers (Part 11 Division 1A, Section 165A) include: (a) Monitoring compliance of cultural heritage management plans, cultural heritage permits and Aboriginal cultural heritage land management agreements; and

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 14

(b) Issuing and delivering 24-hour stop orders under Part 6.

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 of the steps discussed above are followed. To ensure this the following procedure must be applied: • All relevant parties must be familiar with the CHMP; • All relevant personnel involved in the activity/activity area must be familiar with the procedures defined in the CHMP; • A ‘Compliance Review Checklist’ (Section 2.5) should be completed by the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate prior to the commencement of the activity, and at regular intervals during the course of the activity (e.g., weekly or fortnightly); • Communication between the parties must remain open and any changes to contact details be communicated to the other party immediately (see Section 2.8); • Any query should be handled immediately in order to prevent non-compliance with the CHMP. • In the event of non-compliance with the CHMP the authorised project delegates (see Section 2.8) will identify the cause of this non-compliance and undertake to remedy this within the terms of the present CHMP, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018.

2.5 Compliance review checklist

The regular completion of a compliance review checklist, such as the indicative template presented in Table 4 is recommended. The Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate should complete the checklist prior to the commencement of the activity, and at regular intervals during the course of the activity (e.g., weekly or fortnightly), to assist with documenting compliance with this CHMP.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 15

Table 4: Recommended compliance review checklist

Date: Name of recorder: Position of recorder:

If required (see section 1 of the CHMP), have key personnel been inducted as to: YES NO COMMENT existence of the CHMP? role of the CHMP? appropriate responses to cultural heritage? implications of 'exclusion zones' (where relevant)? results of non-compliance with the CHMP?

Has any unexpected cultural heritage been discovered since the previous checklist submission?

If yes: YES NO COMMENT was the person in charge of the activity notified of the discovery?

were all relevant works at the location of the discovery immediately ceased? was a 'temporary exclusion zone' established within a 10 m radius of the

discovery?

if yes, how was this exclusion zone established?

were all personnel made aware of the exclusion zone?

was a heritage advisor notified of the find within two working days of

discovery?

did a heritage advisor attend the site within two working days of notification? were the RAP Applicant(s)/Traditional Owner group(s) notified of the results of

the inspection within two working days? were the RAP Applicant(s)/Traditional Owner group(s) invited to inspect the

discovery?

what process was determined to be appropriate by the HA and RAP Applicant(s)/Traditional Owner group(s)?

was this process followed?

Additional comments:

Signatures:

Person in Charge:

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 16

2.6 Dispute resolution

It is the responsibility of the parties involved in the preparation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to reach agreement on a dispute resolution procedure to be implemented after a CHMP is approved and include this procedure as part of the contingency plans in the conditions of the CHMP (s 61(d) of the Act). Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), formal dispute resolution processes are available (Alternative Dispute Resolution, or ADR, and Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal, or VCAT), however, given the costs involved in these processes it is in the best interests of all parties to treat these as last resort options and negotiate a resolution between parties. Informal Dispute Resolution Principles: • All disputes will be jointly investigated by the RAP and the Sponsor. • Where a breach of the management plan conditions has been found to have occurred, the RAP and the Sponsor will agree the best method of correction or remediation. • Any correction or remedial activities required (e.g. repairing damage to sites) will be overseen by a RAP representative and will take place in accordance with their instructions. • The sponsor and its contractors will not undertake any such operations without receiving the consent of the RAP. • The RAP will use their best endeavours to minimise delays to work schedules while not compromising cultural places or values. • Only issues directly related to cultural heritage management will be handled through the following dispute resolution mechanism. Process: Authorised Project Delegates (APDs) of each party (RAP and Sponsor) will attempt to negotiate a resolution to any dispute related to cultural heritage management of the activity area. They will attempt such resolution within 48 hours of a notice being received that a dispute between the parties is deemed to exist. If the APDs cannot reach agreement, alternative APDs of both parties will meet to negotiate a resolution to an agreed schedule. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) ADR includes preliminary assistance in dispute resolution, such as the giving of advice designed to ensure that: a) the parties are fully aware of their rights and obligations; and b) there is full and open communication between the parties concerning the dispute (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.112(1)). It is possible that one or more RAPs may be established during the course of the activity. If a dispute between two or more RAP(s) arises in relation to the evaluation of a Management Plan for which approval is sought (under Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.62): • the Sponsor or a RAP (or both) may refer the dispute to the Chairperson of the Aboriginal Heritage Council for ADR (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.113(1)). Within 30 days after the referral, the Chairperson must arrange for the dispute to be the subject of: o mediation by a mediator; or o another appropriate form of ADR by a suitably qualified person (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.113(2)).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 17

• Mediation or other ADR must take place within 30 days after the date on which the dispute is referred to the Chairperson of the Council (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s. 113(3)). • The costs of ADR are to be paid by the parties in the proportions that the parties agree among themselves, or if the parties cannot agree, in equal shares (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.114). Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) A Sponsor may apply to VCAT to review a decision of (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.116) a RAP not to approve a Management Plan, if: • each relevant RAP has decided to refuse to approve the Management Plan under Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.63; or • if: • a relevant RAP has decided to refuse to approve the Management Plan under Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.63; and o the dispute arising from that decision has been referred to the Chairperson of the Council for ADR; and o the Chairperson has certified in writing that ADR has failed, or is unlikely to resolve the dispute, or o the Secretary not to approve a Management Plan under section 65. An application for review to VCAT must be made within 28 days after the later of (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s. 116(3)): • the day on which the applicant is notified of the decision not to approve the Management Plan, or • if the applicant has requested a statement of reasons for the decision from the RAP or the Secretary (as applicable), the day on which the statement of reasons is given to the applicant or the applicant is informed that a statement of reasons will not be given, under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The parties to a proceeding in VCAT are the Sponsor and the relevant RAP or the Secretary (as applicable) (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.117). VCAT has the power to (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.118): • approve the Management Plan; or • approve the Management Plan with amendments; or • refuse to approve the Management Plan. However, before deciding to approve a Management Plan, VCAT must be satisfied that the Management Plan makes sufficient provision for the activity to which it relates to be managed so as: • to avoid harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage in the area to which the Management Plan applies; and • to the extent that harm cannot be reasonably avoided, to minimise harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.120). These arrangements do not preclude any legal recourse open to the parties being taken but the parties agree the above avenues will be exhausted before such recourse is made.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 18

2.7 Delays and other obstacles

If delays or other obstacles that may affect the conduct of the activity occur (e.g., a change of the development footprint), a process will be developed between the Sponsor/Sponsor’s delegate and the HA to resolve these issues. Advice will be sought from AV and the RAP or other agreed Aboriginal stakeholders, as applicable.

2.8 Authorised Project Delegates and the handling of sensitive information

For the purpose of communication, the following persons will act as project delegates: RAP Authorised Project Delegate: Alex Parmington, Manager – Cultural Heritage Unit, WWCHAC: [email protected] Sponsor Authorised Project Delegate: TBA Heritage Advisor Authorised Project Delegate: TBA Any change in personnel appointed as Authorised Project Delegates in one party must be promptly notified to all other parties. The parties must agree upon what constitutes sensitive information and how it should be managed and must 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), if they exist, may take part in the contingencies outlined in this CHMP if they wish to do so.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 19

PART 2 - ASSESSMENT

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 20

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Reason for conducting the cultural heritage management plan

This Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been prepared by the Sponsor as a mandatory CHMP under s. 46 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) (the Act). When is a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) required? A mandatory CHMP is required for an activity if (Regulation 7) – (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? Regulation 25 Registered cultural heritage places (1) A registered cultural heritage place is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (2) Subject to sub regulation (3), land within 50 metres of a registered cultural heritage place is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (3) If part of the land within 50 metres of a registered cultural heritage place has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. Regulation 26 Waterways (1) Subject to sub regulation (2), a waterway or land within 200 metres of a waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (2) If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200 metres of a waterway has been subject to significance ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. waterway means— (a) a river, creek, stream or watercourse the name of which is registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Vic); or (b) a natural channel the name of which is registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Vic) in which water regularly flows, whether or not the flow is continuous; or (c) a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh, being— (i) a natural collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) into or through or out of which a current that forms the whole or part of the flow of a river, creek, stream or watercourse passes, whether or not the flow is continuous; or (ii) a collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) that the Governor in Council declares under section 4(1) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) to be a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh;

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 21

The proposed activity area encompasses land within 50 m of previously registered cultural heritage places and within 200 m of Darebin Creek. Therefore, the activity area is located within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, as defined in Regulations 25 and 26 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic). Is this activity a high impact activity? Regulation 46 Buildings and works for specified uses (1) The construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works on land is a high impact activity if the construction of the building or the construction or carrying out of the works— (a) would result in significant ground disturbance; and (b) is for or associated with the use of the land for any one or more of the following purposes— (viii) an education centre Regulation 47 Constructing specified items of infrastructure (1) The construction of any one or more of the following is a high impact activity if the construction would result in significant ground disturbance— (b) a bicycle track with a length exceeding 100 metres (f) a walking track with a length exceeding 100 metres The development of the La Trobe University eco corridor is defined as a high impact activity under Regulations 46 and 47 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) as it includes the construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works on land that is for or associated with the use of the land as an education centre (Regulation 46 (1) (viii)) and also includes the construction of a bicycle track and a walking track with a length exceeding 100 metres (Regulation 47 (1) (b) (f)).

3.2 The name of the Sponsor

The Sponsor of this CHMP is La Trobe University (ABN 64 804 735 113).

3.3 The name of the Heritage Advisor

This CHMP has been authored by qualified archaeologists and heritage consultants from Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd (ALA), who have been 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 6. The heritage advisor and author of this CHMP is: • Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates

3.4 The location of the activity area

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 22

3.5 The owners and occupiers of the land

The Sponsor, La Trobe University, is the occupier of the land and responsible for coordination of all works associated with the activity area. The owners and occupiers of the land within the activity area are listed in Table 5. Lot Number /SPI Owner/Occupier Lot 1, PS444016 La Trobe University Lot 1, PS443004 La Trobe University Lot B, PS328980 La Trobe University/DELWP (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning) Table 5: Owners and occupiers of the activity area

3.6 Notice of intention to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

In accordance with the requirements of s. 54 of the Act, a formal Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP (NOI) was submitted to the following entities: • the Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (09 May 2018) (Appendix 2); and • the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed for the activity area (09 May 2018) (Appendix 2). The RAP (the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation) responded to the NOI on 17 May 2018, indicating that they intended to evaluate the CHMP.

3.7 Registered Aboriginal Parties

At the time that the Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP was submitted, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council for land including the activity area was Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (WWCHAC). The WWCHAC remained the sole RAP appointed for the activity area at the time this CHMP was submitted for evaluation and have responsibility for Indigenous cultural heritage matters relating to the activity area.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 23

Map 3: Location of the activity area

Map 4: Map of the Activity Area showing all registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within 200m

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 25

Map 5: Photomap of the Activity Area

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 26

4. ACTIVITY AREA

4.1 Description of the activity

The activity area is situated within the Melbourne campus of La Trobe University. The Melbourne campus is situated in the north-eastern suburb of Bundoora, at the intersection of Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive, approximately 14 km from the Melbourne CBD. The Sports Fields Lake and Strathallan Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek, directly intersect the activity area. Darebin Creek forms the western boundary of the current study area. The activity area is situated within the City of Darebin municipality and represents an approximate total land area of 73.61 ha (Map 3 and Map 4). The activity area is zoned ‘Public Use Zone - Education (PUZ2)’ under the Darebin Council Planning Scheme. All works undertaken within the activity area must be permitted under the Public Use Zone - Education Darebin Planning Scheme, in accordance with Clause 6.1(a) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic). As the activity area encompasses an area of more than 40 hectares, it is considered a large activity as established by Regulation 81 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic). La Trobe University is currently working on plans for the development of the University’s Melbourne campus, located in Bundoora. A La Trobe University Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP 13756) was undertaken in 2016 (please see Section 7.9 for further details). The recommendations contained in CHMP 13756 were intended to inform, align expectations and establish a set of guidelines to inform the nature of future heritage assessment works at the La Trobe University Campus, Bundoora. Note that all future development activities within the La Trobe Campus will be separately subject to the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). Following a feasibility report regarding the development of the La Trobe University eco corridor, several highest priority projects were put forward to be included within the current CHMP. These projects include: • Increase flood storage at Gresswell Lakes • Cycling and Primary pedestrian network • Revegetating the eco-corridor

A separate cultural values assessment process is also being run con-currently with the CHMP in consultation with the Sponsor and the RAP. This process includes the following projects: • Eco-corridor cultural heritage values assessment • Interpretive signage • Digital Map

The likely impact on land surfaces across the majority of the activity area will be relatively minimal, most likely consisting in the removal of topsoil and some excavation into the underlying subsoil for the proposed cycling and pedestrian pathways to a maximum depth of 200mm. The proposed pathways will be a mixture of gravel and concrete pathways. There may be some deeper localised excavations to increase flood storage at Gresswell Lakes with a localised trench proposed to drain the existing ephemeral wetland area. There will also be a levy bank constructed along the roadside of Main Drive for the lake to expand into, however the levy will be built up on the existing ground surface. Sections of the activity area will be subject to revegetation works, with minimal to no disturbance to the ground surface (the maximum depth of excavation required will be

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 27

200mm). The revegetation works will include local planting and weeding (please see Table 2). All works undertaken during the proposed activity are permitted under the Darebin Planning Scheme and are in accordance with Clause 6.1(a) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 28

5. EXTENT OF THE ACTIVITY AREA

5.1 Introduction

The extent of the activity area is described in this section. This CHMP relates only to the area described within this section.

5.2 Extent of the activity area

The activity area has been utilised as part of the La Trobe University campus grounds since the 1960s and has undergone extensive development including buildings, sports and leisure facilities, carparks and road development. The activity area is bordered by Crissane Road to the south, Plenty Road and Darebin Creek to the west, and the wildlife sanctuary and Gresswell Lake to the north and east. Strathallan Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek, directly intersects the study area. The Sports Fields Lake is situated in the southern section of the activity area. The activity area focuses on land on either side of the watercourses that traverse the La Trobe University campus and also includes the wildlife sanctuary and Gresswell Lake. Map 3 to Map 3 define the activity area and provide information about the general location of the activity area. There are several terms that are often utilised within the CHMP. The definition of these terms is as follows: Activity Area: as defined by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Regulations 2018, means the area or areas to be used or developed for an activity. Investigation Area: The activity area is assessed during the standard assessment and divided into Investigation Areas generally based on the landform of particular sections of the activity area.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 29

6. DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION

6.1 Notice of intention to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

As stated in Section 3.6, Notification of intent (NOI) to prepare a CHMP, as required by Section 54 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, was submitted to the following entities: • the Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (09 May 2018) (Appendix 2) • the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed for the activity area (09 May 2018) (Appendix 2) The RAP, (Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (WWCHAC)) responded to the NOI on 17 May 2018 indicating that they intended to evaluate the CHMP.

6.2 Registered Aboriginal Party for the activity area

As stated in Section 3.7, at the time this CHMP was being prepared the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) had appointed one Registered Aboriginal Party for lands including the activity area: • Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (WWCHAC) The Registered Aboriginal Party was present and consulted throughout the preparation of this Cultural Heritage Management Plan. On 19 June 2018, prior to the commencement of the field programme, an inception meeting was held between Melinda Albrecht (ALA – Senior Project Manager); Tony Inglis (Sponsor’s representatives); Bobby Mullins, Allan Wandin and Ron Jones (WWCHAC Elders) and Delta Lucille Freedman (WWCHAC Heritage Project Manager), to discuss the results of the desktop assessment (and the methodology for the standard assessment. On 27 November 2019, another meeting was held between Melinda Albrecht (ALA – Senior Project Manager); Tony Inglis (Sponsor’s representative); Bobby Mullins, Allan Wandin and Ron Jones (WWCHAC Elders) and Luke Falvey (WWCHAC Heritage Project Manager) to discuss the results of the standard assessment and a methodology for the complex assessment. Following the completion of the complex assessment for the CHMP, an additional meeting was held between Melinda Albrecht (ALA – Senior Project Manager); Tony Inglis (Sponsor’s representative); Bobby Mullins, Allan Wandin and Ron Jones (WWCHAC Elders) and Catherine La Puma (WWCHAC Heritage Project Manager) to discuss the results of the CHMP assessments and also management conditions. The outcomes of this consultation are presented in Table 7. WWCHAC supplied representatives for both the standard and complex assessments. These representatives were present and were consulted with during 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 consultation in relation to the testing methodology and the testing results, the cultural significance of the identified Aboriginal cultural heritage as well as issues relating to any oral history information known about the study region. The representatives informally consulted for this CHMP are listed below. The outcomes of this consultation are reflected in the description of the testing methodology, the discussion of the results and the recommendations presented within this management plan. No additional consultation was undertaken.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 30

6.3 Participants in the assessment

Participants in the CHMP assessment are shown in Table 6.

Participant Organisation Position Component Date(s) Melinda ALA Project Manager Standard assessment 28-08-18 Albrecht

Annie Reich ALA Field Standard assessment 28-08-18 Archaeologist Gary Galway WWCHAC WWCHAC Standard assessment 28-08-18 representative Travis Smith WWCHAC WWCHAC Standard assessment 28-08-18 representative Jay Yost ALA Lead Complex assessment 04-03-19, 05-03-19, Archaeologist 06-03-19, 07-03-19, 08-03-19, 27-05-19, 28-05-19, 29-05-19 Alex Ariotti ALA Field Complex assessment 04-03-19, 05-03-19, Archaeologist 06-03-19, 07-03-19, 08-03-19 Ashleigh La Trobe Archaeological Complex assessment 05-03-19, 06-03-19, Bentley University Assistant 08-03-19, 28-05-19 student, ALA student intern Briannon La Trobe Archaeological Complex assessment 07-03-19, 08-03-19 Dudek University Assistant student, ALA student intern Annie Reich ALA Field Complex assessment 05-03-19 Archaeologist Caroline ALA Field Complex assessment 05-03-19, 06-03-19, Bandurski Archaeologist 27-05-19, 28-05-19, 29-05-19 Willy Xiberras WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 04-03-19, 27-05-19, representative 28-05-19, 29-05-19 Brendan WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 04-03-19, 05-03-19 Wandin representative Tony Finn WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 06-03-19 representative Tony Garvey WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 07-03-19, 08-03-19 representative Sean Wandin WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 07-03-19 representative Ann-Maree WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 08-03-19 Chandler representative Bede Canavan WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 08-03-19 representative Justin Entwistle WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 27-05-19 representative Travis Smith WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 28-05-19 representative

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 31

Participant Organisation Position Component Date(s) John Xiberras WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 29-05-19 representative Table 6: Participants in the assessment

6.4 Summary of consultation

The RAP, WWCHAC provided representatives who participated in the planning, execution and recording of the standard and complex assessment for this CHMP. The representatives listed in Table 6 also took part in discussions relating to the testing methodology, the results and the recommendations of the project. No oral information relating to the activity area was provided to the HA.

Date Mode of Sender Recipient Communication communication 09-05-2018 Email ALA WWCHAC Submission of NOI to RAP 17-05-2018 Email WWCHAC ALA Confirmation from RAP that Wurundjeri will evaluate CHMP 15724 and will participate in all relevant aspects of the CHMP

19-06-2018 Meeting Inception Meeting with RAP, HA and Sponsor to discuss the project and standard assessment; Discussion about the proposed activity which involves the Gresswell lake flood storage area, revegetation of the eco corridor and a pedestrian and bike path. This project also seeks WWCHAC involvement in future eco corridor development including interpretive signage and environmental works. Place inspections will take place during the standard assessment for the five Aboriginal places within the activity area. Discussion about nature of flood impact works – activity will involve the construction of a levy bank to be built up on the current ground surface. The bike and pedestrian path will include areas of existing path along part of the proposed alignment which will be upgraded with new paths to Kingsbury Drive and beyond. Excavations for the bike path will be localised and maximum depth of excavation will be 200mm. The path will be a mixture of gravel path and concrete path. The standard assessment will involve a field survey, place inspections and an inspection of the activity area assessing the current conditions of land that will be impacted by the proposed activities. A meeting will be held with the RAP after the standard assessment.

28-08-18 Standard Request for oral history information. Prior to the Assessment commencement of the standard assessment, the RAP representatives listed in Table 6 and Table 11 were consulted about any oral history information relating to the activity area. However, no oral history information was provided by the WWCHAC representatives (please see Section 8.6 for further information).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 32

Date Mode of Sender Recipient Communication communication 27-11-18 Meeting Meeting with RAP, Sponsor and ALA to discuss the results of the standard assessment and complex assessment methodology for the CHMP. Standard assessment comprised assessment of 5 previously registered Aboriginal places and field survey of activity area, focusing on areas to be impacted by the proposed activity. Ground surface visibility across most of activity area was poor with exception of track exposures and erosions. Surface artefacts were identified at two areas adjacent to the previously registered Aboriginal place, 7922- 0210, on an informal track. Remainder of previously registered places within the activity area were not re-identified. The previously recorded scarred tree, 7922-0218 is believed to have been destroyed or has fallen down naturally and been removed. A previous report undertaken in 1997 indicated that this tree was probably not culturally scarred and should be removed from AV registry. The current CHMP 15724 will seek to amend the registration to a non-site, supported by the RAP. The main areas of sensitivity identified within the activity area comprised: Gresswell Lake (IA 4c) and sanctuary (IA 4a), Darebin Creek (IA 1 and IA 5a), and modified creek line and campus (IA 5b). Due to the modifications that have occurred within IA 5b there will be no complex assessment testing undertaken within this area. As there are no proposed works within the sanctuary (IA 4a), this area will also not be subject to complex assessment testing. The complex assessment will target the Gresswell lake expansion works (IA 4c) and the bike path upgrade (IA 1 and IA 5a), with a 1x1m test pit to be excavated adjacent to the two areas where surface artefacts were located during the standard assessment (IA 1), with transects of three STPs at approx. 50m intervals and STPS spaced 15m apart. There will also be 10 STPs and a 1x1 excavated within IA 4c. The excavations will be undertaken to the depth of impact on the proposed path within IA 1 and IA 5a (max. depth of 200mm) and to a culturally sterile layer within IA 4c. 04-03-19 to Complex Request for oral history information. Prior to the 08-03-19 assessment commencement of the standard assessment, the RAP representatives listed in Table 6 were consulted about any oral history information relating to the activity area. However, no oral history information was provided by the WWCHAC representatives (please see Section 9.6 for further information). 26-03-19 Email ALA WWCHAC ALA contacted WWCHAC to present a proposed additional testing methodology following on from the results of the initial complex assessment

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 33

Date Mode of Sender Recipient Communication communication 01-04-19 Email WWCHAC ALA WWCHAC responded to ALA regarding the proposed testing methodology, indicating that additional testing would be required. In light of this response, the additional testing methodology at artefact locations was revised to include the expansion of artefact bearing STPs to 1x1m test pits, and radial STPS (double negative radials) excavated within areas that will be subject to impact from the proposed activity. 27-05-19 to Additional Additional complex assessment takes place at 29-05-19 complex artefact bearing locations that will be subject to assessment impacts from the proposed activity. 23-07-19 Meeting Meeting with RAP, Sponsor and HA to discuss the final results for the CHMP and the management conditions. HA presented summary of results, with CHMP testing focusing on IA 1 where a new bicycle and pedestrian path is proposed, and sample testing at IA 5a where the proposed path deviates from the existing pathway. There was also some subsurface testing within IA 4c where flood mitigation works were proposed. After the initial complex assessment testing took place and Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified, the artefact bearing test pits were expanded to 1x1m test pits and double negatives were excavated with these excavations ceasing at the depth of impact. This additional testing took place along the proposed pathway within IA 1 where impacts from the proposed pathway will occur to a maximum depth of 200mm beneath the current ground surface. Although Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified in IA 4c, the area containing this Aboriginal cultural heritage will not be subject to proposed impacts from the flood mitigation works, therefore no additional testing was required. At the end of the CHMP assessments the Aboriginal cultural heritage identified will be registered as part of the previously registered artefact scatter, 7922-0210 and a new LDAD. Sponsor stated that it may be possible to raise the proposed pathway over the place extent of the artefact scatter to avoid further harm. The conditions for the CHMP include a hard copy of the CHMP to be kept on-site at all times, an induction for all involved in ground disturbance works with the HA to attend and to provide an induction booklet. Salvage for the artefact scatter within IA 1 will include 100% hand salvage unless the Sponsor can avoid impacts with design solutions such as raising the pathway over the artefact scatter to avoid further harm. There will be a minimum of 1 and maximum of 2 compliance inspections for the CHMP and these will be focused on the pathway following ground stripping works. The inspections will include

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 34

Date Mode of Sender Recipient Communication communication inspection of soil stockpiles, and soils are to remain on-site. The repatriation requirements include reburial of the Aboriginal cultural heritage materials within IA 1, and surface salvage of artefacts identified within IA 1 will occur both for the LDAD and the artefact scatter. The HA will supply the RAP with proposed site extents and management conditions for final endorsement.

Table 7: Summary of consultation ALA Andrew Long + Associates (the HA) WWCHAC Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 35

7. DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

7.1 Method of assessment

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the desktop assessment. The aims of the desktop assessment are threefold: • to determine the level of previous archaeological investigation within the activity area and the geographic region; • to determine a geographic region that is relevant to the Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be present in the activity area; • to determine if previously registered Aboriginal places are present within the activity area; • to review historical and ethno-historical accounts of Aboriginal occupation of the geographic region; • to determine the environmental context of the activity area in regard to landform and geomorphology; • to develop a site predictions model for the activity area. 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 the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) and other research sources (for example, consultancy reports, academic research etc.) for information relating to the activity area and the geographic region (a VAHR search was undertaken on 14 May 2018); and • reviewing and analysing this information to identify or characterise the Aboriginal cultural heritage site types and locations likely to be present within the activity area.

7.2 Obstacles

There were no obstacles to undertaking the desktop assessment.

7.3 Persons involved in the desktop assessment

The desktop assessment was completed prior to the commencement of the standard assessment, and subsequently updated during the drafting of this CHMP. The following individuals were involved in completing the desktop assessment: • Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long + Associates

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 36

7.4 RAP information

Please note that no oral information was requested during the desktop assessment. Andrew Long and Associates were commissioned by La Trobe University to undertake a cultural values assessment of the Melbourne campus in 2015. The main objective of the cultural values assessment was to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus, by working with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (WWCHAC) to research and document the Indigenous cultural values of the Melbourne campus and surrounding areas. Please see Section 7.9.2 for a summary of the key findings and recommendations of the cultural values assessment (Spry et. al 2016a).

7.5 Geographic region

It is important to understand the geographic and environmental context of the activity area in order to gain a better understanding of the possible resources available to Aboriginal people prior to European contact. In addition, this information assists in determining whether natural environmental processes (e.g. weathering of land surfaces) will have impacted on Aboriginal cultural heritage places. The activity area encompasses the eco corridor of the La Trobe University Bundoora, focusing on land on either side of the watercourses that traverse the La Trobe University campus and also including the wildlife sanctuary. The activity area is bordered by Crissane Road to the south, Plenty Road and Darebin Creek to the west, and the wildlife sanctuary and Gresswell Lake to the north and east (Map 2). For consistency with the La Trobe University Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP 13756), the current CHMP has the same geographic region. The geographic region containing the activity area has been defined as the area within a 1km radius of the La Trobe Melbourne Campus to take in the following geological units: • Melbourne Formation (Sxm) • Greensborough Basalt (Nug) • Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr) • Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo) • Anderson Creek Formation (Sxa) • Alluvium (Qa1) • Sub-basaltic sediments (Nxp) The geographic region containing the activity area focuses on landforms and geological units that are present within the activity area. The current geographic region is deemed to be a sufficient sample size to provide a good understanding of the nature of Aboriginal cultural heritage places across landforms present within the activity area, and also to inform any predictive modelling relating to site patterning within the activity area.

7.6 A review of the landforms or geomorphology of the activity area

7.6.1 Landforms/geomorphology The activity area contains one distinct landform, consisting of the undulating volcanic plains containing drainage lines and creeks associated with Darebin Creek. This area lies between Darebin Creek located directly to the south and west of the activity area, and Salt Creek, which is located to the east. The activity area includes a generally modified landscape containing the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University, with recreational sports fields adjacent to Darebin Creek, the remaining water courses that traverse

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 37

the campus and comprise the eco corridor as well as the wildlife sanctuary. The activity area contains some remnant mature native vegetation such as River Red Gums. The geology of the activity area comprises: • Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo) • Alluvium (Qa1) • Sub-basaltic sediments (NxP) • Melbourne Formation (Sxm) • Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr) Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows consist of Miocene to Holocene deposits of olivine tholeiite, quartz tholeiite, basanite, basaltic icelandite, hawaiite, mugearite, minor scoria and ash, fluvial sediments including sheet and valley flows and intercalated gravel, sand and clay. 2 Sub-basaltic sediments occur under the Miocene basalts, and these consist of conglomerate and sandstone. Alluvium of gravel, sandy and silt is also present within the activity area, as are Silurian deposits of Melbourne Formation (Sxm) comprising siltstone and sandstone and Miocene to Pliocene Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr) consisting of sandstone and conglomerate3. The activity area is located within the Eastern Uplands and the Western Plains geomorphological units as defined within Victoria’s Geomorphological Framework.4 More precisely, the activity area is located within subunit 1.4.5 (Moderately dissected ridge and valley landscapes, Alexandra, Yea, Baranduda) of the Eastern Uplands unit and subunit 6.1.2 of the Western Plains Unit. Subunit 1.4.5 is defined as: 1 Eastern Uplands 1.4 Dissected landscapes at a range of elevations 1.4.5 Moderately dissected ridge and valley landscapes (Alexandra, Yea, Baranduda) Dissected landscapes at a range of elevations This unit includes the range of landforms that extend from the remnant plateau surfaces of Tier 1.1 and 1.2 to the emergence of the drainage systems onto the Northern Riverine Plains in the north or the Gippsland Riverine Plains to the south. There is a greater diversity of landforms in this Tier than 1.1 and 1.2. Most of this Tier is dominated by high ridges and deep valleys (1.4.4) formed by dissection by the major stream systems and includes the prominent summits at high elevation (1.4.1) and at intermediate elevation (1.4.2) and escarpments (1.4.3). These steep landscapes extend down from the Tier 1.1 and 1.2 landscapes and gradually become the Tier 1.4.5 and 1.4.6 landscapes of low ridges and isolated hills, with shallow valleys, and some low-level plateaus. These landscapes are more widespread in the northern and southern parts of the Region than in the central area. The escarpments and gorges (1.4.3) are less extensive but are still significant geomorphic units within the Eastern Uplands. Moderately dissected ridge and valley landscapes These landscapes are the result of the more mature end of the processes that have formed and are still active in the steep, deeply dissected landscapes of 1.4.4. The streams have commonly attained a relatively stable grade, the valleys are wider and stream terraces have formed, the divides are lower and valley-side slopes generally less steep. Alluvial/colluvial fans have accumulated at the base of some slopes. The ridgetops have become more convex (rounded) and their elevations are lower. Small alluvial flats have formed where local

2 http://er-info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/registered.htm - accessed 29-05-2018 3 http://er-info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/registered.htm - accessed 12-06-2018 4 http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework– accessed 29-07- 2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 38

barriers to stream down-cutting slow stream velocities. Maximum elevations are 700 m, with up to 200 m of local relief. The Baranduda Range, between Yackandah Creek and Middle Creek is an example of this unit that extends to the west and then south towards Beechworth. This Tier is much more prominent on the northern side of the Great Divide than to the south, where it can be recognised in quite limited sections of some valleys as they approach the Eastern Plains, e.g. the Avon River and its tributaries5. The activity area is also located within subunit 6.1.2 of the Western Plains Unit as defined within Victoria’s Geomorphological Framework (Map 8): 6 Western Plains 6.1 Volcanic Plains 6.1.2 Stony Rises (Mt. Eccles, Pomborneit, Mt. Rouse) Volcanic Plains The most obvious features, such as scoria cones, lava shields, composite cones (of both scoria and lava), and maars, indicate the most recent eruptive activity. The young volcanoes, with their craters, flows and ash deposits, are from less than one million years in age and were active almost up to the present day. Associated soil types include shallow to moderately deep friable (black, red or brown) gradational soils (Dermosols, Ferrosols) are often stony. The Victorian Western Plains are made up of low-lying undulating plains formed on both volcanic and sedimentary lithologies. The landscapes of this geomorphological unit are formed on some of the youngest rocks of Victoria. Soils on the Western Plains reflect the underlying lithology and age of the rocks. The youngest landscapes — the stony rises — have skeletal uniform or gradational soils, whereas the earlier lava flows have deeper soils varying from friable gradational to strongly texture contrast soils. The friable, finely structured brown gradational soils developed on volcanic ash (tuff) around the Red Rock volcano represent some of the most valuable cropping country. The soils developed on the Pliocene sand plains are often sandy, sometimes ferruginised or podsolic (sands with coffee rock or sand over clay) soils. Further south on the marls and limestones, the soils vary from clay-rich (medium or heavy textured) gradational to strongly texture contrast soils and generally heavy (uniform) clays. Much of the area comprises natural grasslands plain, bounded by the Western Uplands to the north, and the coastline and Otway Range - part of the Southern Uplands of Victoria to the south. The volcanic plains were built up by sporadic volcanic eruptions over a period of about 5 million years, and are known geologically as the Newer Volcanics, the deposits which form the Newer Volcanic Province of Victoria, which includes parts of the Western Uplands, the Western Plains, and the area across the border around Mt Gambier. Much of the plains were formed from lobes of lava which flowed from the eruption points, overlapping to form a veneer of basalt lava flows. The flow varies in thickness according to both the underlying topography and the present-day surface. The flows are interleaved in places with pyroclastic deposits (scoria and tuff) and discontinuous buried palaeosoils of variable thickness. Drainage across the volcanic plains is generally poorly developed. Stony rise lava flows represent the most recent volcanic activity. While grasslands are common on much of the plains lava, and on many of the cones, dense trees commonly mark the young stony rise flows, and large scattered Red Gums are found on the deeply weathered older flows, for example south of Hamilton. 6 Stony Rises

5 http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_1.4 - accessed 12-6-2018. 6 http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework - accessed 29-05-2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 39

Stony rise lava flows represent the most recent volcanic activity, and among the most prominent stony rises are those of Mount Porndon (289 m) where scoria cones rise above a high “ring barrier” of lava, with more extensive lower level flows extending radially, including northwards to Mt Corangamite. This volcano and its stony rise flows have been dated as 59 000 years old, placing it among the youngest landforms in Australia. Younger stony rises form the most rocky and undulating landscapes, such as the area of flows from Mt Porndon around Pomborneit East, south of Lake Corangamite. These landscapes are characterised by stony mounds with little or no soil and no surface drainage development. The younger stony rises of less than 100,000 years age are classified as the Eccles Regolith Landform Unit (Joyce 1999). Older stony rise landscapes, such as north of Dreeite, have some soil development and some small ephemeral lakes, swamps and wetlands which have formed in the depressions, but no significant surface drainage systems. The older stony rises of more than 100,000 years and up to one million years in age are classified as the Rouse Regolith Landform Unit (Joyce 1999). Associated soil types are shallow dark gradational (Dermosols) and self-mulching (and cracking) clay soils (Vertosols). As the stony rise landscapes developed through geological time, they evolved into plains with poorly developed drainage7.

7.6.2 Environment The following information provides general context to the environment of the current activity area. The climate of Australia has altered and fluctuated since the time of earliest human occupation within the Pleistocene period around 40,000-60,000 years ago. The Pleistocene period is conventionally dated from two million to 10,000 years ago (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999, 103; Aguirre and Pasini 1985; Lourens 2008, 239). During the Pleistocene, lower sea levels were present across Australia, and the southern coastline extended southwards, connecting Tasmania to the Australian mainland (Cosgrove 1999, 362). During the Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene (Holocene period generally dates from around 10,000 years ago to the present day, Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999, 103) sea levels began to rise in response to post-glacial marine transgression resulting from the melting of Late Pleistocene ice sheets (Lambeck and Nakada 1990, 143). This rise in sea levels separated Tasmania from the mainland and reduced the Australian coastline. Victorian sea levels stabilised and reached modern levels before around 6000 years BP (Lambeck and Nakada 1990, 149). During the period of Aboriginal occupation of the Melbourne region, the climatic conditions varied greatly in regard to temperature and rainfall levels. During the Last Glacial Maximum of the Pleistocene period (21,000- 15,000 years BP), temperatures were approximately 6-10 degrees lower than today (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999, 116). During the late Pleistocene period, there was less rainfall and less precipitation throughout the continent, reducing the woodland forest areas of southern Australia and resulting in a predominance of grasslands. Within this time, there is evidence for dry/shallow lakes with conditions likely to have been too dry to support swamp or open-water environments (Bowler 1981, 436-437; Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 76). The inland of Australia was characterised by arid and dry conditions and it is likely that Aboriginal people during this period would have experienced severe drought. Within southern Victoria these climatic conditions generally discouraged tree growth, although some trees survived in particularly sheltered and watered areas (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999, 116). In the late Pleistocene to early Holocene (around 12,000-9,000 BP), warmer temperatures and increased precipitation resulted in the expansion of woodland and forest areas dominated by Eucalypts (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 67). There is also evidence that the Holocene experienced fluctuating environmental conditions after 5,000 years ago, including lower levels of moisture during the mid to Late Holocene, and fluctuating water conditions (see Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 78; Reid 1989, 48; Wilkins et al 2013, 8, 10).

7 http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_6.1.2- accessed 12-06-2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 40

Leahy’s 2005 investigations at Bolin Billabong also highlight vegetation changes during the period of European occupation, with pollen analysis and radiometric dating revealing a sustained rise in disturbance taxa that indicates permanent alteration to the landscape that dates to the time of early European settlement of the Melbourne area, with the appearance of exotic pollen above this point supporting this analysis (Leahy et al. 2005, 143). The climate of the geographic region is generally described as temperate with warm dry summers and cool winters. The mean annual rainfall for the geographic region is approximately 659.9 mm.8 As the region has been extensively cleared, modified and developed it is difficult to determine the original vegetation pattern, although some mature native trees such as River Red Gums, are situated within the geographic region and also the current activity area. Pre-1750 ecological vegetation classes that may have been present within the activity area consist of (Map 8): • Plains woodlands and forests • Riparian scrubs or swampy scrubs and woodlands • Riverine Grassy woodlands or forests • Wetlands Aboriginal occupation often focused on waterways, and areas adjacent to water sources, including swamps, and these areas would have provided a wide range of food and material resources for Aboriginal people. John Helder Wedge explored and surveyed lands purchased by the Port Phillip Association and studied at land around Plenty River in the east, and the lower reaches of the Yarra River (Forster 1968, 3). Wedge noted that wildlife in the more open country included emus and kangaroos with wild ducks, geese, cranes and black swans as well as wild native dogs around the swamps and water courses. Wedge also noted that Aboriginal people utilised the following native foods: kangaroos, kangaroo rat, fish, edible roots from various plants, black swans, ducks, birds and various reptiles including snakes (Forster 1968, 3-4). Water rushes and marsh vegetation as well as a number of plant-food resources important to Aboriginal people would have grown in nearby watercourses (i.e. Darebin Creek) and swamps. The rivers, creeks, lagoons and swamp areas, would have supported various species of fish, eel, frogs, tortoises and other aquatic species as well as various birds, kangaroos, wallabies, wombat, possums and emu inhabiting the plains of the wider geographic region. Plants were used for non-culinary purposes; such as making nets, baskets, and ornaments. Grasses such as Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra), were used in the manufacture of fishing nets (Zola and Gott 1992, 58), while tussock grass fibres were used to make string for bags, baskets and mats.

8 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086351.shtml – accessed 29-05-2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 41

Map 6: Map of activity area showing VAHR information and geographic region

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 42

Map 7: Map of activity area showing VAHR information and geographic region – Detail Maps

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 43

Map 8: Geomorphology of the activity area and geographic region

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 44

Map 9: Geology of the activity area and geographic region

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 45

Map 10: Pre-1750 Ecological Vegetation Classes in the activity area and geographic region

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 46

7.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register search

A search for Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region and registered on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) was undertaken on 14 May 2018. The results of the search are presented in Map 6 and Table 9. According to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (ACHRIS), at the time of the commencement of this CHMP there were five registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area. These comprise one scarred tree (VAHR 7922-0218, Darebin 6), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one low density artefact distribution (7922-1366). Previously registered Aboriginal places within the activity area are highlighted in orange within Table 8. Three of the Aboriginal places located within the current activity area were recorded as part of Weaver’s 1992 archaeological survey of the Lower Darebin Creek, 7922-0218, 7922-0210 and 7922-0219. The scarred tree, 7922-0218 consists of a scarred tree that was located within 100m of Darebin Creek on the floodplain, amidst a remnant River Red Gum woodland. The tree contains a bark removal scar for possible use by Aboriginal people as a container. Weaver describes the surrounding area as disturbed, filled and landscaped over the years (Weaver 1992, 26). An assessment of potential scarred trees in the Darebin Creek area including sections of the current activity area undertaken by Amorosi, Bell, Cekalovic, Greenwood, Hill, Munro, Reeves and Tunn in May 1997 and VAHR 7922-0218 was inspected and re-assessed. The results of this reassessment resulted in a recommendation that 7922-0218 contained non-cultural scarring and should be removed from the AV site register. The consultants found that all of the trees assessed indicated either burning as a result of lightning or fire, or knot marks and irregular layering of the bark on the interior surface from limb breakage (Amorosi et al. 1997, 3).The Aboriginal place 7922-0218 was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessments undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and was re-identified during this time (please see Sections 8 and 10 for further information regarding 7922-0218). The artefact scatter 7922-0210 (Darebin 5) contained silcrete lithics that were recorded on the Darebin Creek floodplain. Weaver (1992) describes the area containing this Aboriginal place as having experienced a great deal of disturbance through landscaping of parklands and the banks of the creek. Weaver assessed this Aboriginal place to have a medium significance rating (1992, 39). This Aboriginal place contained two silcrete blades (one fine grained grey and cream streaks, broken and the other coarse grain grey silcrete with large silica pores broken base from blade), two silcrete scrapers (both very fine grained silcrete, one grey and pale grey and the other grey with cream streaks and some silica pores), one flaked fragment (very fine grained silcrete with grey and cream streaks), one very fine grained silcrete fragment, and one chert waste flake (very fine grain, fawn and mustard) (Weaver 1992, Appendix 3). The artefact scatter 7922-0219 (Darebin 7) is an isolated very fine grained grey silcrete flake artefact with possible evidence of use wear on more than one edge (Weaver 1992, 24). Weaver assessed this Aboriginal place to have a low significance rating (Weaver 1992, 39). This Aboriginal place is currently situated beneath a sealed vehicular track in a highly disturbed context. This Aboriginal place was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessments undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and was not re-identified. The artefact scatter, 7922-0986 (La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1) is represented by a single quartz bipolar flake fragment located on gently inclined land in the La Trobe wildlife reserve, 7922-0986, which was recorded by Freslov in 2005. Freslov recorded the site as being in a highly disturbed location. This Aboriginal place was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessments undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and was not re- identified. The low-density artefact distribution, 7922-1366 (La Trobe University LDAD) is represented by a single silcrete flake recorded by AV staff in 2014. This Aboriginal place was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessments undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and was not re-identified. The 54 Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region include (Map 6): • 38 artefact scatters

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 47

• 9 scarred trees • 1 quarry • 4 low density artefact distributions • 1 artefact scatter/quarry • 1 historical reference The following salient points emerge from a review of these sites: • Artefact scatters within the geographic region generally contain low numbers of Aboriginal stone artefacts (many between 1-4 artefacts). It should be noted that many of these artefact scatters were recorded in less recent times and data about artefact numbers was not provided on the site cards. Most of the artefact scatters within the geographic region are surface artefact scatters. Again, as many of these artefact scatters were recorded in less recent times, subsurface testing generally was not undertaken at these artefact locations. • Silcrete is the predominant raw material present represented within artefact scatters/low density artefact distributions, with smaller numbers of quartz, quartzite flint/chert, and very occasional siltstone and sandstone. Artefact scatters have been recorded on elevated landforms, and on landforms associated with waterways such as Darebin Creek as well as on the flat floodplains. All of the scarred trees within the geographic region are red gums, generally of good health containing one scar. Most of the scarred trees have been found on the flat to gently undulating plain landform. There is also one Aboriginal historical reference located in the geographic region. This reference relates to the Bundoora Park Police Barracks and refers to a place where Aboriginal trackers were housed/camped/worked up to the 1950s. According to the information from ACHRIS, the Aboriginal trackers lived in a prefabricated railway fettlers hut (c. 1910).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 48

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform Distance to (m) Subsurface range of Material the activity (mm) Artefacts area (m) 7922-0033 BUNDOORA Scarred Tree - - - - - Scarred tree reported by - 1231.491 PARK 2 Preston historical society 7922-0076 BREW 1 Artefact 10m x 4m Surface - - S Probably stratified; site Gully, ravine, 313.315 scatter/ scatter/ eroded – likely not an canyon Earth Exposure earth feature but an Darebin Feature of cultural artefact scatter eroding Creek material in from bank of creek; bank worked flakes 7922-0077 BREW 2 Artefact 50m x 30m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion located Terrace 324.860 Scatter associated with Darebin Creek; 7922-0078 BREW 3 Artefact 75m x 30m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion by wind, Flat, level 72.941 Scatter ploughed adjacent to land, terrace Darebin Creek; worked flakes 7922-0079 BREW 4 Artefact 20m x 20m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion by wind, Sloping 131.901 Scatter adjacent to Darebin irregular Creek; worked flakes land, terrace 7922-0080 BREW 5 Quarry 4m x 4m - - - Qtz, FG Worked flakes and cores Flat level 167.978 land, terrace 7922-0081 BREW 6 Artefact 20m x 5m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion; worked Flat level 138.505 Scatter flakes land, terrace 7922-0206 DAREBIN 1 Artefact - Surface - 2 S Disturbed eastern side of Undulating 44.905 Scatter creek on terrace; 1 terrace, silcrete blade with Darebin retouch and 1 fine Creek grained silcrete fragment 7922-0207 DAREBIN 2 Artefact - Surface - 1 S Broken blade with Undulating 95.412 Scatter retouch located on track terrace, at terrace Darebin Creek

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 49

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform Distance to (m) Subsurface range of Material the activity (mm) Artefacts area (m) 7922-0208 DAREBIN 3 Artefact - Surface - 3 S 1 silcrete blade, 1 Undulating 198.488 Scatter medium grained silcrete, terrace, 1 very fine grained Darebin silcrete Creek 7922-0209 DAREBIN 4 Artefact - Surface - 1 S 1 very fine grained Undulating 27.587 Scatter silcrete flake with use terrace, wear Darebin Creek 7922-0210 DAREBIN 5 Artefact 14m x 3m Surface - 4 S Flaked fragments worked Undulating, 0.000 Scatter flakes, unspecified irregular, chipped stone artefacts sloping 7922-0218 DAREBIN 6 Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum in good health Undulating 0.000 with one scar floodplain 7922-0219 DAREBIN 7 Artefact - Surface Surface 1 FG Flake Undulating 0.000 Scatter floodplain 7922-0220 DAREBIN 8 Artefact - Surface - 1 S Core fragment, Undulating 1068.477 Scatter waterworn terrace 7922-0221 DAREBIN 9 Artefact 20m x 5-10m Surface - - S Worked flakes, waste Sloping, 1075.015 Scatter/ flake, unspecified irregular Quarry chipped stone artefacts; land; edge of exposure of rock, outcrop Mt Cooper 7922-0224 DAREBIN 12 Artefact 150m x 30m Surface - - S Worked flakes, cores, Darebin 506.330 Scatter fragments, unspecified Creek chipped stone artefacts floodplain 7922-0225 DAREBIN 13 Artefact 30m x 10m Surface - - S, F/C, Q, Erosion; worked flakes, Sloping 185.979 Scatter Qtz worked cores, irregular unspecified chipped land, terrace stone artefacts 7922-0512 BUNDOORA Artefact - Surface - 1 S 1 flake/scraper Centre of 1132.667 REPAT 2 Scatter golf course; undulating

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 50

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform Distance to (m) Subsurface range of Material the activity (mm) Artefacts area (m) 7922-0513 BUNDOORA Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum in good health Undulating 784.528 REPAT 3 with one scar plain 7922-0514 BUNDOORA Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum in good health Undulating 975.518 REPAT 4 with one scar plain 7922-0533 BUNDOORA Artefact - Subsurface - 2 S Worked flake/tool Volcanic 1180.782 REPAT 7 Scatter lowland plain 7922-0557 MACLEOD Artefact - Surface - 1 Ss Hammerstone Undulating 725.981 REPAT. Scatter land HOSPITAL 1 7922-0668 WAIORA ROAD Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum tree in good Hill slope 313.574 1 health with one scar 7922-0683 FAIRWAY Artefact 30m x 60m Surface - - S Worked flakes Flat level 1370.608 DRIVE 1 Scatter floodplain 7922-0686 FAIRWAY Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool; Floodplain 1278.742 DRIVE 2 Scatter unretouched waste flake 7922-0687 FAIRWAY Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool; Undulating 924.436 DRIVE 3 Scatter land, hill slope 7922-0688 FAIRWAY Artefact 41m x 31m Surface - - S, C, FG Worked flakes, Flat 846.430 DRIVE 4 Scatter unspecified chipped floodplain stone artefacts 7922-0689 FAIRWAY Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum in good health Undulating 956.156 DRIVE 5 with one scar land, hill slope 7922-0690 BUNDOORA Artefact 45m x 2m Surface - - S Worked flakes, Sloping 1151.807 HOMESTEAD Scatter unspecified chipped irregular stone artefacts land 7922-0691 HARDIMAN Artefact - Surface - 1 S Unretouched waste flake Flat land 715.567 STREET 1 Scatter

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 51

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform Distance to (m) Subsurface range of Material the activity (mm) Artefacts area (m) 7922-0692 DAM QUARRY Artefact 31m x 10m Surface - - S Stone outcrop; Undulating 974.660 Scatter and likely hammerstones, pitted subsurface stones, worked flakes, cores, microblade technology, unspecified chipped stone artefacts 7922-0693 SNAKE GULLY Artefact 35m x 10m Surface - - S Stone source area; Flat, level 806.844 DRIVE 1 Scatter outcrop; worked flakes, land microliths, unspecified chipped stone artefacts 7922-0694 SNAKE GULLY Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum in good health Undulating 823.041 DRIVE 2 with one scar plain 7922-0695 SNAKE GULLY Scarred Tree - - - - - Red gum in good health Undulating 849.025 DRIVE 3 with one scar hill slope 7922-0696 PLAYGROUND Artefact 10m x 15m Surface - - S, F/C, O Worked flakes, cores, Flat level 935.903 DRIVE 1 Scatter microliths, unspecified land chipped stone artefacts 7922-0697 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool Hills and 856.373 DRIVE 2 Scatter ridges 7922-0698 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool Flat to 782.334 DRIVE 3 Scatter undulating land 7922-0699 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Unretouched/ waste Flat to 760.322 DRIVE 4 Scatter flake undulating land 7922-0700 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool Flat to 796.782 DRIVE 5 Scatter undulating land 7922-0701 PLAYGROUND Artefact 30m x 30m Surface - - S Worked flakes, cores Flat, level 904.445 DRIVE 6 Scatter land

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 52

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform Distance to (m) Subsurface range of Material the activity (mm) Artefacts area (m) 7922-0706 MT COOPER Artefact - - - 1 S Worked flake/tool Hills and 1271.619 SCENIC DRIVE Scatter ridges; hill 5 slope 7922-0707 MT COOPER Artefact - - - 3 S 2 worked flake/tools; 1 Hill slope 1191.873 SCENIC DRIVE Scatter unretouched waste flake 6 7922-0708 FAIRWAY Artefact 25m x 110m Surface - - S Worked flakes, scraper, Flat level 1113.320 DRIVE 3 Scatter unspecified chipped land stone artefacts 7922-0709 PROSPECT HILL Artefact - - - 1-4 S Unretouched waste flake Hill adjacent 1019.389 DRIVE Scatter to Snake Gully 7922-0986 LATROBE Artefact 5mx5mx0m Surface Surface 1 Q Bipolar flake fragment Undulating 0.000 WILDLIFE Scatter volcanic RESERVE 1 plain 7922-1083 BUNDOORA Artefact - Subsurface 220mm 9 S, SS Flakes, angular fragments Crest of 1212.126 PARK 3 Scatter escarpment/ cliff 7922-1091 BREW NEW 1 Artefact - Surface - 2 S, Qtz One silcrete flaked piece, Escarpment 249.903 Scatter one quartzite broken overlooking proximal blade Darebin Creek 7922-1092 PLAYGROUND Scarred Tree - - - - - River red gum with two Gently 903.565 DVE SCARRED scars located within inclined TREE registered place extent of floodplain artefact scatter, 7922- 0701 7922-1366 LA Trobe Low Density - - - 1 S Flake Unspecified 0.000 University Artefact LDAD Distribution

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 53

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform Distance to (m) Subsurface range of Material the activity (mm) Artefacts area (m) 7922-1411 Bundoora Park Low Density - Surface 0 - 80mm 6 S One blade, two flakes and Unspecified 828.297 LDAD Artefact and three angular fragments Distribution subsurface 7922-1438 Bundoora Park Low Density - Subsurface 100mm 3 S Two flakes and one Unspecified 836.409 LDAD Salvage Artefact angular fragment Distribution 7922-1479 Level Crossing Low Density - Unspecified 1347.312 North-Eastern Artefact Alignment 1 Distribution (Heidelberg) Table 8: Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region S = Stone, (S) = Silcrete; (Q) = Quartz, (Qtz) = Quartzite, (CG) = Quartz Crystal, (F/C) = Flint/Chert; (FG) = Fine Grained Siliceous, (In) = Indeterminate; (Gl) = glass; (H) = Hornfels; (B) = Basalt; (BG) = Basalt/Greenstone; (BC) = Black Cobble; (C) = Chert; (J) = Jasper; (M) = Mudstone; (O) = Other; (Si) = Siliceous; Ss= Sand stone (SS) = Siltstone, (I) = Ironstone; (IG) = Igneous, (U)=Unknown, (T/B) = Trachyte/Basalt, (MG) = Microgranite, (V) = Volcanic, (T)=Trachyte

Historical Reference No. Historical Reference Name Historical Reference Type Information Location 5.3-4 Bundoora Park Police Barracks 5.3 Locations where Native Police Bundoora Park once had Bundoora Park west of were housed/camped/worked a Mounted Police Plenty Road

Barracks which employed Aboriginal trackers up to the 1950s Table 9: Historical Aboriginal references located within the Geographic Region

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 54

7.8 Review of historical and ethnohistorical accounts of Aboriginal occupation in the geographic region

A review of available ethnohistorical and historical information relating to Aboriginal people in the Bundoora region may assist in formulating a model of Aboriginal subsistence and occupation patterns within the activity area. The ethnohistorical information provides a framework for the interpretation of archaeological sites in the wider area and predictive modelling of potential location of archaeological site types within the activity area. The ethno-historical information presented within this report is based predominately on the observations and writings of men from the nineteenth century, and certain contextual limitations should be considered when reading these accounts. As pointed out by Barwick (1984, 103), “…their jealousies, ambitions, loyalties and roles in colonial society shaped their inquiries and the content of their publications”. These nineteenth century authors were writing from an Anglo-centric and gender biased viewpoint for a colonial audience who had a very limited and generally negative view on Aboriginal life, heritage, and culture. Despite these shortcomings, nineteenth century ethnographical accounts are a useful resource; the information has often been provided to the author by Aboriginal informants or by first-hand observations and experience. Such information may include knowledge regarding regional Aboriginal stories, life, culture and beliefs, and this data has been utilised to inform the ethno-historical section of this report. Tribal boundaries were linked with physiographic features such as mountain ranges and should not be considered as rigid boundaries on the landscape. There are several difficulties with correctly describing 19thcentury Aboriginal groups due to discrepancies in early European accounts and the difficulties early settlers had in understanding Aboriginal languages and social systems. The devastating effects of European settlement on Aboriginal people, including the loss of traditional lands and resources, disease, social collapse, and transferral of people to reserves have added further complexities. As a result, it is difficult to accurately identify the ethnohistory and post-contact history of specific Aboriginal clan groups in the geographic region after the period of initial settlement. Traditionally, reconstructions of tribal boundaries have been based on language groups documented in the ethnographic and ethnohistorical literature. It is important to note, however, that these reconstructions do not necessarily reflect the spatial distribution of Aboriginal peoples prior to European settlement, and instead provide an approximate guide to Aboriginal tribal boundaries during the contact period.

7.8.1 Ethnohistorical accounts The geographic region is located within the language group of the Woi wurrung (spelling according to Clark 1990, 364), the group that occupied the basins of the Yarra and Plenty Rivers. A language group consists of independent groups of closely related kin, or ‘clans’, who are 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 Woi wurrung clan most closely associated with the geographic region were the Wurundjeri willam, who identified with the Yarra and Plenty rivers (Clark 1990, 385). Clan boundaries were defined by mountains, creeks and rivers, and clans were very familiar with the geography of their territory and the seasonal availability of resources within it. At European settlement, Bebejan was ngurungaeta (clan head) of the Wurundjeri willam whose territory included the area around Darebin Creek (Howitt 1904, 309). Bebejan was the father of William Barak (Clark 1990, 365). The majority of references to Wurundjeri willam describe Aboriginal associations with either the Yarra River or Mount William, west of Kilmore (Presland 1985). The Wurundjeri willam had an extensive network of political, economic and social relations with neighbouring

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 55

clans, including those from other language groups. Marriage was sought from the Bunjil moieties of the Bun wurrung (spelling according to Clark 1990, 364) to the south, the Taungurong to the north and a clan near Mount Macedon and Lancefield (Barwick 1984, 104). Woi wurrung groups followed a semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Resource rich watercourses and swamps, containing a diversity of fish, shellfish, birds and other plant or animal foods formed a particular focus for regular Aboriginal occupation. For instance, William Thomas observed clans in the wider Westernport district living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, moving within their lands to make use of seasonal plant and animal resources, trading opportunities and to meet ritual and kinship obligations (Gunson 1968, 10). Prior to European settlement the geographic region would have contained a great number and variety of faunal species associated with the rivers, creeks and floodplains of the area. Some of the food resources that may have been utilised by Aboriginal people include wetland root crops such as Typha and Triglochin, dry land root crops such as Microseris lanceolata (murnong or yam-daisy), fresh water fish, eels and crustaceans, waterfowl and land mammals. With the demise of habitat, the number and range of species that once existed has been greatly reduced, however, land mammal species once commonplace throughout the region would have included possum, native rats, bettong, wallaby, kangaroo and bandicoot. During the pre-European contact period, the waterways would have supported black swans, ducks, ibis, quail, fish and crustaceans (LCC 1991, 107). A large variety of plants were not only valued for their potential food resources, but also for their medicinal uses and their suitability for the manufacture of implements. Ephemeral swamp plants, such as bull rushes and sedges, were also an important source of food, as well as fibre for woven bags and decorative items. Detailed lists of plant and animal species available within the Port Phillip area can be obtained from Presland (2010), Gott and Conran (1991) and Zola and Gott (1992). Economic species included: • Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass) – fishing nets, leaves and stem yielding fibre for string (Zola and Gott 1992, 58). • Convolvulus erubescens (Pink Bindweed or Blushing Bindweed) – tough starchy roots were cooked and eaten (Gott and Conran 1991, 22). • Triglochin spp (Water-ribbons) – bearing starch-sweet tubers that were cooked and eaten (Gott and Conran 1991, 9; Zola and Gott 1992, 12). • Poa labillardierei (Common Tussock-grass) – the fibre from these tough grasses was used to make string for nets, and for bags, baskets and mats (Zola and Gott 1992, 58). • Phragmites australis (Common Reed) – the tall straight flowering stems were used for spear-shafts or cut into short lengths and used to make necklaces. The leaves were used to weave bags and baskets, and the non-starchy roots were also eaten (Gott and Conran 1991, 66; Zola and Gott 1992, 12). • Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood) – the wood was used to manufacture spear-throwers, shields and clubs, while the bark was heated and infused with water to bathe rheumatic joints (Gott and Conran 1991, 50; Zola and Gott 1992, 53).

7.8.2 Post-contact history Unfortunately, there is no available information at this level of study specific information about Aboriginal post-contact associations with the activity area or the current geographic region. The development of the township of Melbourne resulted in 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. Aboriginal people from other clans and language groups were attracted to Melbourne for a variety of reasons, making it difficult to identify and document the ethno-history and post-contact history of specific Aboriginal clan groups after the period of initial settlement. A Government Mission was built in 1837 on an 895-acre site, south of the Yarra River (east of Melbourne Botanic Gardens), with George Langhorne responsible for the running of the mission. The objective of the mission was to ‘civilise’ Aboriginal people and those who decided to live at the mission were provided with

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 56

rations in exchange for agricultural endeavours. Children were also provided with rations for attending school classes. Woi wurrung people were mainly associated with the mission although a few Bun wurrung individuals and members of other language groups were noted as being affiliated to the mission in 1838 (Clark and Heydon 1998, 27). In 1839 a census requested by George Robinson, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Port Phillip Protectorate, of Aboriginal people living in and around Melbourne found that the probable Aboriginal population at this time consisted of 140 Woi wurrung, 50 Wada wurrung and 12 Bun wurrung people (Lakic and Wrench 1994, 110, 113). However, it is likely that the numbers of Aboriginal people in Melbourne varied greatly throughout this period and was subject to the influx of various groups and individuals. From the 1830s onwards, Aboriginal people continued to camp in the vicinity of the township of Melbourne. Mostly they were Aboriginal people belonging to Woi wurrung and Bun wurrung clans, and their preferred camping places were along the south bank of the Yarra River, opposite the settlement of Melbourne, and Government Paddocks (between Princess Bridge and Punt Road) (Clark and Heydon 1998, 25). Woi wurrung and Bun wurrung people camped from the falls (near Princess Bridge) for approximately 1.5 kilometres south east along the river. A particularly favoured location for camping was on the hill overlooking ‘Tromgin’, a swamp south of the Yarra River. Robinson and Thomas, an Assistant Protector, reportedly spent much time throughout the late 1830s to mid-1840s attempting to ‘break up’ Aboriginal camps by the Yarra River and discouraging Aboriginal people from visiting the township itself (Clark and Heydon 1998, 34–5, 40, 49). In 1840, Thomas noted that: By what I can learn, long ere the settlement was formed the spot where Melbourne now stands and the flats on which we are now camped [on the south bank of the Yarra] was the regular rendezvous for the tribes known as Warorangs, Boonurongs, Barrabools, Nilunguons, Gouldburns twice a year or as often as circumstances and emergences required to settle their grievances, revenge deaths… (Thomas in Presland 1985, 35). The population of Woi wurrung and Bun wurrung people declined steeply in 1847, caused by an influenza epidemic, leading to deaths and the dispersal of Aboriginal people from camps by the Yarra River (Clark and Heydon 1998). Through the influence of the Government, Missionary Societies and the new ‘landowners’, the number of Aboriginal people in the area dwindled as a result of high mortality rates and forced movement out of the township. Complaints from settlers who wanted to exclude Aboriginal people from their newly acquired land and move them further into the ‘bush’ and requests by Aboriginal people themselves for a ‘station’ of their own, led to the establishment of an Aboriginal reserve known as Coranderrk, near Healesville in 1863. The majority of Woi wurrung people lived at Coranderrk from 1863 to the early 1900s when the introduction of the Aborigines Act 1909 requiring all ‘half castes’ to leave Mission Stations, resulted in Aboriginal people moving back to Melbourne, attracted by work opportunities (Rhodes et al. 1999, 88-89).

7.9 Review of reports and published work about Aboriginal cultural heritage in the region

In the past 20 years the broader Melbourne region has been the subject of numerous cultural heritage assessments, commissioned by both public and private agencies involved in housing developments and various associated infrastructure projects including (for example) wastewater facilities, roads, schools and golf clubs. As a consequence, archaeologists working with Aboriginal community groups have achieved reasonably extensive survey coverage. However, while this has resulted in the documentation of many Aboriginal archaeological sites across metropolitan Melbourne, these archaeological assessments have mostly involved only fairly superficial examinations of the geographic region. The currently known distribution of Aboriginal cultural heritage places across the geographic region needs to be considered in the context of these limitations.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 57

A number of archaeological investigations have been carried out both within the activity area and across the wider geographic region that are relevant to the current project. The 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, generally undertaken for cultural resource management purposes, which may assist in developing an understanding of archaeological sensitivity and the extent and scope of prior investigation in a relatively limited area or environment. There has been one previous archaeological investigation undertaken within part of the activity area for this CHMP (Thomson 2002). There are also a number of previous archaeological investigations that have been conducted within the current geographic region, and those of relevance to the current activity area are summarised below.

7.9.1 Regional studies The following studies have examined the archaeology of geographic region within a regional, rather than a localised context. The Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park (Ellender 1991) In 1991, Ellender conducted an archaeological assessment of Aboriginal sites within the Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park, focusing on the Plenty river and gorge located to the north and north east of the current activity area. Ellender noted that a great amount of tree clearance has occurred within the study area, which is unfavourable for the identification of culturally scarred trees (Ellender 1991, 13). The desktop assessment undertaken by Ellender revealed that the majority of registered Aboriginal places in the study area consisted of scarred trees, artefact scatters, and isolated artefacts. These Aboriginal places were more likely to be situated on the high ground above the Plenty River or on gentle spurs leading down to the river. Scarred trees could also be located on the floodplains. Raw materials would probably consist of silcrete, quartz, basalt or chert which could all be sourced from the gorge (Ellender 1991, 16). Ellender divided the study area into two main landscape units, terrain above the break of slope and terrain below the break of slope with the latter subdivided into spurs and river terraces. According to Ellender, Aboriginal people would have utilised the landscape units differently, with the terrain above the break of slope on the west being exposed and rocky and well-wooded on the east (Ellender 1991, 17). The spurs would have formed conduits between the plains and the river area, but would have been too steep for camping, whereas the river terraces would have been preferable for camping, comprising flat areas with the river close by, sheltered from the wind and elements. There were 39 previously registered Aboriginal places located in the study area. During the field survey a total of 18 new Aboriginal places were identified (Ellender 1991, 23), with 57 Aboriginal places located in the study area. Artefacts were identified on all landscape units, scarred trees were only found above the break of slope or on spurs, with 72% of Aboriginal places located above the break of slope and 28% (18% on spurs and 10% on terraces). Surface testing took places at four Aboriginal places, including 7922-0290, 7922-0236, 7922-0137 and 8922-0288. Some disturbance was noted within these sites, however all of these sites contained evidence for subsurface archaeological deposits. Ellender assessed the following areas to be of the highest archaeological sensitivity: high peninsulas with flat or gently sloping tops that project into the meanders of the river and the low river terraces above flood level (Ellender 1991, 43). Lower Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey (Weaver 1992) Weaver (1992) sample surveyed the Darebin Creek from Settlement Road in Bundoora, c. 14.5 km south to its confluence with the Yarra River (Weaver 1992, 3). It is unclear precisely which parts of the creek received survey coverage, however dense vegetation and the extensive modification of land surfaces hampered ground surface visibility, with visibility generally restricted to maintenance tracks and areas of erosion along the creek bank. It was noted that the northern section of the study area, within which the current activity area is situated, contained the highest levels of ground surface visibility due to these areas having been burnt less than a month prior to the survey, and also the presence of more parkland and open space in this area (Weaver 1992, 27).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 58

A total of 13 Aboriginal places were identified during the survey. These sites comprised of three stone artefact scatters, six isolated stone artefacts, three stone outcrops and one scarred tree (Weaver 1992, 24). These sites were recorded on the Darebin Creek floodplain, terraces and terrace scree slope. A number of these Aboriginal places were recorded in the vicinity of the current activity area, including an artefact scatters (7922-0225) and four isolated artefacts (7922-0206, 7922-0207, 7922-0208 and 7922-02096). There are also three of these Aboriginal places located within the current activity area; one scarred tree, 7922-0218, one isolated artefact (7922-0219) and one artefact scatter, 7922-0210. In addition, there were eight previously registered Aboriginal places within the study area prior to Weaver’s survey, consisting of one scarred tree and seven artefact scatters. A total of six of these previously registered Aboriginal places are located in the area between Plenty Road and Dougharty Road (7922-0076, 7922-0077, 7922-0078, 7922-0079, 7922-0080 and 7922-0081). The stone outcrops, characterised by pale grey fine-grained to coarse-grained silcrete boulders, were located on the eastern slopes of Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park. The actual use of these outcrops as sources of stone tool raw material was not established during the survey due to dense vegetation which prevented a full visual inspection of the stone outcrops. However stone artefacts were located in close vicinity to two of the stone outcrops (Weaver 1992, 26, 28). In addition, Weaver noted the presence of a previously identified extensive stone artefact scatter adjacent to the stone outcrops (7922-0030). The Aboriginal heritage place 7922-0030 was identified during landscaping of the Bundoora Park Public Golf Course with more than 2,000 artefacts collected from this location. Weaver examined the previously collected stone artefacts, which were predominantly flaked stone artefacts, made from fine-grained materials such as silcrete and quartzite. An edge-ground axe fragment was also represented in the collection (Weaver 1992, 18). The stone artefact scatters, and isolated stone artefacts identified during the field survey were predominantly located within a 1 km stretch of the Darebin Creek corridor, south of Plenty Road. A total of 83 flaked stone artefacts and an axe blank were recorded at these sites, representing sample recordings at 7922-0224 & -0225 and all stone artefacts identified at the remaining sites. The main raw material present in the flaked stone artefact assemblage was fine to medium-grained silcrete, with small amounts of chert, quartz and quartzite also documented. A range of flaked stone artefact types were represented including cores, blades, scrapers, flakes and waste flakes. Over half of the flaked stone artefact artefacts showed evidence of use wear, and or retouch. Cortex was identified on 14 of the silcrete artefacts (Weaver 1992, 24-25). A scarred tree located during the survey was identified on the creek floodplain, c. 100 m from the creek, within a small stand of remnant River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) (1992, 26). Weaver highlighted several points in her discussion of the results of the survey (1992, 28-9): • Nine newly identified Aboriginal sites and six previously registered Aboriginal sites are concentrated within a 1.5 km section of Darebin Creek, south of Plenty Road. A smaller concentration of Aboriginal sites is located at Bundoora Park. • Stone artefact occurrences were the main site type recorded, and the main source of raw material appears to be silcrete outcrops in the Mount Cooper area, in Bundoora Park. However, the actual use of silcrete stone outcrops in this area could not be verified during the field survey. This is supported by the general absence of cortex on the silcrete stone artefacts identified during the survey, suggesting the source is more likely to be derived from an outcrop of rock than river pebbles. • The existing distribution of Aboriginal sites in the study area, with clear site concentrations in the north of the study area, is suggested to be partially a reflection of the higher level of surface visibility in this area. However, Weaver does indicate that the presence of silcrete outcrops at Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park is likely to have attracted Aboriginal people to the northern part of the study area. In addition, the northern section of the study area was highlighted as having higher potential to contain further sites. • Weaver suggests that there is potential for archaeological sites to exist in the southern section of the study area but that these were obscured by lack of surface visibility and may be covered by fill on the floodplain. Aboriginal Archaeological sites in the Darebin Municipality (Marshall and Schell 1996)

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 59

Marshall and Schell were commissioned by Optus to undertake a brief overview of the known Aboriginal heritage places in the Municipality of Darebin, including information on the distribution and significance of these sites. Marshall and Schell ascertained that there were 33 registered Aboriginal heritage places within the municipality of Darebin, with the majority of these site types comprising surface scatters, closely followed by isolated artefacts (Marshall and Schell 1996, 1). Quarries were also a frequent site type. Marshall and Schell also noted that there were surprisingly few scarred trees recorded within the Darebin region, which they believed is an under-representation, as the municipality has many large native trees which may contain Aboriginal scarring (Marshall and Schell 1996, 1). Marshall and Schell recommended that as scarred trees are the site type which will be most affected by the installation of overhead cables, that damage to all mature native trees should be avoided (Marshall and Schell 1996, 4).

7.9.2 Localised studies There are several localised studies in the geographic region that have relevance to the current project, and these are summarised below. Former Bundoora Repatriation Hospital, Plenty Road Preston (Weaver and Perham 1995a; Weaver and Perham 1995b) Weaver and Perham (1995a and 1995b) conducted and field survey and subsequent subsurface testing at the location of the former Bundoora Repatriation Hospital. The study area is located to the north east of the current activity area. The study area formerly contained swamps and small water courses and would have supported a variety of food and material resources for Aboriginal people (Weaver and Perham 1995a, 5). The study area was part of ‘Bundoora Park’, property of Samuel Gardiner, and was later developed into a horse stud containing a two-storey brick homestead and various outbuildings (Weaver and Perham 1995a, 6). The homestead eventually became part of the Bundoora Park historical centre. During the 1920s, the study area was utilised as a convalescent farm and hospital intended for patients suffering psychiatric disorders as a result of war service. Since the 1970s, more than 2,000 Aboriginal stone artefacts have been located in the Bundoora Park area, including the Aboriginal place, VAHR 7922-0030, including artefacts made from bottle glass (Weaver and Perham 1995a, 8). Weaver and Perham conducted a field survey of the study area, recording 8 Aboriginal places including three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0511, -0515 and -0516), three isolated stone artefacts (VAHR 7922-0512, -05517 and -0518), and two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0513 and -0514). Subsurface testing took place in the vicinity of the Aboriginal places, VAHR 7922-0511, VAHR 7922-0515 and VAHR 7922-0516 which were located in association with a line of sugar gum trees in the north eastern section of the study area (Weaver and Perham 1995b). A total of seven rotary hoe trenches were excavated, approximately 50-60cm wide with an average depth of 15-20cm. Subsurface artefacts were found, generally located beneath the sugar gum tree line and drip line (Weaver and Perham 1995b, 11). The majority of these artefacts comprised silcrete lithics, as well as some chert, and one quartzite artefact. Former Larundel Psychiatric Hospital, Plenty Road Bundoora (Cekalovic 1999) In 1999, Cekalovic undertook an archaeological desktop assessment of the former Larundel Psychiatric Hospital, located on Plenty Road in Bundoora, to the north west of the current activity area. Construction commenced on the former Larundel Hospital during the 1930s, with World War Two interrupting the development of the hospital. The hospital was first utilised as a psychiatric facility in 1949, and construction of facilities continued into the 1950s (Cekalovic 1999, 16). The hospital did not officially open until 1953. Continued development of the facility occurred during the 1960s, with the number of patients declining during the 1970s (Cekalovic 1999, 17). Cekalovic assessed the study area to have minimal Aboriginal archaeological potential, with the only area that may have some potential being the south eastern corner of the study area which contains many river red gums that predate the hospital development (Cekalovic 1999, 24). Cekalovic concluded that it was unlikely for Aboriginal stone artefacts to be located in the study area due to the heavy disturbances that have taken place during construction activities and vegetation plantings. Cekalovic recommended that the trees located in the south eastern corner of the study area be examined for Aboriginal cultural scarring (Cekalovic 1999, 26).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 60

La Trobe Research and Development Park Bundoora (Thomson 2002) Thomson (2002) conducted an archaeological survey within the Research and Development Park adjacent to La Trobe University to the south east of the current activity area. Most of the land that was surveyed has been cleared of vegetation, and contains a number of university buildings, with some bush land still remaining in sections of the park (Thomson 2002, 5). The overall ground surface visibility of the survey area was poor, with an estimated 2% of the area effectively surveyed with tracks providing up to 90% surface visibility (Thomson 2002, 20). No new Aboriginal heritage places were identified during the assessment; however, Thomson identified a small area of moderate sensitivity that covers the highest point of the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road. This area contains two large remnant eucalypts and lies immediately adjacent to a previously recorded Aboriginal scar tree (Thomson 2002, 20). During the field survey, this area contained 0% of ground surface visibility due to the heavy grass cover. Due to the moderate sensitivity of this location, Thomson recommended subsurface investigation of this area. Wurundjeri community investigation, Bundoora Park (Stellini 2003) In 2003, Stellini reported on the Wurundjeri community investigation at Bundoora Park, consisting of a field survey of the study area. At the time of the investigation there were 13 previously recorded Aboriginal places within Bundoora Park including silcrete quarries, scarred trees, artefact scatters and Aboriginal places consisting of multiple features (Stellini 2003, 14). The construction of the golf course and landscaping activities within Bundoora Park have brought about a level of disturbance to the study area, which has likely impacted on the Aboriginal cultural heritage within this area (Stellini 2003, 16). Stellini noted poor ground surface visibility during the field survey of the study area, with soil exposures present along fence lines, roads, and other features (Stellini 2003, 18). A total of 22 additional Aboriginal places were recorded during the field programme, with three sites also recorded on unfenced private land adjoining Bundoora Park. Some limited subsurface investigation also look place at the time of the survey (Stellini 2003, 24), focusing on two areas within the park. One of these areas consisted of an Aboriginal place originally recorded by Weaver in 1991 (VAHR 7922-0221), and five shovel probes identified 39 artefacts. There were also three shovel probes excavated along Darebin Creek, and one of these probes contained 19 artefacts (VAHR 7922-0710). Other Aboriginal place types included artefact scatters, isolated artefacts, three scarred trees and one quarry with artefact scatter (Stellini 2003, 26). 38 Douglas Street Rosanna (Barker 2012) In 2012, Barker completed a CHMP for a residential development in Rosanna, located approximately 1.95KM south east of the current activity area. The activity area is situated within 200m of a named watercourse (Salt Creek). The activity area contains an existing dwelling, and includes a shed and underground pool, as well as paving and landscaping. A standard assessment was undertaken, and a reasonably low level of ground surface visibility was noted (Barker 2012, 17). Barker noted that the majority of the activity area appeared to have been built up with fill to form an even building surface. A complex assessment was then undertaken and two 1x1m test pits were excavated. Shallow soils were present, with clay encountered around 100mm. Some fill and introduced materials were present in soil sediments. There was no Aboriginal cultural heritage identified. Barker concluded that the disturbances caused by the modifications to the activity area during the residential construction would have impacted on any Aboriginal cultural heritage that may have been located in the shallow topsoil. Lower Playing Field La Trobe University: Soil Investigation Report (Ford 2013) A soil investigation report of the Lower Playing Field at the La Trobe Campus was undertaken by Ford in 2013. The site comprised a developed sporting field site with existing single storey brick clubroom and slope of approximately 1 degree from NE to SW. Vegetation consisted of grassed areas. Topography was even, and drainage was poor. Groundwater was encountered within the excavated depth (Ford 2013, 1). The results of subsurface testing revealed fill levels vary in depth depending upon the location of the boreholes conducted, due to the natural topography of the area that has now been altered to form a level sports ground. Overall the fill material over the natural ground proved to be consistent in the areas tested. The fill material

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 61

consisted of a grey brown silty sand to 0.3-0.4 m, becoming a light brown fine gravelly sand to 0.5 m before becoming grey and brown silt fill to a maximum depth of 1.1 m (Ford 2013, 2). The proposed new turf will have an additional layer of sand over the existing fill to assist in surface drainage and stability. 20 Lowell Avenue, Kingsbury (McAlister 2014) McAlister conducted a CHMP for a residential subdivision in Kingsbury, located approximately 500m north west of the current activity area. This activity area is situated within 200m of Darebin Creek and contains an existing dwelling, concrete driveway and associated structures (McAlister 2014, 1). There is a surface artefact scatter located outside of the activity area within the Darebin Creek Reserve. A standard assessment was undertaken, and poor ground surface visibility was noted (McAlister 2014, 26). Due to the low surface visibility, it was difficult to assess the archaeological sensitivity of the activity area, and a complex assessment was undertaken. A 1x1m test pit and four shovel test pits were excavated across the activity area. Fill deposits were noted in several of the test pits, and introduced materials were also present (McAlister 2014, 31). Soils were compact and shallow (clay was encountered at approximately 200mm). There was no Aboriginal cultural heritage identified, and the consultant concluded that modifications to the activity area from the construction of the dwelling and associated structures has brought about a significant level of disturbance. 7 Argyle Street, Macleod (Matic 2015) Matic (2015) conducted a CHMP for a residential development at Macleod, located approximately 1.1km east of the current activity area. The activity area is situated within 200m of Mile Creek and contains an existing dwelling, garden and driveway as well as a small shed. A standard assessment was undertaken, and ground surface visibility was hampered by lawn growth and the existing structures (Matic 2015, 22). Matic noted significant levels of previous disturbance around the location of the dwelling and structures. The garden area was deemed to be possibly less disturbed and a complex assessment was undertaken. A 1x1m test pit and eight shovel test pits were excavated, and soils were found to be shallow with thin topsoil overlying clayey silt with ironstone gravels and clay across the base. No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified. Matic concluded that the sloping topography of the activity area may have deterred Aboriginal people from using this area, with more suitable flatter landforms located nearby (Matic 2015, 31). La Trobe University Melbourne Campus Cultural Values Assessment (Spry et. al 2016a) Andrew Long and Associates was commissioned by La Trobe University to undertake a cultural values assessment of the Melbourne campus in 2015. The main objective of the cultural values assessment (CVA) was to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus, by working with WWCHAC to research and document the Indigenous cultural values of the Melbourne campus and surrounding areas. A targeted cultural values recording was undertaken over a one-day period on 17 December 2015. Invitations had been extended to three female Wurundjeri Elders and three male Wurundjeri Elders (two representatives from each Wurundjeri family) to participate in the cultural values recording. Present at the cultural values recording was Ron Jones (Wurundjeri Elder, representing the Nevin family) and Allan Wandin (Wurundjeri Elder, representing the Wandin family). The cultural values recording documented landscapes and archaeological sites of cultural value to the Wurundjeri through stories and discussions that substantiate the associations between the Wurundjeri community, the study area and wider region. Consultation as part of the cultural values assessment resulted in the formation of a number of key statements and findings. • The study area is a small component of a much wider cultural landscape. The importance of the wider region as a cultural landscape has been demonstrated through a combination of known material remains (i.e. archaeological sites) and sociocultural significance detailed by the Wurundjeri Elders throughout the cultural values recording.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 62

• The study area is a significant landscape with tangible and intangible connections for the present-day Wurundjeri community due to its multi-layered past and present social history. • Darebin creek and its tributaries are of substantial cultural significance to contemporary Wurundjeri people. The creek remains an important cultural link to Wurundjeri’s pre-contact and post-contact heritage in the study area. • The ultimate focus of the Wurundjeri is to return the environment to its original condition. For Indigenous people, natural and cultural values are often indivisible. Therefore, Indigenous cultural values encompass native flora, fauna and geological features. The incorporation of Indigenous cultural values into future developments within the Melbourne campus can be obtained through a collaborative approach between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council. Potential next steps outlined include: • Increased communication between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council regarding future developments within the study area (particularly in relation to Darebin creek); • A focus on the rehabilitation of the Darebin creek landscape through consultation with the Wurundjeri Council and the Wurundjeri Green Team; • A collaboration between the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Wurundjeri Council to ensure the alignment of indigenous values with those of the Wildlife Sanctuary, through: o The engagement of the Wurundjeri Green Team to assist in the long-term restoration of indigenous habitats within the Wildlife Sanctuary; and o To provide an opportunity for groups to engage with Indigenous educators by incorporating an Indigenous education programme provided by the Wurundjeri Education Department. • Discussions around increasing awareness of Indigenous cultural values within the study area in order to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus; and • Increased opportunities for the Wurundjeri to participate in future campus development, the preparation of a reconciliation plan and be involved in managing Indigenous cultural values within the study area. La Trobe University Melbourne Campus Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Spry et. al 2016b) Andrew Long and Associates was commissioned by La Trobe University to undertake a cultural values assessment of the Melbourne campus in 2015. No specific high impact activity was proposed in relation to the voluntary cultural heritage management plan. However, La Trobe University were committed to engaging with the Wurundjeri Council to be aware of the cultural values and archaeological potential of the University campus to inform potential designs for future development. The study area comprised the Melbourne campus of La Trobe University and encompasses the current activity area. The field survey was conducted over a one-day period on 4 February 2016. A total of six Investigation Areas (IA) were identified, based on particular landform features and levels of disturbance noted during the standard assessment. These IAs were giving an archaeological sensitivity and a disturbance rating, and these ratings were then multiplied to provide an APR for each investigation area. At the completion of the survey, IA-5 was identified to have undergone the highest level of ground disturbance, largely due to the construction and maintenance of the University campus. Investigation area IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, IA-4a were each identified to have undergone a moderate level of ground disturbance. IA-4b experienced a low-moderate level of ground disturbance through the impact of land clearing and parkland maintenance. The six investigation areas had an effective surface visibility ranging from 1-15%. In accordance with r. 59 (3) the field survey included the

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 63

examination of all potential mature trees for signs of scarring. The field survey identified no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances within the study area. There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of the CHMP. These comprised two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218, VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). The two previously registered scarred trees VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668 were re- identified and subject to a thorough investigation as part of the standard assessment. The remaining previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places, including three artefact scatters, (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366) were also subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment. No physical manifestation of these places was identified. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified within the activity area by the completion of the standard assessment. The results of the standard assessment supported the findings of previous archaeological investigations relating to proposed activities within and adjacent to the study area. The standard assessment demonstrated evidence of previous disturbance associated with the development and maintenance of the La Trobe University campus, as well as the agricultural, residential, recreational and medical uses of the activity area since European settlement (Weaver 1991, Barker 2012, McAlister 2014 and Matic 2015). These previous investigations indicate that there is a varying level of previous disturbance within the activity area, affecting the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage material in these areas. The results of this assessment also support the results of Weaver and Thomson who indicate that the Darebin Creek reserve and the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road to contain moderate archaeological potential (Weaver 1991 and Thomson 2002). The results of the standard assessment confirm the findings of the desktop assessment, which indicated that the levels of previous disturbance within the study area would affect the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. No specific activity was proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Therefore, a complex assessment in order to enable a proper investigation of the potential for sub-surface Aboriginal cultural heritage places to be present, and to identify the nature, extent and significance of any Aboriginal cultural heritage as established under Regulation 60 (1b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), was not required. The recommendations contained in this CHMP were intended to inform, align expectations and establish a set of guidelines to inform the nature of future heritage assessment works at the La Trobe University Campus, Bundoora. Note that all future development activities within the current activity area will be separately subject to the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). The results of the assessments undertaken as part of the CHMP demonstrated a moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-1 and IA-4b, a low- moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-2, IA-3 and IA-4a, and a low potential for potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-5. These archaeological potential ratings may be applied to future CHMPs within the activity area as a basis for consultation with the RAP and in preparation of appropriate methodologies for undertaking complex assessments, if required. By incorporating the results of the CHMP into future development plans at the University Campus, the impact of future developments on Indigenous tangible and intangible cultural heritage values may be more appropriately managed. Both the Wurundjeri Council and La Trobe specified that they would like to establish a more formalised consultation process regarding future development within the study area. This may involve the following:

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 64

• Establishing a consultation process between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council regarding relevant future developments within the activity area; • A focus on the rehabilitation of the Darebin Creek landscape through consultation with the Wurundjeri Council and the Wurundjeri Green Team (Narrap Team); • A collaboration between the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Wurundjeri Council to ensure the alignment of indigenous values with those of the Wildlife Sanctuary; and • Increased opportunities for the Wurundjeri to participate in future campus development, the preparation of a reconciliation plan and involvement in managing Indigenous cultural values within the activity area. La Trobe University Sports Park Stage One (Spry 2017) In 2017 Spry undertook a CHMP for the La Trobe University Sports Park. A standard assessment took place and three investigation areas, IA 1, IA 5A and IA 5B were identified and given archaeological sensitivity and disturbance ratings, providing an archaeological potential rating for each area. The IA 1 comprised the area directly adjacent to Darebin Creek, IA 5A included the area directly adjacent to Darebin Creek and including Sports Fields Lake, and IA 5B included the remainder of the activity area including the existing sports fields and car parks. Archaeological sensitivity ratings were rated as high in IA 1 and moderate in IA 5A and IA 5B. A varying level of previous disturbance was noted within the activity area, ranging from high in IA 5B, moderate high in IA 5A, and moderate in IA 1. Previously registered Aboriginal places within the activity area were also subject to inspection. A complex assessment took place with a 1x1m test pit and twenty 50x50cm shovel test pits excavated. The complex testing focused on areas that would be impacted by the proposed works to identify and document the extent, nature and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage that is threatened by the proposed activity. Therefore, subsurface testing was not carried out in areas where it was not proposed the activity would cause any harm and subsurface testing was also avoided if it was deemed to cause more harm than the proposed activity. As the area IA 5A was an area where the proposed activity would not cause harm, this area was not subject to complex assessment testing. There was no Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during the complex assessment. Reasonably shallow volcanic soils generally consisting of dark brown to black silty clay to clay containing basalt inclusions were noted. Place inspection forms were submitted to the VAHR for the previously registered Aboriginal places. Two of these places, 7922-2010 and 7922-0218 will not be harmed by the proposed activity, however one Aboriginal place, 7922-0219 will be harmed, and the area will be subject to a compliance inspection as part of the approved conditions for CHMP 14498. 4-8 Browning Street Kingsbury Residential Subdivision (Cole and Goh 2018) In 2018, Cole and Goh undertook a CHMP for a residential subdivision at 4-8 Browning Street Kingsbury, located to the west of the current activity area. The activity area is located within 200m of Darebin Creek. The CHMP included desktop, standard and complex assessments. The results of the desktop assessment indicated that a previously registered artefact scatter, 7922-0224 represented by 24 surface artefacts was located approximately 250m north west of the activity area on the Darebin Creek floodplain. During the standard assessment poor ground surface visibility was noted, and a complex assessment was then carried out. A total of ten 50x50cm shovel test pits and a 1x1m test pit were excavated. Soil profiles were relatively consistent containing a range of introduced fill materials overlying a shallow basal clay generally reached at a depth range of 150-250mm. A high level of ground disturbance was noted across most of the activity area, and asbestos was identified at several locations. No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified during the CHMP, likely due to the high levels of previous ground disturbance.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 65

7.10 A review of the history of the use of the activity area

Aboriginal peoples’ occupation of the geographic region 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. Historical European land use within the activity area will have impacted upon the preservation of archaeological materials relating to pre-existing Aboriginal occupation of the area. Vegetation clearance, agriculture, cultivation, the sub-division of lots and construction of buildings will have contributed to the disturbance of surface and shallow subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage. This section contains a brief synthesis of the historical development of the geographic region containing the activity area during the 19th century. The following synthesis represents a generalised historical sketch of the development of the region. In 1835, Captain William Lonsdale arrived in Melbourne and became the first Administrator of Port Phillip (Newnham 1956, 8). At the time, the European settlement consisted of around 224-186 males, and 38 females occupying 43 residences. The residents were informed that His Majesty’s Government had authorised the settlement at Port Phillip, and that a survey of the land would be undertaken, and that land would then be available at public auctions. Later that year the first overlanders arrived with cattle and established cattle run near Gardiner’s Creek (Newnham 1956, 9). The first public auction sale of land took place on 1 June 1837, and 100 city lots were rapidly purchased. By the end of 1837, Melbourne’s population was 1,300 people, and Melbourne’s first newspaper, the Melbourne Advertiser came out on New Years’ Day 1838. In 1839, Charles Joseph La Trobe became the first Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, and the first Governor when the Colony of Victoria was established in 1851. Later that year, gold was discovered in the Ballarat region, triggering the era of the Victorian gold rush. The population of Victoria expanded during this time, with 77,000 inhabitants just prior to the first major gold rush and in 1854 to 237,000 people, and 410,000 people in 1857, and in 1861, 540,000 people (Cannon 1993, 1). The gold rush brought about a boom in the development of Melbourne, with the number of buildings in and around Melbourne multiplying by the end of 1852 from 1,000 to 5,000 (Cannon 1993, 6). By the mid-1850s, the inner-city of Melbourne in areas such as Collingwood and Richmond were characterised by industries set- up along the flat northern bank of the Yarra (Davison 1978, 44), with the Yarra River being utilised as both a reservoir and a sewer. The Yarra pollution Act was passed in 1855 to restrict any further pollution of this water source, however further industrial developments in the Melbourne region during the 1860s continued to build up the riverside suburbs. The southern and eastern suburbs of Melbourne flourished during the end of the 1850s, with substantial middle-class villas and mansions being constructed (Cannon 1993, 7). In 1858, the first Spencer Street Station (now Southern Cross) was constructed and opened in 1869. During the late 1850s, better roads and the establishment of railways accelerated the suburban boom of Melbourne (Cannon 1993, 250). By the late 1880s, mixed farming of this area became more common, with a focus on dairying and the cultivation of crops such as oats, peas and potatoes (Peel 1974, 43). Market gardening along the Darebin Creek was also occurred, predominantly between the years of 1919-1935. After 1940 the area surrounding Darebin Creek was rapidly developed for industrial uses such as the construction of factories, and for recreational purposes, for example the development of parklands, ovals and golf courses (Feldman 2004, 14). These types of development involved the extensive modification to the banks of the Darebin Creek and associated floodplains, including the introduction of fill and the levelling of ground surfaces (Weaver 1992, 16).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 66

In the 1940s, a post-war development boom was evident in the area with the construction of factories, parklands and recreation reserves occurring along both sides of Darebin Creek. These developments resulted in extensive disturbance to the Darebin Creek corridor, with the introduction of fill, levelling of surfaces and modification to the course of the creek (Weaver 1992, 16). In 1967, the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University opened (Thomson 2002, 13) which would have brought about further alteration to the landforms within the region. Modifications to the Darebin Creek continued during the 1970s and 1980s, with the establishment of the Bundoora Park Golf Course and parklands (Weaver 1992, 16). During the mid-1980s, parts of the Darebin Creek near La Trobe University were cleaned out and channelised (Weaver 1992, 16). The Darebin Creek tributary, Strathallan Creek, is the only tributary of the Darebin Creek that has not been channelled. Strathallan creek runs directly through La Trobe University, and the conservation of this creek has undertaken by the university through a series of ponds, wetlands and moats (Thomson 2002, 7). The current activity area includes Crown Allotment 10 in the Parish of Keelbundora and was originally purchased on 12 September 1838 by Neil Campbell who came from Scotland (Venosta et. al 2015, 8). Campbell purchased large portions of land in Bundoora and Darebin, which he sold in 1842 to Malcolm McLean (or Allan McLean) who established the grazing property later known as ‘Strathallan’ (Forster 1968, 16; Venosta et. al 2015, 9). McLean donated the land that is currently utilised as the Preston cemetery, which was then known as Strathallan cemetery. Strathallan Creek was named after Malcolm McLean. Around 1908, the Victorian government purchased the land to establish a mental hospital, due to overcrowding at the Kew and Fairfield facilities (Venosta et. al 2015, 9). The first buildings constructed around 1911-1913 and included the Farmers Workers Block (currently known as the Kingsbury Centre), the Paying Patients Wards, an administration building, laundry facilities and a railway line (Venosta et. al 2015, 10). Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, additional buildings were constructed, including a nursing home, hospital block and mortuary, isolation wards and a kiosk. The hospital grounds were also extensively landscaped, and a nursery was developed as well as croquet lawn, a Nymphaea pond, and a large orchard was also built prior to 1914 (Venosta et. al 2015, 10). Patients of the Mont Park asylum worked as blacksmiths, carpenters and farming, with excess produce sold. From 1924, the Bundoora repatriation hospital joined the Mont Park establishment, and in 1938, Larundel also became part of Mont Park. The location of the current La Trobe wildlife sanctuary is largely modified from through a long site history of agricultural land use. The sanctuary also encompasses areas of Mont Park that were utilised for recreation, such as the cricket pitch and oval, tennis courts and gardens. During the 1960s, there were plans to open another university in Melbourne and the landscaped grounds of the Bundoora land including the current activity area were chosen for the site of La Trobe University (Venosta et. al 2015, 13). The construction of the university campus greatly modified many sections of the current activity area, in particular the central sections of the main campus, including alterations to the watercourses in the activity area (see Plate 1 and Plate 2 for several examples of construction at the campus).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 67

Plate 1: 1972, Union Building Construction La Trobe University Bundoora.9

Plate 2: 1967, Construction of carpark Kingsbury Drive La Trobe University Bundoora

9 Photos of university construction sourced from La Trobe University website, https://50years.latrobe/galleries/changing-la-trobe-landscape/ - accessed 18-06-2019

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 68

Plate 3: 1968, Construction of moat La Trobe University Bundoora

7.11 Conclusions

By comparing the results of background research and archaeological investigations previously undertaken within the geographic region, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the likely nature of Aboriginal archaeological materials and cultural heritage places within the activity area: • The activity area includes a generally modified landscape containing the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University, with recreational sports fields adjacent to Darebin Creek, and the wildlife sanctuary and Gresswell Lakes located to the north. • The activity area falls within a region that was most probably associated with the Woi wurrung Aboriginal group. The Woi wurrung clan most closely associated with the geographic region were the Wurundjeri willam, who identified with the Yarra and Plenty rivers. • The activity area has been re-vegetated largely with some remnant mature native vegetation such as River Red Gums along Darebin Creek. The geology of the activity area primarily comprises Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo), with some alluvium (Qa1) and Melbourne Formation (Sxm) with smaller representations of Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr) and sub-basaltic sediments (Nxp). • At the time of the commencement of this CHMP there were five registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area; a scarred tree (VAHR 7922-0218) three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922- 0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one low density artefact distribution (7922-1366). • There is a total of 54 registered Aboriginal places in the geographic region containing the activity area. These Aboriginal places include 38 artefact scatters, 1 quarry, 4 low density artefact distributions (LDAD), 1 artefact scatter/quarry, 1 historical reference and 9 scarred trees. • Weaver’s 1992 survey of Darebin Creek indicates a level of modification has taken place to land surfaces associated with the creek. Weaver noted that the presence of silcrete outcrops at Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park is likely to have attracted Aboriginal people to the current geographic region, and the northern section of the Darebin Creek area, situated within the activity area, may have higher potential to contain further Aboriginal sites.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 69

• Andrew Long and Associates was commissioned by La Trobe University to undertake a CHMP the Melbourne campus in 2015. No specific high impact activity was proposed in relation to the voluntary cultural heritage management plan. The recommendations contained in this CHMP were intended to inform, align expectations and establish a set of guidelines to inform the nature of future heritage assessment works at the La Trobe University Campus, Bundoora. • Recent CHMPs in the geographic region (Barker 2012, McAlister 2014, Matic 2015, Spry et. al 2016b and Spry 2017) indicate that disturbances caused by modifications to the La Trobe University Campus have impacted on any Aboriginal cultural heritage that may have been located in these areas. Shallow soil profiles have also been noted, along with the presence of fill and introduced materials. • A soil investigation of the Lower Playing Field at the La Trobe Campus directly adjacent to sections of the activity area revealed fill within the existing sports playing fields due to the natural topography of the area that has now been altered to form a level sports ground. The fill material consisted of a grey brown silty sand to 0.3-0.4 m, becoming a light brown fine gravelly sand to 0.5 m before becoming grey and brown silty clay fill to a maximum depth of 1.1 m (Ford 2013). • Watercourses within the activity area include Strathallan Creek, Sports Fields Lake and landforms associated with the nearby Darebin Creek, as well as Gresswell Lake to the north. • Previously registered Aboriginal places within the current geographic region are generally associated with landforms adjacent to creek margins and water sources. • The land comprising the activity area has been subject to agricultural, recreational and educational uses since European settlement. These previous and current land uses will have modified the landforms of the activity area, bringing about various levels of disturbance. The results of the desktop assessment have demonstrated that it is possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage will be present within the activity area. On this basis, a standard assessment was carried out in accordance with Regulation 62 (1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) (see Section 8 for details).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 70

8. STANDARD ASSESSMENT

8.1 Introduction

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

8.2 Previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places

There were five registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These places comprise a registered scarred tree (VAHR 7922-0218), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, 7922-0219 and 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (LDAD), VAHR 7922-1366 (Map 2).

8.3 Method of assessment

8.3.1 Aims The aims of the current field survey were threefold: • to re-inspect previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area (i.e. VAHR 7922-0218, 7922-0210, 7922-0219, 7922-0986 and 7922-1366); • to inspect all areas with ground surface visibility for Aboriginal archaeological sites within the activity area; and • to undertake a general assessment of the overall archaeological potential of the activity area. The field survey was conducted over a one-day period on 28 August 2018. Participants in the field survey are listed in Table 6.

8.3.2 Survey methodology The field survey methodology was dictated by the need to systematically examine the activity area, with a particular emphasis placed on thoroughly examining the areas to be impacted by the proposed eco-corridor activities. The methodology also included the completion of place inspections at the five registered Aboriginal places, attempting to re-identify these five places and inspecting their current condition. There have been two previous approved CHMPs completed for sections of the current CHMP. These approved CHMPs include CHMP 13756 (Albrecht, Feldman and Spry 2016) and CHMP 14498 (Spry 2017). The activity area for CHMP 13756 included the entire La Trobe University Bundoora Campus. During the standard assessment for CHMP 13756, the activity area (- the campus grounds) were divided into a series of six investigation areas (IAs) including IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, IA-4a, IA-4b and IA-5. The approved CHMP 14498 also included a standard assessment which focused on the Sports Park area of the La Trobe Campus and the area around Darebin Creek. During the standard assessment for CHMP 14498, the assessment slightly modified the divisions of the investigation areas, creating a subdivision of IA-5 (IA-5a and IA-5b) to better define the land and land uses around the sports fields and sports fields lake. For consistency, the current CHMP (15724) will utilise the previous IA definitions as set out

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 71

in the two approved CHMPs, 13756 and 14498. The specific definitions of these IAs is set out below in Section 8.3. A systematic pedestrian survey was undertaken within investigation area 1 (IA-1), investigation area 5a (IA-5A) and investigation 4c (IA-4c) with each member of the field team spaced approximately 5 m apart. This spacing enabled each individual to examine all surface exposures within the activity area in accordance with archaeological practice outlined in Burke and Smith (2004, 65-69). Due to the highly modified land surfaces within IA 5B and the lack of visibility within investigation area 4a (IA-4a, additionally, there are no impacts from the activities for this CHMP proposed within IA-4a) these investigation areas were subject to an opportunistic, targeted survey rather than transects. Pedestrian spacing was sufficient to identify any areas of significant ground exposure. There were very few areas containing patches of exposed soil within the activity area, and any exposed were targeted and thoroughly investigated. The average ground surface visibility of the activity area ranged between 1- 5 percent at the time of the survey.

8.3.3 Establishing investigation areas In order to appropriately describe the varying locations, land forms, potential archaeological sensitivity, remnant vegetation, and the extent of ground surface disturbance encountered during the field survey, the activity area was divided into a number of investigation (numbered IA-1, IA-5a and IA-5b, IA-4a and IA-4c) (Table 10, Map 12, Table 12 to Table 16). IA-1 IA-1 is characterised by the Darebin Creek Reserve within the La Trobe campus. IA-1 is bounded by Darebin Creek to the west, Plenty Road to the north, the La Trobe sports grounds to the east and Crissane Road to the south. IA-1 has a total land area of ha. Effective survey coverage is 10627.03m2. IA-5a IA-5a is characterised by the Sports Fields Lake and surrounding area. IA-5A is bounded by the Darebin creek reserve to the west, IA-5b to the north, Crissane Road to the south and Kingsbury Drive to the east. IA-5 has a total land area of ha. Effective survey coverage is 20617.95 m2. IA-5b IA-5b is characterised by heavily developed parts of the current University sports fields area and car parks as well as the modified sections of the La Trobe campus including sealed surfaces and sections of the eco-corridor that traverse land directly adjacent to the main university buildings. IA-5b is bounded by sports ovals and university campus to the west, IA-5a to the south and the Wildlife Sanctuary (IA-4a) to the north. IA-5b has a total land area of ha. Effective survey coverage is 4290.57 m2. IA-4a IA-4a is defined as the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary. IA-4a is bounded by La Trobe Avenue to the west, Main Drive to the north, residential developments to the east and IA-4b to the south. IA-4a has a total land area of 36 ha. Effective survey coverage is 2845.18 m2. IA-4c IA-4c is defined as the Gresswell lakes area adjacent to a golf course. This land is currently managed by Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and is bounded on the south by Main Drive, residences to the west and east and the Strathallan Golf Course and Club to the north. Effective survey coverage is 3717.64 m2.

Investigation Average ground Total land area Effective survey surface visibility (sq. m) coverage (sq. m) Unit IA-1 9% 118078.14 10627.03 IA-5a 6.3% 327269.07 20617.95 IA-5b 9% 47673.01 4290.57

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 72

Investigation Average ground Total land area Effective survey surface visibility (sq. m) coverage (sq. m) Unit IA-4a 2.7% 105376.96 2845.18 IA-4c 2.7% 137690.34 3717.64 Total 5.7% 736087.53 42098.37

Table 10: Effective Survey Coverage

In accordance with Regulation 63(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic) the field survey included the examination of all mature indigenous trees within the activity area. There were a number of mature eucalyptus trees growing within the activity area and these were all inspected for cultural scarring, with no culturally scarred trees identified.

8.3.4 Establishing archaeological sensitivity and levels of ground disturbance As a component of the field survey and as a means of informing the conduct of the subsequent complex assessment, the activity area was divided into several Investigation Areas (IA) as outlined above. These are based on a combination of location and landform. These IAs were then further divided into units based on current land uses and levels of ground disturbance (Map 11; Table 12 to Table 16). Each investigation area was assessed in terms of the overall archaeological sensitivity and the overall disturbance of the area. The initial archaeological sensitivity rating was based on the outcomes of the desktop assessment and the results of the field assessment in CHMP 13756 and CHMP 14498 and was subsequently modified as a result of observations made during the field survey. For example, previously identified places within the geographic region containing the activity area were generally located in association with water sources and on landforms such as on elevated rises and ridges. Previous archaeological investigations within the geographic region have also indicated that Aboriginal cultural heritage places such as stone artefact occurrences are present on landforms located in proximity to watercourses (along Darebin Creek) and on elevated rises. On the basis of this data an initial higher sensitivity was expected in similar areas within the activity area. Following this methodology each investigation area was assigned an archaeological sensitivity rating, reflecting the environmental and cultural value of a location, and a disturbance rating, reflecting the compound impact of past and present land uses. • Archaeological sensitivity ratings ranged from moderate-high to low-moderate and were based on a variety of factors including proximity to water, landform, elevation, vegetation type, RAP viewpoints and the presence or absence of identified cultural heritage. • Disturbance ratings were based on a range from moderate-high to moderate, with the ratings values sequence reversed. The disturbance ratings assigned to each investigation area were based on factors such as the extent of landscape modification by activities including the previous and current land uses of each IA, the development of sports oval and grounds, and the ongoing development and maintenance of the La Trobe University campus (Map 12, Map 12). The majority of the activity area had poor ground surface visibility, with built structures, pathways, dense grass and trees across the undulating landform which comprised the activity area. In accordance with Regulation 63 (3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), the field survey included the examination of all mature indigenous trees within the activity area and checked for the presence of caves and rock shelter.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 73

8.4 Obstacles

Given the location of carparks, sports fields, sealed roads, footpaths and tracks and built-up areas within the activity area, ground surface visibility was limited in sections of each IA. Dense ground cover of introduced grass and weed species was evident in investigation areas IA-1, IA-5a and IA-5b. Dense ground cover was also evident within IA-4a and IA-4c, with leaf litter and grasses obscuring the ground surface. University development, including sports fields and asphalted or paved surfaces (e.g. roadway, gutters, footpaths, carparks) occupied most of investigation areas IA-5a and IA-5b, and some paved and gravelled surfaces were also present within sections of investigation area IA-1. Investigation area IA-1 demonstrated variable ground surface visibility through thick shrubbery, tall grasses and compacted and often gravelled track surfaces.

8.5 Participants involved in the standard assessment

The participants in the standard assessment are listed in Table 11.

Participant Organisation Position Component Date(s) Melinda Albrecht ALA Project Manager Standard assessment 28-08-2018

Annie Reich ALA Project Standard assessment 28-08-2018 Archaeologist Gary Galway WWCHAC WWCHAC Standard assessment 28-08-2018 representative Travis Smith WWCHAC WWCHAC Standard assessment 28-08-2018 representative

Table 11: Participants involved in the standard assessment

8.6 RAP information

As set out in Regulation 63 (2) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), the standard assessment may include the collection and review of oral history relating to the activity area. Prior to the commencement of the standard assessment, the RAP representatives listed in Table 6 and Table 11 were asked if they had any oral history information about the activity area. Following this request, no oral information was provided by WWCHAC RAP representatives listed in Table 6 and Table 11. Andrew Long and Associates were commissioned by La Trobe University to undertake a cultural values assessment of the Bundoora campus in 2015. The main objective of the cultural values assessment was to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus, by working with Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (WWCHAC) to research and document the Indigenous cultural values of the Melbourne campus and surrounding areas. Please see Section 7.9.2 for a summary of the key findings and recommendations of the cultural values assessment (Spry et. al 2016a).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 74

8.7 Results

The landform of the activity area comprises generally low terrain in the south to south west around the Darebin Creek, gently rising in elevation with the more elevated terrain located in the northern sections. For the purposes of the CHMP field survey the activity area was divided into five investigation areas (see Section 8.3 and Map 11 to Map 12). Location, landform and topographic features were taken into consideration in the establishment of investigation areas. In accordance with r. 59 (3) the field survey included the examination of all potential mature trees for signs of scarring. The field survey identified no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances within the activity area. Although several mature red gum trees contained signs of scarring, none of this scarring was cultural in origin. All of the five registered Aboriginal places were inspected as part of the standard assessment. Only one of the five previously registered Aboriginal places were re-identified, an artefact scatter, VAHR 7922-0210 originally recorded by Weaver in 1991. During the current CHMP assessment, a number of Aboriginal stone artefacts were identified along and adjacent to an informal walking track to the south west and to the north west of the registered place, 7922-0210. Due to the proximity of these Aboriginal artefacts to the original registration 7922-0210, it is highly likely that this cultural material forms part of the assemblage from 7922-0210 as raw materials similar to those recorded by Weaver are present, such as grey and grey and cream streaked silcrete. The previously registered scarred tree, VAHR 7922-0218 which had been subject to two place inspections for CHMP 13756 and CHMP 14498, was not re-identified during the current CHMP assessment. During the CHMP 13756 and 14498 standard assessment place inspections It is likely that another tree was erroneously identified as the scarred tree that had been previously registered as VAHR 7922-0218 by Weaver in 1991. The original registration for this tree shows a diagram of the scar and the photographs of what was believed to be this tree taken in 2016 and 2017 show a different type of scar, and also indicate that the scar is likely not cultural in origin; the scar is not uniform in size and shape, and the tree appears to contain damage including faunal damage from insect boring activity. Aerial photograph investigations as part of the current CHMP revealed that the tree originally registered by Weaver may have fallen probably as early as 2000 as it is not visible as a tree in historical aerials beyond this period. Additionally, an assessment of potential scarred trees in the Darebin Creek area including sections of the current activity area undertaken by Amorosi, Bell, Cekalovic, Greenwood, Hill, Munro, Reeves and Tunn in May 1997 re-assessed VAHR 7922-0218. The results of this reassessment resulted in a recommendation that 7922-0218 contained non-cultural scarring and should be removed from the AV site register. The consultants found that all of the trees assessed indicated either burning as a result of lightning or fire, or knot marks and irregular layering of the bark on the interior surface from limb breakage (Amorosi et al. 1997, 3). The tree that was investigated during CHMPs 13756 and 14498 and erroneously identified as VAHR 7922-0218 is not located at the registered co-ordinates for 7922-0218, nor is it visible in the vicinity of this area. On 25 January 2019, Matthew Chamberlain, Project Manager and archaeologist for the Cultural Heritage Unit of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation, sent an email to Melinda Albrecht to confirm that the information that had been sent through regarding the previously registered tree VAHR 7922-0218 had been reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Unit and the Elders. Matthew Chamberlain indicated that it was agreed that the tree should be de-registered or treated as a non- site. This email was then sent onto Aboriginal Victoria on 29 January 2019 along with a Place Inspection Form and additional information regarding VAHR 7922-0218. On 30 May 2019 the VAHR verified that 7922-0218 would be now treated as a non-site. The remaining registered Aboriginal places within the current activity area could not be re-identified during the standard assessment; the artefact scatter, 7922-0219, represented by an isolated artefact originally found by Weaver in 1991, is currently located on a sealed vehicular track in a highly disturbed

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 75

context. The LDAD, 7922-1366 represented by a single quartz flake was also not re-located although the place was subject to a thorough inspection during the current standard assessment. Similarly, the artefact scatter, 7922-0986 represented by a single quartz flake that was found by Freslov in 2005, was not re-located during the current standard assessment. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage places were identified during the standard assessment. Summary descriptions of all Investigation Areas (IAs) are presented in Table 12 to Table 16.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 76

Investigation Area 1 Survey Method Pedestrian Sampling Strategy Systematic No. of Participants 4 Transect Width 8m Transect Spacing 2m Visibility Exposure(s) Very occasional exposures beneath trees, by tracks % ground cover on 10 exposure(s) % surface visibility on 90 exposure(s) % ground cover off 70 exposure(s) Plate 4: Location of previously registered Aboriginal % surface visibility off 0 place 7922-0218 looking south east exposure(s) Average ground surface 9% visibility of Investigation Unit Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform, Land systems, Lowland Elevations Slope Flat to very gently inclined (<0.5° -1.5°) Locality Landforms Floodplain, Volcanic Plain Water Darebin Creek Disturbance Vegetation clearance, modification around Creek associated with sports fields and earlier land uses Plate 5: Typical ground surface visibility of IA-1 at Previous + Current Land use Clearing, possible grazing, location of previously registered artefact scatter 7922- recreational Vegetation 0210, looking south west Vegetation Condition Remnant native and modified native vegetation Vegetation Type Grassland and Forest Major Vegetation Types Melaleuca and Red Gum Aboriginal Place Identified YES; reidentified 7922- 0210. Unable to reidentify 7922-0218 Type Surface artefact scatter List Aboriginal stone artefacts Archaeology Sensitivity Moderate-high Rating Disturbance Rating Moderate Potential Archaeological Moderate-high Deposits Rating Comments Although modified, IA is located adjacent to Darebin Creek Table 12: Investigation Area 1 (IA-1).

Plate 6: Example of mature red gum within IA, facing

north west

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 77

Investigation Area 5a Survey Method Pedestrian Sampling Strategy Systematic No. of Participants 4 Transect Width 8m Transect Spacing 2m Visibility Exposure(s) Occasional soil exposures beside track and near trees % ground cover on 7 exposure(s) % surface visibility on 90 exposure(s) % ground cover off 93 exposure(s) % surface visibility off 0 exposure(s) Average ground surface 6.3% visibility of Investigation Unit Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform, Land systems, Lowland Elevations Slope Flat to very gently Inclined (<0.5° -1.5°) Plate 7: IA-5a looking west Locality Landforms Flats/Plain/Volcanic Plain; floodplain Water Sports field lake; Darebin Creek Disturbance Sports fields, modifications Previous + Current Land use University sports fields, possibly some agricultural Vegetation Vegetation Condition Remnant native and modified native vegetation Vegetation Type Grassland and Forest Major Vegetation Types -- Aboriginal Place Identified NO; 7922-0219 not re- identified Plate 8: Location of previously registered Aboriginal Type - place 7922-0219, looking south List - Archaeology Sensitivity Moderate Rating

Disturbance Rating Moderate-high Potential Archaeological Low-moderate Deposits Rating Comments Modified Sports field lake area containing sealed sections of bike path Table 13: Investigation Area 5a (IA-5a).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 78

Investigation Area 5b Survey Method Pedestrian Sampling Strategy Systematic No. of Participants 4 Transect Width 8m Transect Spacing 2m Visibility Exposure(s) Very occasional exposures of soil; landscaped areas; many sealed surfaces % ground cover on 10 exposure(s) % surface visibility on 90 exposure(s) % ground cover off 80 Plate 9: Location of previously registered Aboriginal exposure(s) place 7922-1366 looking north % surface visibility off 0 exposure(s) Average ground surface 9% visibility of Investigation Unit Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform, Land systems, Lowland Elevations Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating plain Water Modified eco-corridor extending from Sports fields Lake; Modified Strathallan Creek Disturbance Modification; construction of university Plate 10: Modified land surfaces of IA-5b looking and grounds west Previous + Current Land use Agricultural, educational Vegetation Modified native vegetation with occasional remnant vegetation Vegetation Condition Forest, grassland Vegetation Type Modified native and remnant Major Vegetation Types -- Aboriginal Place Identified NO; 7922-1366 not reidentified during inspection Type - List - Archaeology Sensitivity Moderate Rating Disturbance Rating Moderate-high Potential Archaeological Low Deposits Rating Comments Highly modified for current land uses including construction of university Table 14: Investigation Area 5b (IA-5b).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 79

Investigation Area 4a Survey Method Pedestrian Sampling Strategy Systematic No. of Participants 4 Transect Width 8m Transect Spacing 2m Visibility Exposure(s) Occasional soil exposures around trees and tracks % ground cover on 3 exposure(s) % surface visibility on 90 exposure(s) % ground cover off 97 exposure(s) Plate 11: IA-4a looking south east from registered % surface visibility off 0 location of 7922-0986 exposure(s) Average ground surface 2.7% visibility of Investigation Unit Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform, Land systems, Lowland Elevations Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating Plain Water Tributary of Strathallan Creek Disturbance Agricultural, ploughing, former hospital modifications relating to recreation Previous + Current Land use Clearing, agriculture, Plate 12: Typical ground surface visibility of IA-4a, hospital, recreational looking north east Vegetation Vegetation Condition Modified and remnant native vegetation Vegetation Type Grassland and forest Major Vegetation Types -- Aboriginal Place Identified NO; registered place 7922-0986 not reidentified Type - List - Archaeology Sensitivity Moderate Rating Disturbance Rating Moderate Potential Archaeological Moderate Deposits Rating Comments Some modification due to Plate 13: Example of mature red gum within IA-4a, previous uses; land is looking east situated adjacent to tributary Table 15: Investigation Area 4a (IA-4a).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 80

Investigation Area 4c Survey Method Pedestrian Sampling Strategy Systematic No. of Participants 4 Transect Width 8m Transect Spacing 2m Visibility Exposure(s) Occasional exposures around trees and tracks and near golf club % ground cover on 3 exposure(s) % surface visibility on 90 exposure(s) % ground cover off 97 Plate 14: IA-4c looking north west near Gresswell Lake exposure(s) % surface visibility off 0 exposure(s) Average ground surface 2.7% visibility of Investigation Unit Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform, Land systems, Lowland Elevations Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating Plain Water Gresswell Lake Disturbance Agricultural, modified water course, golf club and course Previous + Current Land use Clearing, agriculture, Plate 15: Area of good surface visibility within IA-4c, grazing, water storage looking west area Vegetation Vegetation Condition Modified native and some remnant vegetation Vegetation Type Grassland and forest Major Vegetation Types -- Aboriginal Place Identified NO Type - List - Archaeology Sensitivity Moderate Rating Disturbance Rating Moderate Potential Archaeological Moderate Deposits Rating

Comments Gently inclined land that has been subject to some Plate 16: Example of mature red gum tree within IA- modification adjacent to 4c, looking south east modified water source; contains some remnant native vegetation Table 16: Investigation Area 4c (IA-4c).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 81

Map 11: Standard Assessment results demonstrating all Investigation Areas

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 82

Map 12: Investigation Areas assessed during the standard assessment with Archaeological Potential Ratings

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 83

8.8 Archaeological Potential Ratings

The field survey included a characterisation of each Investigation Area in terms of overall archaeological sensitivity and disturbance. These ratings have been utilised by ALA to assess the cultural heritage sensitivity and disturbance of landforms for previous Cultural Heritage Management Plans. To reiterate, the archaeological sensitivity ratings ranged from moderate-high to moderate and were based on a variety of environmental and social factors including proximity to water, landform, elevation, vegetation type, and the presence or absence of identified cultural heritage. Disturbance ratings also considered the results of the desktop assessment and were based on a range from high to none, with the ratings values sequence reversed:

Archaeological sensitivity Rating Disturbance Low 1 High Low-moderate 2 Moderate-high Moderate 3 Moderate Moderate-high 4 Low High 5 None Table 17: Archaeological Sensitivity / Disturbance Ratings Low 0-6 Low-moderate 6.5-8.5 Moderate 9-12 Moderate-high 12.5-16 High 16.5-25 Table 18: Archaeological Potential Rating scale The results of the background research for the activity area contributed to the information regarding the archaeological sensitivity for the investigation areas. Previous archaeological work in this region has demonstrated a pattern of Aboriginal occupation strongly influenced by the drainage pattern, with outlying nodes based on significant elevated rises. The majority of artefact scatters identified were located on landforms that are associated with waterways including creek lines and alluvial terraces. There are five registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area, and the sensitivity rating for the activity area has been assessed as moderate-high to high (IA-1), moderate to moderate-high (IA-5a), and moderate (IA-5b), (IA-4a) and (IA-4c). Regarding the disturbance rating, the land within the activity area has been assessed as moderate high to high (IA 5b), moderate-high (IA 5a), moderate (IA 1, IA 4a) and moderate to low moderate (IA 4c) and contains large-scale University developments. As noted elsewhere (see Sections 7.9.2 and 7.10), the majority of the activity area has been subject to disturbances associated with the construction and maintenance of the La Trobe University Sports Park, carparks (concrete and gravelled), road construction, vegetation removal, landscaping, and construction and modifications that have taken place during the construction and development of the La Trobe University campus (see Plate 1 to Plate 3). Although these activities would have brought about a level of ground disturbance to almost all sections of the activity area, the land within IA-1, IA-4a and IA-4c has been assessed as containing a lower level of prior disturbance as these areas are least effected by construction and demolition processes, however these IAs are located in areas that have been heavily impacted upon by previous land uses such as land clearing and pastoral activities, and uses associated with the former Mont Albert Asylum. The resultant values of the archaeological sensitivity and disturbance ratings were multiplied to achieve an overall Archaeological Potential Rating (APR) for each Investigation Unit within the Investigation Area (see Map 12 Table 19). The APR indicates the likelihood for archaeological deposits to occur within the activity area, given both the intensity of Aboriginal use of the landscape, and the probability that any evidence is likely to have survived past and current land uses.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 84

The resultant archaeological potential rating will be used to assist in informing the results of the desktop and standard assessment undertaken within the activity area.

Investigation Archaeological Archaeological Aboriginal Place Disturbance Rating Unit Sensitivity Rating Potential Rating IA-1 Yes 4.5 3 mod-high IA-5a Yes 3.5 2 low-mod IA-5b Yes 3 1.5 low IA-4a Yes 3 3 mod IA-4c No 3 3.5 mod Key: Archaeological Sensitivity Disturbance Archaeological Potential 1 Low 1 High 0-6 low 2 Low-moderate 2 Moderate-high 6.5-8.5 low-mod 3 Moderate 3 Moderate 9-12 mod 4 Moderate-high 4 Low-moderate 12.5-16 mod-high 5 High 5 Low 16.5-25 high Table 19: Archaeological Potential Ratings of IAs

8.9 Conclusions

The field survey was conducted over a one-day period on 28 August 2018. A total of five Investigation Areas (IA) were identified, based on particular landform features, land uses and levels of disturbance noted during the standard assessment (Table 12 to Table 16). These IAs were giving an archaeological sensitivity and a disturbance rating, and these ratings were then multiplied to provide an APR for each investigation area. At the completion of the survey, IA-5b was identified to have undergone the highest level of ground disturbance (moderate-high to high), largely due to the construction and maintenance of the land adjacent to the University Sports Park as well as the main University campus grounds and the construction and development of the University. Investigation area IA-5a was identified to have undergone a moderate-high level of ground disturbance. IA-1 experienced a moderate level of ground disturbance through the impact of land clearing and parkland maintenance; IA-4a and IA-4c were assessed as having a moderate level of ground disturbance due to previous land uses such as agriculture, recreation, drainage works and uses by the Mont Albert Asylum. The five investigation areas had an average ground surface visibility of 5.7% (Table 10). In accordance with r. 59 (3) the field survey included the examination of all potential mature trees for signs of scarring. The field survey identified no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances within the activity area. There were five registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These comprised a scarred tree (VAHR 7922-0218) three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, 7922-0219, 7922-0986) and an LDAD (VAHR 7922-1366). All of these Aboriginal places were subject to a thorough inspection as part of the current standard assessment. The previously registered artefact scatter, VAHR 7922-0210 was re-identified during the standard assessment, with Aboriginal stone artefacts identified along sections of an unsealed pedestrian track. The remaining previously registered Aboriginal places were not relocated during the standard assessment, and no physical manifestation of these places was identified. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified within the activity area by the completion of the standard assessment. The results of the standard assessment support the findings of previous archaeological investigations relating to proposed activities within and adjacent to the current activity area. The standard assessment demonstrated evidence of previous disturbance associated with the development and maintenance of the La Trobe University Campus Sports Park and the development of the University campus itself as well as the agricultural and recreational uses of the activity area since European settlement (Weaver 1991, Barker 2012, McAlister

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 85

2014, Matic 2015, Spry et. al 2016b, Spry 2017). These previous investigations indicate that there is a varying level of previous disturbance within the activity area, affecting the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage material in these areas. The results of the standard assessment confirm the findings of the desktop assessment, which indicated that the levels of previous disturbance within the activity area would affect the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. The activity area was assessed as containing an archaeological potential rating ranging from moderate-high (IA-1) to low (IA-5b). It was therefore deemed necessary to undertake a complex assessment within less modified and less disturbed sections of the activity area that will be subject to impacts from the activity in order to enable a proper investigation of the potential for subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage places to be present, and to identify the nature, extent and significance of any Aboriginal cultural heritage found during the assessment in accordance with Regulation 64 (1b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic). These areas proposed for complex assessment testing include IA-1, assessed as having moderate-high archaeological sensitivity and moderate disturbance with moderate-high APR and IA-4c, assessed as having moderate archaeological sensitivity, moderate to low-moderate disturbance and overall moderate APR, and some sample testing within IA-5a. Although the area of IA-5a contains moderate-high disturbance and low- moderate APR, it is possible that some Aboriginal cultural heritage material may be present within the unsealed land where the proposed path will be positioned.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 86

9. COMPLEX ASSESSMENT

9.1 Introduction

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the complex assessment undertaken for the activity area, including descriptions of subsurface testing results. At the completion of the desktop and standard assessments, it was concluded that further archaeological investigation was required, and it was therefore deemed necessary to undertake subsurface testing as part of a complex assessment to identify the nature, extent and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the activity area, in accordance with Regulation 64(1) (b). The complex assessment testing would occur within areas that will be impacted by the proposed activity, targeting Investigation Areas IA 1 and IA 5a located adjacent to Darebin Creek where the proposed pedestrian and bike path will involve subsurface impacts to a maximum depth of 200mm, and testing within IA 4c where flood mitigation works are proposed in association with Gresswell Lakes. The project will involve the manual excavation of three 1x1m test pits (1 excavated to a culturally sterile depth within IA-4c and two excavated to a maximum depth of 200mm which is the maximum depth of proposed impact for the path within IA-1 and IA-5a), and fifty one 50x50cm STPS (10 excavated to a culturally sterile depth within IA-4c and 41 test pits to a maximum depth of 200mm along the proposed path within IA-1 and IA-5a). The initial complex assessment testing programme was undertaken over five days (04 March to 08 March 2019). Aboriginal cultural heritage material was identified during the complex assessment, and additional testing to define the nature and extent of this Aboriginal cultural heritage was undertaken over three days (27 May to 29 May 2019).

9.2 Subsurface testing or excavation methodology

9.2.1 Aims The aims of a complex assessment are to: • establish the stratigraphy and general subsurface nature of the area being investigated by controlled excavation before any other disturbance or excavation is carried out; • to uncover or discover Aboriginal cultural heritage by means of disturbance of all or part of the activity area or an excavation of all or part of the activity area; • fully define the actual archaeological sensitivity of the activity area; • determine the presence or absence of subsurface archaeological deposits; • collect data on the nature and significance of any deposits identified; • collect and review oral history relating to the activity area if applicable.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 87

9.2.2 Testing strategy Based on the results of the desktop and standard assessment and formal discussions with the RAP (see Section 6.4), a testing programme across IA-1, IA-5a and IA-4c that combined both controlled 1x1 m test pits and 0.5x0.5 m shovel test pits was employed. The HA concluded that this testing strategy was the most effective means of investigating the archaeological potential across the part of the activity area subject to complex assessment. Mechanical testing was not employed during the complex assessment. As discussed in Section 9.1, the complex assessment testing programme would target less modified sections of the activity area that will be impacted by the proposed activity. These areas included: • Investigation Area 1 (IA-1), floodplain adjacent to Darebin Creek assigned a moderate-high APR; • Investigation Area 5a (IA-5a), floodplain adjacent to modified water sources, assigned a low-moderate APR. • Investigation Area 4c (IA-4c), undulating plain adjacent to a water course assigned a moderate APR Based on this, the majority of subsurface testing focused on IA-1 and also IA-4c, with some sample testing within IA 5a. Two 1x1m test pits were excavated on the floodplains landform of IA-1, and one 1x1m test pit on the undulating plains landform of IA 4c to confirm the stratigraphy.

9.2.3 Excavation methods Manual excavation Controlled hand excavation of the 1x1 m test pit involved the systematic excavation of sediments in 50- 100 mm spits with a focus on the identification of artefacts in situ within their stratigraphic context. Excavation was undertaken by shovel and trowel to a maximum depth of 1200 mm. All deposits were 100% hand sieved using a 5 mm mesh to determine the presence or absence of stone artefacts and to provide an indicator of the preservation of other types of culturally deposited material (e.g., faunal remains, burnt clay). The presence of bioturbation markers (e.g., cicada burrows, earthworm burrows, tree roots, sediment mixing) and other forms of site disturbance (e.g., evidence of ploughing and trenching) were documented. Datum points were established using the highest corner of the 1x1 m test pit. Levels were taken with at the base of each spit, along with pH and Munsell readings. The excavation of the 1x1 m test pit was used as the means for establishing a stratigraphic profile for the activity area. Shovel test pits (STPs), which consisted of pits 0.5x0.5 m in area, were excavated stratigraphically by shovel in 100 mm spits to maximum depths of 1200 mm. Note that the level of stratigraphic control within these STPs decreases with depth, and the precise depth provenance of any artefacts that might be recovered from the excavations become less certain below ~600 mm, given the risk of vertical contamination by dislodgement of artefacts from higher levels. All excavated STP materials were 100% hand sieved using a 5 mm mesh to determine the presence or absence of stone artefacts and to provide an indicator of the preservation of other types of culturally deposited material (e.g., faunal remains, burnt clay). As for the 1x1 m test pit, the presence of other forms of site disturbance were also documented. Radiometric dating No radiometric dating samples were collected during the complex assessment owing to the lack of charcoal in suitable quantities within the excavated deposits or the identification of Aboriginal cultural heritage.

9.3 Obstacles

There were no obstacles encountered that impeded the completion of the complex assessment.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 88

9.4 Name of the Supervisors

In accordance with r 65(3), excavations were supervised by a qualified archaeologist and were carried out in accordance with proper archaeological practice. The supervisor of the complex assessment of this CHMP was: • Jay Yost, Lead Archaeologist, Andrew Long and Associates

9.5 Names of Participants

The participants in the complex assessment are listed in Table 20.

Participant Organisation Position Component Date(s) Jay Yost ALA Lead Complex assessment 04-03-19, 05-03-19, Archaeologist 06-03-19, 07-03-19, 08-03-19, 27-05-19, 28-05-19, 29-05-19 Alex Ariotti ALA Field Complex assessment 04-03-19, 05-03-19, Archaeologist 06-03-19, 07-03-19, 08-03-19 Ashleigh La Trobe Archaeological Complex assessment 05-03-19, 06-03-19, Bentley University Assistant 08-03-19, 28-05-19 student, ALA student intern Briannon La Trobe Archaeological Complex assessment 07-03-19, 08-03-19 Dudek University Assistant student, ALA student intern Annie Reich ALA Field Complex assessment 05-03-19 Archaeologist Caroline ALA Field Complex assessment 05-03-19, 06-03-19, Bandurski Archaeologist 27-05-19, 28-05-19, 29-05-19 Willy Xiberras WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 04-03-19, 27-05-19, representative 28-05-19, 29-05-19 Brendan WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 04-03-19, 05-03-19 Wandin representative Tony Finn WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 06-03-19 representative Tony Garvey WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 07-03-19, 08-03-19 representative Sean Wandin WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 07-03-19 representative Ann-Maree WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 08-03-19 Chandler representative Bede Canavan WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 08-03-19 representative Justin Entwistle WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 27-05-19 representative Travis Smith WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 28-05-19 representative

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 89

Participant Organisation Position Component Date(s) John Xiberras WWCHAC WWCHAC Complex assessment 29-05-19 representative

Table 20: Participants in the complex assessment

9.6 RAP information

Please note that no oral information was provided during the complex assessment.

9.7 Results of the complex assessment

Excavations for the initial phase of complex assessment occurred across five days of testing. At the conclusion of the initial testing programme, three 1x1m test pits and fifty-one 0.5x0.5 m STPs were successfully excavated. Aboriginal cultural heritage material was identified in two 1x1m test pits and five 0.5x0.5 m STPs. Stone artefacts were encountered in 1x1A, 1x1B, STP 28, STP 31, STP 35 and STP 38 (located in IA-1 adjacent to Darebin Creek), and one Aboriginal stone artefact was also identified during the excavation of STP 48 (located in IA-4c adjacent to Gresswell Lakes) (Figure 1, Figure 2, Map 13, Map 14). Due to the identification of Aboriginal cultural heritage material after the completion of the initial complex assessment subsurface testing programme, additional testing was undertaken to define the nature and extent of this Aboriginal cultural heritage. The additional testing took place at artefact locations where there would be impacts from the proposed activity. After discussions with the Sponsor, the area in the north east adjacent to Gresswell Lakes will not be subject to impacts from the proposed activity and was therefore not subject to additional subsurface testing. This area will be protected from harm during the activity as per the cultural heritage management conditions set out in Section 1. The additional subsurface testing comprised the expansion of artefact bearing shovel test pits excavation during the initial testing programme into 1x1m test pits, and also the excavation of radial 0.5x0.5 m STPs (double negative/non artefact bearing STPS) as per the AV Practice Note regarding subsurface testing. As the artefact bearing area to the north east adjacent to Gresswell Lakes (IA-4c, artefact bearing STP 48) will not be subject to impacts from the proposed activity and will be protected from harm as per Section 11.2, the additional excavations focused on IA-1 along the proposed pedestrian and bike path. Due to the narrow width of the bike path, double negative radial 0.5x0.5 m STPs were generally excavated to the north and south of the initial artefact bearing test pit. A total of four 1x1m test pits and twenty five 0.5x0.5 m STPs were excavated over a three day period, with a total of seven 1x1m test pits and seventy six 0.5x0.5 m STPs excavated during the complex assessment (see Map 13, Map 14).

9.7.1 Co-ordinates of testing locations The geographic co-ordinates of all excavations carried out during the complex assessment are provided in Table 21. All geographic co-ordinates are in Victorian Government Standard GDA94 (Zone 55) format. Section 13 provides detailed information about the test pits excavated during the complex assessment. Pit Name Pit Type Easting Northing Artefacts present (Y/N) 1x1A 1x1m test pit 327134.500 5822724.389 Y 1x1B 1x1m test pit 327111.615 5822784.487 Y 1x1C 1x1m test pit 328820.253 5824101.423 N 1x1D (STP 28) 1x1m test pit (expanded) 326967.918 5823037.095 Y 1x1E (STP 31) 1x1m test pit (expanded) 326895.590 5823086.296 Y 1x1F (STP 35) 1x1m test pit (expanded) 326832.375 5823132.657 Y 1x1G (STP 38) 1x1m test pit (expanded) 326827.793 5823213.882 Y STP01 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327637.056 5822600.345 N STP02 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327627.554 5822600.662 N

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 90

Pit Name Pit Type Easting Northing Artefacts present (Y/N) STP03 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327611.876 5822604.081 N STP04 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327589.149 5822604.846 N STP05 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327572.181 5822605.836 N STP06 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327558.215 5822607.100 N STP07 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327538.300 5822609.152 N STP08 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327522.558 5822610.688 N STP09 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327505.584 5822612.964 N STP10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327158.295 5822706.991 N STP11 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327143.268 5822711.162 N STP12 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327131.207 5822731.716 N STP13 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327123.746 5822743.679 N STP14 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327120.011 5822770.361 N STP17 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327106.234 5822797.436 N STP18 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327101.545 5822810.968 N STP19 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327096.904 5822824.567 N STP20 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327091.507 5822835.613 N STP21 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327063.441 5822882.733 N STP22 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327058.427 5822896.703 N STP23 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327052.478 5822910.937 N STP15 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327185.735 5822704.540 N STP16 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327171.975 5822705.572 N STP24 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327015.452 5822945.034 N STP25 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327008.951 5822958.608 N STP26 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327003.509 5822973.396 N STP27 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326977.861 5823024.881 N STP29 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326958.456 5823048.780 N STP30 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326911.908 5823085.755 N STP32 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326879.249 5823085.220 N STP33 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326832.749 5823103.768 N STP34 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326832.520 5823118.315 N STP36 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326830.110 5823187.212 N STP37 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326830.992 5823200.099 N STP39 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326822.737 5823266.642 N STP40 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326821.841 5823281.422 N STP41 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326822.028 5823297.346 N STP42 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328826.621 5824096.710 N STP43 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328826.508 5824108.001 N STP44 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328835.523 5824115.423 N STP45 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328837.903 5824130.972 N STP46 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328826.929 5824126.963 N STP48 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328827.256 5824144.268 Y STP47 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328839.242 5824150.990 N STP49 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328833.498 5824161.380 N STP50 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328820.009 5824153.008 N STP51 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 328836.184 5824100.405 N 1x1A S10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327141.117 5822714.897 N 1x1A S5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327138.218 5822719.017 N 1x1A N5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327131.999 5822729.441 N 1x1A N10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327130.071 5822734.531 N STP 38 S10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326832.050 5823204.049 N STP 38 S5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326830.758 5823209.173 N STP 38 N5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326827.487 5823219.208 N

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 91

Pit Name Pit Type Easting Northing Artefacts present (Y/N) STP 38 N10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326825.976 5823224.168 N STP 35 N10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326832.578 5823144.684 N STP 35 N5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326832.395 5823138.495 N STP 35 S5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326832.846 5823126.723 Y STP 35 S10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326834.389 5823122.359 N STP 31 E10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326906.187 5823087.471 N STP 31 E5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326901.259 5823087.276 N STP 31 W5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326889.638 5823086.933 N STP 31 W10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326884.240 5823087.677 N STP 28 N20 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326953.860 5823052.954 N STP 28 N10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326960.111 5823044.525 Y STP 28 N5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326963.848 5823041.293 N STP 28 S5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326973.189 5823034.569 N STP 28 S10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 326976.370 5823030.436 N 1x1B N10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327108.280 5822793.944 N 1x1B N5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327110.838 5822789.627 N 1x1B S5 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327115.115 5822779.735 Y 1x1B S10 0.5x0.5m shovel test pit 327118.268 5822775.071 N Table 21: Excavation co-ordinates (GDA 94, MGA Zone 54)

9.7.2 Establishing stratigraphy In order to establish a stratigraphic profile for the activity area in compliance with r 65(4) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), two controlled 1x1 m test pits (1x1A and 1x1B) were hand excavated on the floodplains landform of IA-1 on the proposed pedestrian and bike path adjacent to two areas where surface artefacts had been identified during the standard assessment. An additional 1x1m test pit (1x1C) was also hand excavated on the undulating plains adjacent to Gresswell Lakes within IA-4c. Although the 1x1 m test pit established a stratigraphic profile for the activity area, the value of the STPs excavated across the activity area was also considerable in providing further insights into the general stratigraphic nature of the activity area. The STPs strongly contributed to a stratigraphic understanding of the activity area and were undertaken in accordance with the principles presented by Burke and Smith for subsurface sampling, where “shovel test pits are the most effective means of ‘seeing’ beneath the ground surface” and are useful in obtaining “broad stratigraphic or spatial information” about a site (Burke and Smith 2004, 125). Test pit 1x1A was located in the south western section of the activity area (IA-1), on the Darebin Creek floodplain where the pedestrian and bike path is proposed, adjacent to an area where surface artefacts had been identified during the standard assessment. As the proposed depth of impact within this area is a maximum of 200mm, 1x1A was therefore excavated to the maximum depth of impact. The excavation revealed (Figure 1, Plate 17, Plate 18): • Context 1 – 0-50 mm: Dark greyish brown friable silt (Munsell 10YR 4/2. pH 6.5); overlying • Context 2 – 50-200 mm: Dark greyish brown to very dark grey compact clay (Munsell 10YR 4/2 and 10YR 3/1. pH. 6.5). There were five Aboriginal stone artefacts identified during the excavation of 1x1A. Of those, three were identified at a depth range of 0-100mm, and two were identified at a depth range of 100-200mm. Disturbance was noted during the excavation of this test pit, with mottled and mixed sediments present. The place has been registered as part of VAHR 7922-0210. A detailed description of VAHR 7922-0210 is presented in Chapter 10.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 92

Figure 1: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1A

Plate 17: 1x1A, north elevation_Jay Yost_05March19

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 93

Plate 18: General location of 1x1A facing east_Jay Yost_05March19 The 1x1B was excavated in the south western section of the activity area (IA-1), on the Darebin Creek floodplain where the pedestrian and bike path is proposed, adjacent to an area where surface artefacts had been identified during the standard assessment. As the proposed depth of impact within this area is a maximum of 200mm, 1x1B was therefore excavated to the maximum depth of impact. The excavation revealed (Figure 2, Plate 19): • Context 1 – 0-40 mm: Dark grey friable silt (Munsell 10YR 4/1, pH 6.5); overlying • Context 2 – 40-200 mm: Very dark grey to very dark greyish brown compact clay (Munsell 10YR 3/1, 10YR 3/2 and 10YR 3/3 pH 6.5). There were two Aboriginal stone artefacts identified during the excavation of 1x1B in a disturbed context containing introduced materials such as metal fragments, plastic and glass. The two artefacts were both located at a depth range of 0-100mm. The place has been registered as part of the LDAD, VAHR 7922-***. A detailed description of VAHR 7922-****** is presented in Chapter 10.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 94

Figure 2: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1B

Plate 19: 1x1B, base of excavation facing north_Alex Ariotti_05March19 The test pit 1x1C was excavated in the north eastern section of the activity area on the undulating plains landform adjacent to Gresswell Lakes (IA-4c). This 1x1m test pit was excavated to sterile clay, with a 50x50cm sondage excavated to confirm the clay deposit across the base. The excavation revealed (Figure 3, Plate 20).

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 95

Figure 3: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1C

There was no Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during the excavation of 1x1C. The soil deposits within this test pit contained evidence of disturbance with fill deposits noted and the inclusion of introduced material such as a golf ball, porcelain, plastic, ceramic tile, pipe fragments.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 96

Plate 20: 1x1C, base of excavation facing north_Alex Ariotti_07March19

Plate 21: 1x1C, showing soil stratigraphy facing north_Alex Ariotti_07March19

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 97

9.7.3 Summary of the nature and character of soil deposits Soil types, colours and textures were relatively consistent across much the activity area and matched the soil profiles established by the stratigraphic 1x1m test pits, 1x1A, 1x1B and 1x1C presented in Section 8.7.2. The sections of the activity area adjacent to Darebin Creek (IA-1) and the modified watercourses by the Sports fields (IA-5a) in the southern and south western sections of the activity area contained grey-brown silt and mottled clay deposits representative of the volcanic plains geology. The northern section of the activity area where the remainder of testing occurred near the Gresswell Lakes area (IA-4c) contained grey-brown silt overlying silty clay and mottled clay which is more representative of the Melbourne Formation geology, with deeper silty soil sediments overlying clay, and also corresponds with the soil deposits of the STPS excavated in IA-4c during the complex assessment. The majority of the test pits excavated contained evidence of modification and disturbance, with introduced material such as plastic, glass, rubber, gravel, concrete, porcelain and brick inclusions as well as mottled and mixed fill soil materials. Detailed descriptions of all test pits are presented in Section 13. All of the test pits were excavated to the proposed depth of impact (maximum depth of 200mm which was also generally a sterile clay base) or a sterile clay base (for instance, test pits excavated within IA-4c). The general nature and character of soil deposits present within the activity area can be seen Figure 1 to Figure 3, as well as Figure 4 to Figure 6. These latter figures display stratigraphic profile drawings of several of the 1x1m test pits excavated in IA-1 during the additional complex assessment testing.

Figure 4: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1D (expanded from STP 28) no additional artefacts identified

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 98

Figure 5: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1F (expanded from STP 35) no additional artefacts identified

Figure 6: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1G (expanded from STP 38) no additional artefacts identified

9.7.4 Archaeological deposits A total of 23 stone artefacts were identified in subsurface contexts and 20 surface artefacts were also identified (Table 22). The majority of the identified subsurface stone artefacts are of silcrete (n=37 or 86%) with quartz (n=3 or 6.9%) and quartzite (n=3 or 6.9%) also identified (Table 24). Flakes are the most ubiquitous technological class (n=27, or 62%) with angular fragments (n=10 or 23%), cores (n=2 or 4.6%) and tools (n=2 or 9%) also present (Table 26). The cores are both unidirectional cores. The tools are two notched flakes (one quartzite and one silcrete), a backed silcrete fragment and a notched silcrete fragment.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 99

One low-density artefact distribution (LDAD), **** (VAHR ****), was registered. The previously registered Aboriginal artefact scatter, 7922-0210 was updated with the surface artefacts initially identified during the standard assessment and also subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during the complex assessment. The place inspection form was submitted to VAHR and verified on *****. These Aboriginal places are discussed in detail in Section 10. Soil profiles of the artefact bearing test pits 1x1A and 1x1B can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The soil profiles of the remaining artefact bearing test pits can be seen below (Figure 7 to Figure 15). Detailed information about the artefacts representing VAHR 7922**** and 7922-0210 can also be found in Section 13.

Test Pit Name No. of artefacts 1x1A 5 1x1B 2 STP 28 1 STP 31 1 STP 35 1 STP 38 1 STP 48 1 Surface 20 STP 28 N10 1 STP 35 S5 1 1x1B S5 1 1x1 STP 31 8 Total 43 Table 22: Results of the CHMP - stone artefacts sorted by test pit

Test Pit/context Depth range Total (mm) Surface artefacts 0 20 1x1A 0-100 3 1x1A 100-200 2 1x1B 0-100 2 1x1 STP 31 100-200 8 STP 28 0-100 1 STP 31 0-100 1 STP 35 0-100 1 STP 38 0-100 1 STP 48 50-100 1 1x1B S5 0-100 1 STP 28 N10 0-100 1 STP 35 S5 0-100 1 Total 43 Table 23: Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and depth

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 100

Test Pit Type Test Pit Quartzite Silcrete Quartz Total Name Surface - 1 18 1 20 artefacts 1x1 1x1A 5 5 1x1B 2 2 1x1 E (STP 1 5 2 8 31) STP STP 28 1 1 STP 31 1 1 STP 35 1 1 STP 38 1 1 STP 48 1 1 1x1B S5 1 1 STP 28 N10 1 1 STP 35 S5 1 1 Total 3 37 3 43 Table 24: Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and raw material

VAHR Place name Test Pit Test Pit Angular Core Flake Tool Grand Total Type/context Name fragment 7922- Darebin 5 (CHMP 15724 Surface 4 9 13 0210 results) 1x1 1x1A 5 5 STP

Grand 4 14 18 Total Table 25: VAHR 7922-0210 Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and technological class

VAHR Place name Test Pit Test Pit Angular Core Flake Tool Grand Total Type/context Name fragment 7922-**** Surface 3 1 3 7 La Trobe University eco-corridor 1x1 1x1B 2 2 LDAD 1 1x1E (STP 2 1 3 2 8 31) STP STP 38 1 1 STP 31 1 1 STP 28 1 1 STP 35 1 1 STP 28 1 1 N10 STP 35 S5 1 1 1x1B S5 1 1 STP 48 1 1 Grand 6 2 14 3 25 Total Table 26: VAHR 7922-**** Stone artefacts sorted by test pit and technological class

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 101

Figure 7: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 28 - north elevation

Figure 8: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 31 - north elevation

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 102

Figure 9: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 35 - north elevation

Figure 10: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 38 - north elevation

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 103

Figure 11: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 48 - north elevation

Figure 12: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 1x1B S5 - north elevation

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 104

Figure 13: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 28 N10 - north elevation

Figure 14: Stratigraphic profile drawing of artefact bearing STP 25 S5 - north elevation

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 105

Figure 15: Stratigraphic profile drawing of 1x1E (expanded from STP 31) with additional artefacts found

9.8 Conclusions

A thorough subsurface testing program was conducted across IA-1, IA-5a, and IA-4c including the hand excavation of seven 1x1m test pits and seventy-six 0.5x0.5 m STPs. Aboriginal stone artefacts were identified in the southern and western parts of the activity area (IA-1) in nine test pits and there was also one artefact bearing STP containing one Aboriginal stone artefact located in the north eastern section of the activity area (IA-4c). There were also 20 Aboriginal stone artefacts identified in a surface context within IA-1. These artefacts are discussed in detail in Section 10. The complex assessment results provided information about subsurface soil deposits within the activity area, which were consistent with the identified landforms. Due to the thorough nature of the subsurface testing programme, which targeted the areas of proposed ground disturbance from the activity, no further subsurface investigations were warranted in the activity area as part of this CHMP. The results of the evaluation have also demonstrated that outside of the location of the identified Aboriginal cultural heritage places, no dense deposits of stone artefacts or other materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places of higher scientific significance are likely to occur within the activity area in the areas subject to proposed construction impacts.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 106

Map 13: Results of the complex assessment - overview

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 107

Map 14: Results of the complex assessment – Detail

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 108

Map 15: All registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places in the activity area

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 109

10. ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

10.1 Introduction

This section presents an overview of Aboriginal heritage identified within the activity area during the assessment of this CHMP, considering evidence from each task undertaken as part of this evaluation, namely desktop and background studies, field survey and controlled subsurface testing. Map 15 shows all of the registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area.

10.2 VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5

10.2.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 Extent information Map sheet: 7922-4-3 E327142 N5822744 (primary coordinates on VAHR) (Government Grid reference: Standard GDA 94 MGA55) Cadastral details: Lot 1 PS444016 Site type: Artefact Scatter Area: 213.174m2 Significance Site contents 1 Site condition 1 Representativeness 1 Scientific significance (see Appendix 4) Low (3) Aboriginal traditional significance High assessment (WWCHAC) Table 27: Extent and significance of 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 The artefact scatter 7922-0210 (Darebin 5) was originally recorded in 1991 during a survey of Darebin Creek undertaken by Weaver. The original registration of this Aboriginal place indicated that the artefact scatter contained silcrete lithics that were recorded on the Darebin Creek floodplain. Weaver (1992) describes the area containing this Aboriginal place as having experienced a great deal of disturbance through landscaping of parklands and the banks of the creek. Weaver assessed this Aboriginal place to have a medium significance rating (1992, 39). The place extent for this Aboriginal place was initially based on site plan and dimensions provided by Weaver to the VAHR.

10.2.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-0210 – Darebin 5 The original registration for this Aboriginal place contained two silcrete blades (one fine grained grey and cream streaks, broken and the other coarse grain grey silcrete with large silica pores broken base from blade), two silcrete scrapers (both very fine grained silcrete, one grey and pale grey and the other grey with cream streaks and some silica pores), one flaked fragment (very fine grained silcrete with grey and cream streaks), one very fine grained silcrete fragment, and one chert waste flake (very fine grain, fawn and mustard) (Weaver

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 110

1992, Appendix 3). Weaver recommended that the artefact scatter should not be disturbed any further and to preserve the site, top soil could be placed over the artefact scatter and then the area re-vegetated to stem any further erosion (Weaver 1992, 44). This Aboriginal place was subject to place inspections by Spry et al 2016b and also by Spry 2017, however no Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified at this location during these inspections. During the standard assessment for the current CHMP 15724, surface artefacts were recorded on an informal access track adjacent to the registered place extent for 7922-0210. These artefacts generally comprised silcrete lithics, and the appearance of several of these artefacts corresponded with Weaver’s description of the type and colour of silcrete originally registered for 7922-0210. All artefacts were identified on the same broad landform, namely flat to gently inclined floodplain overlooking the Darebin Creek. Given these similarities and the proximity to the original registered location for the artefact scatter, the Aboriginal cultural heritage material identified and recorded at this location during CHMP 15724 was attributed to the Aboriginal place 7922-0210. Some additional subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage was also identified during the complex assessment for CHMP 15724 located adjacent to the area where surface artefacts were found during the standard assessment, and the place extent for 7922-0210 was revised to include these additional surface and subsurface artefacts (Figure 16, Figure 17). A place inspection form was submitted to VAHR and verified on ****. Dr Jacqui Tumney has supplied the following information below about the artefact assemblage for VAHR 7922- 0210. Eighteen artefacts were registered as part of the extension of this place – five subsurface artefacts from a 1x1 m test pit and 13 surface artefacts (Table 28). All but one of the artefacts are silcrete, with one surface artefact being made from quartzite. The subsurface artefacts were all relatively shallow, with three recovered from the upper 100 mm and the other two from between 100 mm and 200 mm.

Silcrete Quartzite Total Depth (mm) Technological n Ave MD (mm) n Ave MD (mm) n Ave MD (mm) class Surface Angular fragment 4 23.9 4 23.9 Flake 8 28.9 1 42.8 9 30.4

0-100 Flake 3 34.7 3 34.7

100-200 Flake 1 17.4 1 17.4

Tool 1 36.4 1 36.4

Total 17 28.5 1 42.8 18 29.3 Table 28: Depth and average maximum dimension (MD) of artefact technological class by raw material in the 7922- 0210 assemblage The silcrete assemblage is comprised of one tool (5.9%), 12 flakes (70.6%) and four angular fragments (23.5%; including one flake fragment that cannot be oriented). Within the flake assemblage (including the tool), six flakes are complete and seven are broken/partial. Ten flakes (76.9%) preserve a platform and eight (61.5%) preserve a termination. Flaked platforms and axial terminations are the most common types (Table 29). The single silcrete tool is a notched flake exhibiting use-wear within a simple small notch on one lateral margin. The quartzite artefact is a complete flake with a plain platform and feather termination exhibiting possible, but equivocal, traces of use on one margin. Only three artefacts, all silcrete (17.6%), preserve cortex – two silcrete broken flakes with weathering cortex that conjoin to form a single complete flake; and an angular fragment (cortex type not recorded). The small size of this assemblage precludes detailed interpretation, and this is further complicated by likely surface and shallow subsurface disturbances in the area. While it is probable that silcrete and quartzite were being flaked and utilised in the vicinity of this place, it is unlikely that the place represents an area of focused activity. Artefacts were probably lost or discarded in the course of moving around the landscape during general procurement activities.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 111

Platform Termination Flaked Not preserved Plain Focal Total

Not preserved 2 2 1 5 Axial 3 1 4

Feather 1 1 2

Plunge 1 1

Hinge 1 1 Total 7 3 2 1 13 Table 29: Platform and termination types on silcrete artefacts in the 7922-0210 assemblage

Figure 16: Extent plan for VAHR 7922-0210

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 112

Figure 17: Context plan for VAHR 7922-0210

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 113

Plate 22: Location of Aboriginal stone artefacts located adjacent to original registered place extent of 7922-0210 facing north west_AnnieReich_28August2018

Plate 23: Aboriginal stone artefact identified as part of 7922-0210_MelindaAlbrecht_28August2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 114

Plate 24: Aboriginal stone artefact identified as part of 7922-0210_AnnieReich_28August2018

Plate 25: Aboriginal stone artefact identified as part of 7922-0210 within 1x1A_AshleyBentleigh_26June2019

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 115

10.3 VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6

10.3.1 Nature, Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 Extent information Map sheet: 7922-4-3 E327042 N5822934 (primary coordinates on VAHR) (Government Grid reference: Standard GDA 94 MGA55) Cadastral details: Lot 1 PS444016 Site type: Non site* (formerly registered as scarred tree) Area: N/A Significance Site contents N/A Site condition N/A Representativeness N/A Scientific significance (see Appendix 4) N/A Aboriginal traditional significance N/A assessment (WWCHAC) Table 30: Extent and significance of 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 This place was originally recorded as a scarred tree by Weaver in 1991 during a survey of Darebin Creek. Weaver noted on the site registration that the tree was a ‘probably Aboriginal’ and that was located within 100m of Darebin Creek on the floodplain, amidst a remnant River Red Gum woodland. The tree was initially recorded as containing a bark removal scar for possible use by Aboriginal people as a container. Weaver describes the surrounding area as disturbed, filled and landscaped over the years (Weaver 1992, 26). An assessment of potential scarred trees in the Darebin Creek area including sections of the current activity area undertaken by Amorosi, Bell, Cekalovic, Greenwood, Hill, Munro, Reeves and Tunn in May 1997 and VAHR 7922-0218 was inspected and re-assessed. The results of this reassessment resulted in a recommendation that 7922-0218 contained non-cultural scarring and should be removed from the AV site register. The consultants found that all of the trees assessed indicated either burning as a result of lightning or fire, or knot marks and irregular layering of the bark on the interior surface from limb breakage (Amorosi et al. 1997, 3). The Aboriginal place 7922-0218 was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessments undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and a tree with a scar (assessed to be likely non-cultural) was identified as 7922-0218 during this time. During the current CHMP 15724 standard assessment, the location of 7922-0218 was inspected, and the tree could not be found. A thorough inspection of the broader area could also not identify the tree that was assessed by Spry et. al 2016b and Spry 2017 to be 7922-0218. Aerial photograph investigations as part of the current CHMP revealed that the tree originally registered by Weaver may have fallen probably in the late 1990s to early 2000s as it is not visible as a tree in aerial photographs beyond this period. A current aerial image of the area shows some possible remains of a tree with some debris (Map 16), and during the standard assessment concrete debris was identified amidst the high grass with some tree remains at the location shown in Map 16. Due to the presence of thick high grass it is difficult to clearly see these remains in the photograph below, however they are located to the south east of the range pole (Plate 26) and north east of the range pole (Plate 27). Historical aerial imagery from 1945 does not show any obvious signs of a large tree located at or nearby the location of VAHR 7922-0218 (Map 17). The consultants notified the RAP of their findings and corresponded with AV to update the registration of 7922-0218 as a non-site. The place inspection form for this place was verified by AV on 30 May 2019.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 116

Plate 26: Photograph showing location of 7922-0218 facing south east_Annie Reich_28Aug2018

Plate 27: Photograph showing location of 7922-0218 facing north east_Annie Reich_28Aug2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 117

Map 16: Aerial map showing current aerial image and registered location of 7922-0218 with location of debris and tree remains

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 118

Map 17: Aerial map showing 1945 aerial image, registered location of 7922-0218 and overlay of site location from Weaver report 540

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 119

10.4 VAHR 7922-0219– Darebin 7

10.4.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0219 – Darebin 7 VAHR 7922-0219 – Darebin 7 Extent information Map sheet: 7922-4-3 E327632 N5822924 (primary coordinates on VAHR) (Government Grid reference: Standard GDA 94 MGA55) Cadastral details: Lot 1 PS444016 Site type: Artefact Scatter Area: - Significance Site contents 1 Site condition 1 Representativeness 1 Scientific significance (see Appendix 4) Low (3) Aboriginal traditional significance High assessment (WWCHAC) Table 31: Extent and significance of 7922-0219 – Darebin 7 The artefact scatter 7922-0219 (Darebin 7) was originally recorded in 1991 during a survey of Darebin Creek undertaken by Weaver. The original registration of this Aboriginal place indicated that the artefact scatter was represented by an isolated very fine grained grey silcrete flake artefact with possible evidence of use wear on more than one edge (Weaver 1992, 24). Weaver assessed this Aboriginal place to have a low significance rating (Weaver 1992, 39). The place extent for this Aboriginal place was based on site plan provided by Weaver to the VAHR.

10.4.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-0219 – Darebin 7 This Aboriginal place contained one very fine grained grey silcrete flake artefact with possible evidence of use wear on more than one edge (Weaver 1992, 24). Weaver recommended that due to the disturbance present in the area where this place was recorded, there was no archaeological reason why this place could not be disturbed if the need for disturbance arose (Weaver 1992, 44). This Aboriginal place is currently situated beneath a sealed vehicular track in a highly disturbed context. This Aboriginal place was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessments undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and also by Spry 2017 (CHMP 14498) and was not re-identified. The approved conditions for CHMP 14498 state that harm is permitted to 7922-0219, with one RAP compliance inspection to occur during ground preparation works within the area immediately surrounding VAHR 7922-0219 (Darebin 7). A place inspection of the registered location for 7922-0219 was undertaken during the standard assessment for the current CHMP 15724, but the place was not re-identified. A place inspection form was submitted to VAHR and verified on ****.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 120

Plate 28: Photograph showing location of 7922-0219 facing north_MelindaAlbrecht_28Aug2018

Figure 18: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 121

Figure 19: Extent plan of 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 (Weaver 1991)

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 122

10.5 VAHR 7922-0986– La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1

10.5.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 Extent information Map sheet: 7922-4-3 E328358 N5823909 (primary coordinates on VAHR) (Government Grid reference: Standard GDA 94 MGA55) Cadastral details: Lot 1 PS443004 Site type: Artefact Scatter Area: - Significance Site contents 1 Site condition 1 Representativeness 1 Scientific significance (see Appendix 4) Low (3) Aboriginal traditional significance High assessment (WWCHAC) Table 32: Extent and significance of 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 The artefact scatter 7922-0986 (La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1) was originally recorded by Freslov in 2005. Freslov recorded the site as being in a highly disturbed location located parallel to a walking track within the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary. The place extent for this Aboriginal place was based on information provided by Freslov to the VAHR.

10.5.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 This Aboriginal place contained a single quartz bipolar flake fragment located on gently inclined land in the La Trobe wildlife reserve. Freslov noted on the Aboriginal site record that the site was in a high impact and highly disturbed location and that there were no specific recommendations for this site. This Aboriginal place was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessment undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and was not re-identified. A place inspection of the registered location for 7922-0986 was undertaken during the standard assessment for the current CHMP 15724, but the place was not re-identified. A place inspection form was submitted to VAHR and verified on ****.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 123

Plate 29: Photograph showing location of 7922-0986 facing south_AnnieReich_28Aug2018

Figure 20: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 124

10.6 VAHR 7922-1366– La Trobe University LDAD

10.6.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD Extent information Map sheet: 7922-4-3 E328293 N5823542 (primary coordinates on VAHR) (Government Grid reference: Standard GDA 94 MGA55) Cadastral details: Lot 1 PS443004 Site type: LDAD Significance Site contents 1 Site condition 1 Representativeness 1 Scientific significance (see Appendix 4) Low (3) Aboriginal traditional significance High assessment (WWCHAC) Table 33: Extent and significance of 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD The LDAD 7922-1366 (La Trobe University LDAD) was originally recorded by Phillips (AV) in 2014. This Aboriginal place is situated in close proximity to Strathallan Creek.

10.6.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD This Aboriginal place contained a single quartz flake located on land in close proximity to Strathallan Creek. This Aboriginal place was subject to inspection as part of the CHMP assessment undertaken by Spry et. al 2016b and was not re-identified. A place inspection of the registered location for 7922-1366 was undertaken during the standard assessment for the current CHMP 15724, but the place was not re-identified. A place inspection form was submitted to VAHR and verified on ****.

Plate 30: Photograph showing location of 7922-1366 facing southwest_AnnieReich_28Aug2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 125

Figure 21: Detailed extent plan of 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD

10.7 VAHR 7922-****– La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1

10.7.1 Extent and significance of VAHR 7922-**** – La Trobe University Eco-Corridor LDAD 1 VAHR 7922-**** – La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1 Extent information Map sheet: 7922-4-3 E**** N**** (primary coordinates on VAHR) (Government Standard Grid reference: GDA 94 MGA55) Cadastral details: Lot 1 PS444016 Site type: LDAD Significance Site contents 1 Site condition 1 Representativeness 1 Scientific significance (see Appendix 4) Low (3) Aboriginal traditional significance High assessment (WWCHAC) Table 34: Extent and significance of 7922-**** – La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1 The LDAD 7922-**** (La Trobe University eco-corridor LDAD 1) was identified during the current assessments for CHMP 15724. This Aboriginal place is situated on undulating land adjacent to Darebin Creek. This area has been subject to modifications and disturbance, with introduced materials including brick, glass, ceramic and plastic identified during the majority of the excavations that occurred in the section of the activity area where the bike and pedestrian path is proposed. Due to this previous disturbance, although it is probable that the

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 126

Aboriginal cultural heritage material representing VAHR****has originated from the general area where it was identified, it is unlikely that the Aboriginal cultural heritage material is in situ and has probably been impacted by previous land uses and moved from the original location by these activities.

10.7.2 Nature of VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD This Aboriginal place contained 25 Aboriginal artefacts on undulating land adjacent to Darebin Creek. The artefacts were located in surface and subsurface contexts, with the majority found in shallow subsurface contexts containing evidence of previous disturbance (n=18). The Aboriginal artefacts predominately comprise silcrete lithics (80% of the assemblage or n=20), with some quartz (12% or n=3) and quartzite (8% or n=2) artefacts also represented (Table 35).

Area containing VAHR******STP 15 Facing east_JayYost_05March2019

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 127

Area containing VAHR****STP 28 facing east_JayYost_05March2019

Plate 31: Subsurface artefacts from STP 25 representing part of 7922-****_AshleyBentleigh_26June2019

Test Pit Name Depth Technological class Silcrete Quartz Quartzite Total Ave MD (mm) (mm) Surface Surface Angular fragment 2 1 3 27.7

Core 1 1 27.4

Flake 3 3 22.0

1x1B 0-100 Flake 2 2 23.6

1x1B S5 0-100 Flake 1 1 22.8

STP 31/ 1x1E 0-100 Flake 1 1 28.8

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 128

Test Pit Name Depth Technological class Silcrete Quartz Quartzite Total Ave MD (mm) (mm) 100-200 Angular fragment 1 1 2 13.8

Core 1 1 17.0

Flake 2 1 3 33.8

Tool 1 1 2 27.8

STP 28 0-100 Flake 1 1 34.8

STP 28 N10 0-100 Flake 1 1 19.7

STP 35 0-100 Flake 1 1 14.6

STP 35 S5 0-100 Flake 1 1 23.6

STP 38 0-100 Tool 1 1 22.4

STP 48 50-100 Angular fragment 1 1 22.5 Total 20 3 2 25 24.6 Ave MD (mm) 25.7 16.4 25.2 24.6 Table 35: Location, depth and average maximum dimension (MD) of artefact technological class by raw material in the 7922-xxxx assemblage Dr Jacqui Tumney has supplied the following information below about the artefact assemblage for VAHR 7922- ***. The silcrete assemblage is comprised of two tools (10.0%), two cores (10.0%), 12 flakes (60.0%) and four angular fragments (20.0%). The two cores are both single-platform, unidirectional cores, each with just one flake scar. Seven of the flakes are complete, of which one is a bladelet, and five are broken/partial, including two bladelets. Nine of the flakes/bladelets preserve a platform (75.0%) and nine preserve a termination (75.0%), with flaked and plain platforms equally common, and feather terminations dominating the preserved distal ends (Table 36). The two tools are a backed fragment and a notched fragment, both of which retain macroscopic traces of use. Two complete flakes, one partial flake and one partial bladelet also exhibit usewear; 30.0% of the silcrete assemblage therefore has evidence of retouch and/or usewear.

Platform Termination Plain Flaked Not preserved Crushed Total

Feather 2 2 2 6

Not preserved 1 1 1 3

Hinge 1 1 1 3 Total 4 4 3 1 12 Table 36: Platform and termination types on silcrete artefacts in the 7922-xxxx assemblage The quartz component of the LDAD assemblage includes two angular fragments and a complete flake (possibly struck using the bipolar anvil technique) with a crushed platform and plunge termination. The quartzite artefacts are a complete flake (possibly bipolar) with a flaked platform and hinge termination, and a proximal flake with a crushed platform and a small utilised notch. Weathering cortex was recorded on four of the 16 silcrete artefacts (25.0%), all of which are in the north- western part of the LDAD. Four silcrete artefacts also exhibit some rounding of the edges, indicating post- depositional transport or weathering – three of these artefacts are from 1x1E in the north-west, and the other is from the isolated test pit in the north-east. Possible traces of heating were noted on four silcrete artefacts, with the same distribution as the cortical artefacts – all are from the north-western part of the LDAD. This is a relatively small assemblage that is spread across a large area, providing minimal information about specific incidents of past behaviour. Post-depositional weathering evident on some artefacts also attests to the disturbance and possible transport of some material. The presence of backing and a small number of bladelets is notable, as they suggest that at least some of the assemblage may be associated with the Australian Small Tool Tradition, which in Victoria dates to approximately the mid-Holocene. A reasonably high incidence of usewear (30%) indicates that artefacts were being used in the area, and it is interesting that both

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 129

this assemblage and the artefact scatter assemblage contain notched tools – this might reflect particular types of resource procurement activities that were being undertaken along the Darebin Creek corridor. In general, however, it is likely that the artefacts comprising this assemblage were lost or discarded in the course of general procurement activities as people moved around the landscape.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 130

11. SECTION 61 MATTERS

11.1 Introduction

In accordance with s 61 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), this section reviews the matters to be considered in relation to the approval of a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) for the activity (Sections 10.2 to 10.4). Details of specific management conditions to be implemented for Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area including an outline of salvage recording are presented in Section 1. Please note: the specific cultural heritage management conditions presented in Section 1 must be adhered to as a condition of approval of the CHMP.

VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Repatriation Induction Surface Salvage Name impact Salvage excavation **** La Trobe LDAD Partial Yes Yes Yes No University Eco Corridor LDAD 1 7922-0210 Darebin 5 Artefact If Sponsor Yes Yes Yes 100% salvage Scatter cannot avoid required if impacts to Sponsor cannot the avoid impacts to registered the registered place extent, place extent via then partial design solutions impact may be required, and 100% salvage will occur to the area impacted *7922- Darebin 6 Non site None No No No No 0218 7922-0219 Darebin 7 Artefact None No Yes No No Scatter 7922-0986 La Trobe Artefact None No Yes No No Wildlife Scatter Reserve 1 7922-1366 La Trobe LDAD None No Yes No No University LDAD Table 37: Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and management conditions * Please note that the former scarred tree VAHR 7922-0218 has been deemed a non-site and its status updated on the VAHR. Therefore, no management conditions are detailed below for this former site.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 131

11.2. La Trobe University Eco-corridor LDAD 1 (7922-****)

11.2.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-****? Given the nature of the proposed development and design restrictions associated with constructing the bike and pedestrian path in a suitable location on undulating land adjacent to a watercourse, it is not possible for the activity to be conducted in a way that completely avoids harm to VAHR *****.

11.2.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-****? It is possible that the activity can be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-****. The proposed impacts from the construction of the pedestrian and bike path will not exceed a depth of 200mm from the current ground surface, therefore harm will be avoided to any Aboriginal cultural heritage located below 200mm. In addition, sections of VAHR**** will not be impacted by the proposed activity, with no impacts proposed from the flood mitigation works to the artefact bearing area adjacent to Gresswell Lakes (see Maps 1 and 2).

11.2.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-**** before, during and after the activity Most of the low-density artefact distribution **** identified within the activity area will be impacted by the proposed activity. Based on the results of the assessment and the inability to avoid harm to the entirety of this Aboriginal place, the sections of this Aboriginal cultural heritage place shown in Detail 2 of Map 2 may be harmed by the proposed activity, subject to management conditions (Table 38). VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Repatriation Induction Surface Name Impact Salvage **** La Trobe LDAD Partial Yes Yes Yes University Eco Corridor LDAD 1 Table 38: VAHR 7922-**** and management conditions Section 1 contains detailed information on the specific measures required for the management of the registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area before, during, and after the activity. A number of general conditions of relevance to the future conduct of the CHMP are also presented in Section 1. As per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), standard contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage and for other matters that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as custody and management arrangements, disputes, delays and other obstacles, will be adopted during the implementation of the activity (see Section 2 for details).

11.3. Darebin 5 (7922-0210)

11.3.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-0210? Given the nature of the proposed development and design restrictions associated with constructing the bike and pedestrian path in a suitable location on undulating land adjacent to a watercourse, it is not possible for the activity to be conducted in a way that completely avoids harm to VAHR 7922-0210.

11.3.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0210? It is possible that the activity can be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0210. The proposed impacts from the construction of the pedestrian and bike path will not exceed a depth of 200mm from the

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 132

current ground surface, therefore harm will be avoided to any Aboriginal cultural heritage located below 200mm. In addition, sections of VAHR 7922-0210 will not be impacted by the proposed activity, and the Sponsor has agreed to raise up the surface of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathway where the pathway intersects with the registered place extent of 7922-0210, thereby avoiding further harm to this Aboriginal place.

11.3.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-0210 before, during and after the activity Sections of the artefact scatter VAHR 7922-0210 identified within the activity area will not be impacted by the proposed activity. If the Sponsor is unable to avoid impacts to the section of the registered place extent of 7922-0210 that intersects with the proposed pathway (see Map 2), this area of 7922-0210 will be subject to 100% hand-excavated salvage as per Section 1.4 and 1.5.2 (Table 39). VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Impact Repatriation Induction Surface Salvage Name Salvage excavation 7922-0210 Darebin Artefact If Sponsor cannot Yes Yes Yes 100% salvage 5 Scatter avoid impacts to the required if registered place Sponsor cannot extent, then partial avoid impacts to impact may be the registered required, and 100% place extent via salvage will occur to design solutions the area impacted Table 39: VAHR 7922-0210 and management conditions Section 1 contains detailed information on the specific measures required for the management of the registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area before, during, and after the activity. A number of general conditions of relevance to the future conduct of the CHMP are also presented in Section 1. As per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), standard contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage and for other matters that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as custody and management arrangements, disputes, delays and other obstacles, will be adopted during the implementation of the activity (see Section 2 for details).

11.4 Darebin 7 (7922-0219)

11.4.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-0219? The activity can be conducted in a way that completely avoids harm to VAHR 7922-0219.

11.4.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0219? The activity will not harm 7922-0219.

11.4.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-0219 before, during and after the activity The artefact scatter VAHR 7922-0219 registered within the activity area will not be impacted by the proposed activity (Table 41). VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Repatriation Induction Name Impact 7922-0219 Darebin 7 Artefact None No Yes Scatter Table 40: VAHR 7922-0219 and management conditions

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 133

Section 1 contains detailed information on the specific measures required for the management of the registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area before, during, and after the activity. A number of general conditions of relevance to the future conduct of the CHMP are also presented in Section 1. As per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), standard contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage and for other matters that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as custody and management arrangements, disputes, delays and other obstacles, will be adopted during the implementation of the activity (see Section 2 for details).

11.5 La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 (7922-0986)

11.5.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-0986? The activity can be conducted in a way that completely avoids harm to VAHR 7922-0986.

11.5.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-0986? The activity will not harm 7922-0986.

11.5.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-0986 before, during and after the activity The artefact scatter VAHR 7922-0986 registered within the activity area will not be impacted by the proposed activity (Table 41). Therefore, there are no specific conditions required for 7922-0986. VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Repatriation Induction Name Impact 7922-0986 La Trobe Artefact None No Yes Wildlife Scatter Reserve 1 Table 41: VAHR 7922-0986 and management conditions Section 1 contains a number of general conditions of relevance to the future conduct of the CHMP. As per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), standard contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage and for other matters that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as custody and management arrangements, disputes, delays and other obstacles, will be adopted during the implementation of the activity (see Section 2 for details).

11.6 La Trobe University LDAD (7922-1366)

11.6.1 Will the activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to 7922-1366? The activity can be conducted in a way that completely avoids harm to VAHR 7922-1366.

11.6.2 Will the activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to 7922-1366? The activity will not harm 7922-1366.

11.6.3 Specific conditions required for the management of 7922-1366 before, during and after the activity The LDAD VAHR 7922-1366 registered within the activity area will not be impacted by the proposed activity (Table 42). Therefore, there are no specific conditions required for 7922-1366.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 134

VAHR Place Site Type Permissible Repatriation Induction Name Impact 7922-1366 La Trobe LDAD None No Yes University LDAD Table 42: VAHR 7922-1366 and management conditions Section 1 contains a number of general conditions of relevance to the future conduct of the CHMP. As per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic), standard contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage and for other matters that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as custody and management arrangements, disputes, delays and other obstacles, will be adopted during the implementation of the activity (see Section 2 for details).

11.7 Cumulative Impact Statement

While increased and intensive land use such as residential, commercial and industrial development have the potential to severely disturb surface and subsurface archaeological deposits, there remains potential, even within highly disturbed contexts, for the remains of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The cumulative effect of land use over time means that any areas of less disturbed or undisturbed land containing Aboriginal cultural heritage places become increasingly valuable in a local and regional context and from a cultural and scientific perspective. The results of the desktop, standard and complex assessments have been taken into account when considering the cumulative impacts that the activity will have on cultural heritage within the region. The results of the desktop assessment indicate there are 54 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the geographic region. Most of these places are artefact scatters that contain relatively low numbers of Aboriginal stone artefacts. The activity area contains five registered Aboriginal places (one of these places, formerly registered as a scarred tree has now been deemed a non-site, see Section 10.3). The previously registered Aboriginal places located in the geographic region have been recorded on elevated landforms, and on landforms associated with waterways such as Darebin Creek as well as on the flat floodplains, landforms that are present within the current activity area for CHMP 15724. The results of the desktop assessment also indicate that areas of the geographic region, including the majority of the current activity area, have been subject to large-scale development. These works include the construction, modification and upgrade of major and minor roadways university development and residential developments. The impacts many of these developments have had on Aboriginal cultural heritage is largely unknown, as the works pre-dated the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and were often not subject to archaeological investigation or did not require the preparation of a CHMP under the current legislation. Whilst many of the developments that have taken place in the geographic region since the implementation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 have involved harm and impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage, recent archaeological investigations within and in proximity to the activity area have advocated for harm avoidance and minimisation strategies. Within Spry et al. (2017), although no Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified during the standard or complex assessments, harm would be avoided to several previously registered Aboriginal places within the activity area. Although the current assessment did identify Aboriginal cultural heritage, the subsurface testing programme that occurred as part of the complex assessment identified the heritage to be a lower density site and also part of a previously registered artefact scatter (VAHR 7922-0210 and VAHR***). Both of these Aboriginal places were identified in disturbed contexts and were found in areas that had been modified by past disturbances and also in association with introduced materials. Given the diffuse distribution of surface and subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage within the activity area particularly in the area adjacent to Darebin Creek, it is likely that the cultural heritage within the activity area represents the use of the entire landscape rather than specific areas. Based on the distribution of known Aboriginal cultural heritage in the geographic

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 135

region, it is likely that additional cultural heritage may still be preserved in undeveloped areas particularly areas in proximity to watercourses such as Darebin Creek. Sections of the Aboriginal cultural heritage places VAHR 7922-0210 and **** will be impacted by the proposed bike and pedestrian pathway, although construction impacts will be limited to a maximum depth of 200mm below the current ground surface avoiding harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage located below this depth. As shown in Map 2, sections of VAHR 7922-0210 and VAHR*** will be also avoided by the proposed activity, as will the previously registered Aboriginal places VAHR 7922-0219, 7922-0986 and 7922-1366. Harm avoidance has occurred in protecting the potentially archaeologically sensitive area adjacent to Gresswell Lakes. A recommendation for future CHMPs in the geographic area would be to consider preserving archaeologically sensitive landforms by avoiding impacts to these areas or utilising geofabric or introduced soils to cover ground surfaces subject to frequent pedestrian and/or vehicle use. On this basis there will be cumulative impact due to the proposed works associated with the current activity however they will be minor in nature and the activity will not result in a substantial contribution to impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage in the region.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 136

11. REFERENCES

Aguirre, E. and Pasini, G. 1985. ‘The Pliocene-Pleistocene Boundary’, in Episodes, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 116-120. Aitken, D. and Kershaw, P. 1993. ‘Holocene vegetation and environmental history of Cranbourne Botanic Garden, Victoria’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 105 (1): 67-80. Amorosi, L., Bell, J., Cekalovic, H., Greenwood, S., Hill, V., Munro, M., Reeves, J., and Tunn, J. 1997. Assessment of potential scarred trees in the Darebin Creek Reach 4 Management area. Report to the Darebin Creek Co-ordinating Committee. La Trobe University. Barker, M. 2012. Three-unit development: 38 Douglas Street Rosanna, Victoria. Barwick, D. 1984. ‘Mapping the Past: An Atlas of Victorian Clans, 1835-1904’, Aboriginal History 8(2), 100-130. 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. Bowler, J. 1981. ‘Australian salt lakes – a palaeohydrologic approach’, Hydrobiologia 82, 431-444. Burke, H. and Smith, C. 2004. The Archaeologists Field Handbook. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest. Cannon, M. 1993. Melbourne after the gold rush. Loch Haven Books, Victoria. Cekalovic, H. 1999. An archaeological desktop assessment of the former Larundel Psychiatric Hospital, Plenty Road, Bundoora, Victoria. Clark, I. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: an Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800–1900. Monash Publications in Geography, No. 37. Clark, I. and Heydon, T. 1998. The Confluence of the Merri Creek and Yarra River: A History of the Western Port Aboriginal Protectorate and the Merri Creek Aboriginal School, Victoria. Cole, J. and Goh, A. 2018. 4-8 Browning Street Kingsbury Residential Subdivision. Cultural Heritage Management Plan 15363 for MS Designer Living. Cosgrove, R. 1999. ‘Forty-two degrees south: the archaeology of Late Pleistocene Tasmania’. Journal of World Prehistory. Vol. 13 No. 4: 357-402. Davison, G. 1978. The rise and fall of Marvellous Melbourne. Melbourne University Press. Ellender, I. 1991. The Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park: the archaeological assessment of Aboriginal sites, Victoria. Feldman, R. 2004. Darebin Creek Trail Project. Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished report to Parks Victoria, Victoria. Ford, A. 2013. Lower Playing Field La Trobe University: Soil Investigation Report. A Report to La Trobe University, Victoria. Forster, H. W. 1968. Preston Lands and People 1838-1967. F. W. Cheshire Publishing Pty Ltd, Victoria. Howitt, A. W. 1904. The native tribes of south-east Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 137

Kershaw, A. P., Tibby, J., Penny, D., Yezdani, H., Walkley, R., Cook, E., and Johnston, R. 2004. ‘Latest Pleistocene and Holocene vegetation and environmental history of the Western Plains of Victoria, Australia’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 139-161. Lambeck, K. and Nakada, M. 1990. ‘Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change along the Australia coast’, in Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology (Global and Planetary Change Section), 89 , pp. 143-176. Lakic, M and Wrench, R. (eds.). 1994. Through Their Eyes: An Historical Record of Aboriginal People of Victoria as Documented by the Officials of the Port Phillip Protectorate 1839-1841. Museum of Victoria, Victoria. Leahy, P.J., Tibby, J., Kershaw, P. A., Heijnis, H., Kershaw, J. S. 2005. ‘The impact of European settlement on Bolin Billabong, a Yarra River floodplain lake, Melbourne, Australia’, in River Research and Applications Vol. 21, pp. 131-149. Lourens, L. J. 2008. ‘On the Neogene-Quaternary Debate’ in Episodes, Vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 239-242. Matic, A. 2015. 7 Argyle Street, Macleod residential development. CHMP 13403 for New Age One Pty Ltd., Victoria. Marshall, B. and Schell, P. 1996. Aboriginal Archaeological Sites in the Darebin Municipality: a brief review. Unpublished report to Optus, Victoria. McAlister, R. 2014. Proposed residential subdivision: 20 Lowell Avenue, Kingsbury, Victoria. Marquis-Kyle, P. and Walker, M. 1992. The Illustrated Burra Charter. Australia ICOMOS, Sydney. Mulvaney, D. and Kamminga, J. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, St Leonards. Newnham, W. H. 1956. Melbourne, the biography of a city. F. W. Cheshire Melbourne. Peel, L. 1974. Rural Industry in the Port Phillip Region 1835-1880. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Presland, G. 1985. Aboriginal Melbourne. The lost land of the Kulin people. (Melbourne: McPhee Gribble) [Revised edition of Land of the Kulin] Reid, M. 1989. Palaeoecological changes at Lake Wellington, Gippsland Lakes Victoria, during the late Holocene: a study of the development of a coastal lake ecosystem. Honours thesis, Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Victoria. Rhodes, J., Debney, T. and Grist, M. 1999. Maribyrnong Aboriginal Heritage Study. Unpublished Report to the City of Maribyrnong. Spry, P., Albrecht, M., and Feldman, R. 2016a. La Trobe University Melbourne Campus Cultural Values Assessment. A Report for La Trobe University, Victoria. Spry, P., Albrecht, M., and Feldman, R. 2016b. La Trobe University Melbourne Campus Cultural Heritage Management Plan. A Report for La Trobe University, Victoria. Spry, P. 2017. La Trobe University Sports Park Stage One, Bundoora Campus. CHMP 14498 for La Trobe University. Stellini, T. 2003. Wurundjeri Community Investigation, Bundoora Park. A Report on Activities of the Aboriginal Community Heritage Investigations Program. Aboriginal Victoria, Victoria. Sullivan, H. 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Report No.6, Victoria. Sullivan, M. and Simmons, S. 1979. ‘Silcrete: a Classification for Flaked Stone Assemblages’, The Artefact 4: 51- 60.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 138

Thomson, M. 2002. A cultural heritage survey of the La Trobe University Research and Development Park, Bundoora. Unpublished report to CRI Australia Pty Ltd, Victoria. Venosta, M., Yugovic, J. and Vines, G. 2015. La Trobe University Wildlife Sanctuary management plan. Plan prepared for La Trobe University, Victoria. Weaver, F. 1992. The Lower Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey: A Survey for Aboriginal and Historic Archaeological Sites, Forming the Heritage Component of the Darebin Creek Concept Plan. Unpublished Report to Melbourne Water, Victoria. Weaver, F. and Perham, G. 1995a. Bundoora Repatriation Hospital, Plenty Road Preston. A survey and assessment of Aboriginal and historical archaeological sites. Report to the Office of Major Projects, Victoria. Weaver, F. and Perham, G. 1995b. Former Bundoora Repatriation Hospital, Plenty Road Preston. Sub-surface testing in the vicinity of three Aboriginal sites. Report to the Office of Major Projects, Victoria. Wilkins, D., Gouramanis, C., De Deckker, P., Keith Fifield, L. and Olley, J. 2013. Holocene lake-level fluctuations in Lake Keilambete and Gnotuk, southwestern Victoria, Australia. The Holocene published online 6 February 2013, pp. 1-12. Zola, N. and Gott, B. 1992. Koorie plants Koorie people: traditionally Aboriginal food, fibre and healing plants of Victoria, Melbourne Koorie Heritage Trust, Victoria.

LEGISLATION: Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 (Vic)

Websites: AV Practice Note – Subsurface testing. February 2017: https://w.www.vic.gov.au/aboriginalvictoria/heritage/heritage-tools-and-publications/guides-forms-and- practice-notes-for-aboriginal-heritage-management.html - accessed 19-06-2019

BOM (Bureau of Meteorology)

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086351.shtml – accessed 29-05-2018

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning http://er-info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/registered.htm - accessed 29-05-2018, 29-07-2018

Earth Resources - Geovic

http://er-info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/registered.htm - accessed 29-05-2018, 12-06-2018

La Trobe University

Photos of university construction sourced from La Trobe University website, https://50years.latrobe/galleries/changing-la-trobe-landscape/ - accessed 18-06-2019

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 139

Victorian Resources Online http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework– accessed 29-07-

http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_1.4 - accessed 12-6-2018.

http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework - accessed 29- 05-2018

http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_6.1.2- accessed 12-06-2018

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 140

12. SITE GAZETEER

Place name VAHR Place type Easting Northing La Trobe University Eco-corridor 7922-**** Low density artefact distribution LDAD 1 (LDAD) Darebin 5 7922-0210 Artefact Scatter 327142 5822744 Darebin 7 7922-0219 Artefact scatter 327632 5822924 La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 7922-0986 Artefact scatter 328358 5823909 La Trobe University LDAD 7922-1366 Low density artefact distribution 328293 5823542 (LDAD) Place name VAHR Place type Easting Northing

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 141

13. ADDITIONAL TABLES

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 142

Pit Spit Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Aboriginal European Charcoal Ants Worms Name Depth Depth(mm) Material Material (mm)

1x1A 1 0 50 Dark greyish brown Friable Silt Occasional inclusions, one small 10YR 4/2 6.5 Y N N N N onion bulb and some small rootlets and grass present 1 50 100 Dark greyish brown Compact Clay Occasional inclusions, one small 10YR 4/2 6.5 Y N N N N onion bulb and some small rootlets and grass present 2 100 200 Dark greyish Compact Clay Occasional small rootlets and one 10YR 4/2/ 6.5 Y N N N N brown/very dark piece of unworked (natural) 10YR 3/1 grey silcrete included in spit 2 1X1B 1 0 40 Dark grey Friable Silt Occasional small rootlets, grass 10YR 4/1 6.5 Y Y N Y N and onion bulb present 1 40 100 Very dark grey/very Compact Clay Small onion bulb present along 10YR 3/1 / 6.5 Y Y N Y N dark greyish brown with small fragments of sub- 10YR 3/2 surface basalt (5-15cm2) in size 2 100 200 Very dark grey/very Compact Clay Occasional small rootlets, a piece 10YR 3/1 / 6.5 N Y N N N dark greyish brown of plastic and gravelly small basalt 10YR 3/3 fragments present 1X1C 1 0 80 Dark greyish Friable Humic silt Disturbed fill deposit with 10YR 4/2 / 6.5 N Y N N Y brown/Greyish frequent small rootlets and a golf 10YR 5/2 brown ball, plastic and piece of textile present

1 80 100 Dark greyish brown Compact Silty clay More compacted silty clay with 10YR 4/2 6.5 N Y N N Y occasional rootlets present 2 100 170 Greyish brown/dark Compact Silt Occasional small rootlets and 10YR 5/2 / 6.5 N N N N N greyish brown some small gravelly inclusions (2- 10YR 4/2 3cm2 in size) present 3 170 280 Dark greyish brown Compact Silt Occasional small rootlets present 10YR 4/2 6.5 N N N N N 4 280 400 Dark greyish Compact Silty clay Occasional small rootlets present 10YR 4/2 / 6.5 N N N N N brown/Greyish 10YR 5/2 brown 5 400 500 Light brownish grey Friable Silt Occasional small rootlets and 10YR 6/2 6.5 N N N Y N white (chalky) 'mudstone' in eastern section of the pit and small moderate mudstone inclusions present

6 500 600 Light brownish grey Friable Silt Moderate small white 'mudstone' 10YR 6/2 6.5 N N N N N inclusions mixed with soft mudstone 7 600 700 Greyish brown Friable Silt Very occasional rootlet and silt 10YR 5/2 6.5 N N N N N becoming increasingly finer 8 700 800 Light brownish grey Friable Silt Deposit sieved with no cultural 10YR 6/2 6.5 N N N N N material present 9 800 900 Greyish brown Compact Silty clay Occasional sub-angular buckshot 10YR 5/2 6.5 N N N N N inclusions present 9 900 Greyish brown Compact Clay Occasional sub-angular buckshot 10YR 5/3 7.5 N N N N N inclusions present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 143

Pit Spit Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Aboriginal European Charcoal Ants Worms Name Depth Depth(mm) Material Material (mm)

1X1 STP 1 0 100 Very dark grey Firm Silty clay Occasional plastic piping, shell 10YR 3/1 6.5 N Y N N Y 28 (bivalve fragment) and moderate small fragments of weathered basalt, sandstone, occasional medium fragments of sub- rounded basalt

2 100 200 Very dark grey Compact Silty clay Occasional tin can (old ring pull) 10YR 3/1 6.5 N N N N N and coke can present. Inclusions of moderate large sub-rounded basalt in the base, occasional grass roots and small to medium sandstone, moderate weather sub-rounded basalt and vesicular basalt present/

1X1 STP 1 0 100 Dark brown Firm Silty clay Occasional glass, brick, orangish 7.5YR 3/2 6 Y N N N Y 31 brown clay/silt stone and occasional subangular basalt present with moderate plastic inclusions

2 100 200 Black Compact Clay Small fragments of occasional 5YR 2.5/1 6 N N N N N roots and yellowish-brown clay/siltstone 1X1 STP 1 0 100 Very dark grey Friable Silty clay Occasional plastic and plant tag, 7.5YR 3/1 6 N N N N Y 35 moderate spiders, millipedes and tunnels/webs present 2 100 200 Very dark grey Compact Silty clay Occasional roots, spider tunnels, 7.5YR 3/1 6 Y Y Y N Y stone artefacts, less European material and content looks less disturbed than previous STP's and 1x1 38. Fragment of decomposed leather show present

1X1 STP 1 0 80 Dark brown Friable Humic silty Thick compacted roots matted 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 N Y N N N 38 clay together (up to 6-7mm in diameter) and occasional glass, ceramic, bluestone and brick inclusions

80 100 Dark brown Friable Silty clay 2 100 200 Dark brown Firm Silty clay frequent fine roots, moderate 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 N Y N N N sandstone fragments with very occasional quartz pebble, brick inclusions and sub-rounded basalt approx. 70mm & large sub- rounded basalt approx. 1500mm present

Table 43: 1x1 m pit excavation data

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 144

Name of Raw Values (base of Spit) Corrected values (base of Corrected values (Fixed Test pit spit) datum) 1x1A Spit A B C D Datum North wall Date A B C D A B C D (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) datum (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1A Start levels 1570 1535 1530 1550 1530 1535 5/03/19 -40 -5 0 -20 -35 0 5 -15

1x1A Base of 1 1650 1625 1625 1640 1530 1535 5/03/19 -120 -95 -95 -110 -115 -90 -90 -105

1x1A 2 1720 1720 1720 1725 1530 1535 5/03/19 -190 - - -195 -185 - - -190 190 190 185 185

1x1B Spit A B C D Datum North Wall Date A B C D A B C D (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) datum (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1B Start levels 1395 1390 1400 1415 1390 1390 5/03/19 -5 0 -10 -25 -5 0 -10 -25

1x1B Base of 1 1525 1540 1500 1520 1390 1390 5/03/19 -135 - - -130 -135 - - -130 150 110 150 110 1x1B 2 1590 1585 1560 1600 1390 1390 5/03/19 -200 - - -210 -200 - - -210 195 170 195 170

1x1C Spit A B C D Datum North Wall Date A B C D A B C D (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) datum (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1C Start levels 1020 905 890 1085 890 905 7/03/19 -130 -15 0 -195 -115 0 15 -180

1x1C Base of 1 1070 985 1040 1110 890 905 7/03/19 -180 -95 - -220 -165 -80 - -205 150 135 1x1C 2 1130 1050 1080 1155 890 905 7/03/19 -240 - - -265 -225 - - -250 160 190 145 175 1x1C 3 1180 1115 1115 1190 890 905 7/03/19 -290 - - -300 -275 - - -285 225 225 210 210 1x1C 4 1350 1310 1355 1355 890 905 7/03/19 -460 - - -465 -445 - - -450 420 465 405 450 1x1C 5 1510 1455 1460 1480 890 905 7/03/19 -620 - - -590 -605 - - -575 565 570 550 555 1x1C 6 1570 1550 1555 1570 890 905 7/03/19 -680 - - -680 -665 - - -665 660 665 645 650 1x1C 7 1640 1615 1690 1690 890 905 7/03/19 -750 - - -800 -735 - - -785 725 800 710 785 1x1C 8 1725 1700 1740 1745 890 905 7/03/19 -835 - - -855 -820 - - -840 810 850 795 835 1x1C 9 1875 1700 1740 1745 890 905 7/03/19 -985 - - -855 -970 - - -840 810 850 795 835

1x1 STP Spit A B C D Datum North Wall Date A B C D A B C D 28 (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) datum (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1 STP Start levels 1418 1386 1321 1415 1321 1386 29/05/19 -97 -65 0 -94 -32 0 65 -29 28 1x1 STP Base of 1 1495 1592 1435 1492 1321 1386 29/05/19 -174 - - -171 -109 - -49 -106 28 271 114 206 1x1 STP 2 1578 1592 1493 1576 1321 1386 29/05/19 -257 - - -255 -192 - - -190 28 271 172 206 107

1x1 STP Spit A B C D Datum West Wall Date A B C D A B C D 31 (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) datum (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1 STP Start levels 155 155 152.5 150 150 150 28/05/19 -5 -5 -2.5 0 -5 -5 -2.5 0 31 1x1 STP Base of 1 166 163 160 162 150 150 28/05/19 -16 -13 -10 -12 -16 -13 -10 -12 31 1x1 STP 2 171 172 167 171 150 150 28/05/19 -21 -22 -17 -21 -21 -22 -17 -21 31

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 145

1x1 STP Spit A B C D Datum East Wall datum Date A B C D A B C D 35 (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1 STP Start levels 156 137 140 139 137 137 28/05/19 -19 0 -3 -2 -19 0 -3 -2 35 1x1 STP Base of 1 156 145.5 145 146 137 137 28/05/19 -19 -8.5 -8 -9 -19 -8.5 -8 -9 35 1x1 STP 2 156 153 155 157 137 137 28/05/19 -19 -16 -18 -20 -19 -16 -18 -20 35

1x1 STP Spit A B C D Datum East Wall datum Date A B C D A B C D 38 (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) (NW) (NE) (SE) (SW) 1x1 STP Start levels 810 435 515 855 435 435 28/05/19 -375 0 -80 -420 -375 0 -80 -420 38 1x1 STP Base of 1 970 530 630 880 435 435 28/05/19 -535 -95 - -445 -535 -95 - -445 38 195 195 1x1 STP 2 970 640 750 105 435 435 28/05/19 -535 - - 330 -535 - - 330 38 205 315 205 315

Table 44: 1x1 m pit spit depths and reduced levels (mm)

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 146

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm) STP 01 Modified landform: embankment 500 500 200 1 0 50 Very dark Weak Silt Occasional fine 10YR 3/2 6 from pond/dam greyish brown rootlets and two pieces of wire present

2 50 200 Yellowish brown Compact Silty clay Light grey mottling 10YR 5/6 6.5 present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 02 Modified landform: embankment 500 500 200 1 0 40 Very dark Weak Silt Occasional fine 10YR 3/2 6 from pond/dam, amongst native greyish brown rootlets present vegetation

2 40 200 Yellowish brown Compact Clay Fill consisting of fine 10YR 5/6 6.5 grey mottling. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 03 Modified landform: embankment 500 500 200 1 0 70 Very dark Weak Silt Contaminated 10YR 3/2 6 from pond/dam, amongst native greyish brown topsoil consisting of vegetation bottles, glass, plastic bottles and a tire rim tube present

2 70 200 Dark reddish Compact Clay Light grey mottling 5YR 3/4 6.5 brown present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 04 Modified landform: revegetated 500 500 200+ 1 0 50 Light brownish Friable Humic silty clay 10YR 6/2 6 bushland grey

2 50 180 Grey Firm Sandy clay 10YR 5/1 6.5

3 180 200+ Grey Compact Clay Mid yellowish-brown 10YR 5/1 6.5 mottling present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 05 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 200 1 0 50 Light greyish Friable Silty clay Occasional fine 10YR 6/2 6 brown rootlets present

2 50 200 Mid grey Firm Silty clay Closed pit as per 10YR 5/1 6.5 CHMP requirement

STP 06 Modified landform: revegetated 500 500 200 1 0 40 Light greyish Friable Silt 10YR 6/2 6 bushland brown

2 40 160 Mid grey Firm Silty clay Occasional sub- 10YR 5/1 6.5 angular basalt up to 10cm2 present

3 160 200 Mid yellowish Compact Clay Closed pit as per 10YR 5/6 6.5 brown CHMP requirements

STP 07 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 200 1 0 40 Light greyish Friable Silt 10YR 6/2 6 brown

2 40 160 Mid grey Firm Silty clay 10YR 5/1 6.5

3 160 200 Mid yellowish Compact Clay Closed pit as per 10YR 5/6 6.5 brown CHMP requirements

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 147

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm) STP 08 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 200 1 0 80 Light greyish Friable Silt Large tree root up to 10YR 6/2 6 brown 3cm thick

2 80 200 Mid grey Firm Silty clay Closed pit as per 10YR 5/1 6.5 CHMP requirement STP 09 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 200 1 0 40 Light greyish Friable Silt Occasional fine 10YR 6/2 6 brown rootlets present

2 40 140 Mid grey Firm Silty clay Moderate sub- 10YR 5/1 6.5 rounded gravel present

3 140 200 Mid yellowish Compact Clay Closed pit as per 10YR 5/6 6.5 brown CHMP requirement STP 10 Adjacent to creek 500 500 200 1 0 200 Dark black Compact Clay Disturbed mud plain 10YR 2/1 6.5 clay and glass fragments present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 11 Adjacent to creek 500 500 120 1 0 40 Mid brownish Friable Silty clay Disturbed topsoil 10YR 3/2 6 grey with concrete slab fragment present

2 40 120 Dark black Compact Clay Mud plain clay 10YR 2/1 6.5 present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 12 Adjacent to creek 500 500 120 1 0 40 Dark greyish Friable Silt Topsoil consisted 10YR 4/1 6.5 brown large sub-angular basalt; fragment of porcelain present

2 40 120 Dark black Compact Clay Closed pit as per 10YR 2/1 6.5 CHMP requirement STP 13 Adjacent to creek 500 500 120 1 0 40 Mid brownish Friable Silty clay Disturbed topsoil 10YR 3/2 6 grey with glass fragments present

2 40 120 Dark grey-black Compact Clay Mud plain clay 10YR 2/1 6.5 present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 14 Adjacent to creek 500 500 120 1 0 40 Mid brownish Friable Silty clay 10YR 3/2 6 grey

2 40 120 Dark black Compact Clay Occasional quartzite 10YR 2/1 6.5 fragments present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 15 Modified slope 500 500 200 1 0 30 Grey Firm Humic silty clay Top 30ml is loose soil 10YR 5/1 6 with large basalt inclusions and grass roots present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 148

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

2 30 120 Yellowish brown Compact Clay Medium-large basalt 10YR 5/4 6.5 inclusions, and w/ dark occasional pebbles grey of basalt and quartz mottling present

3 120 200 Yellowish brown Compact Clay Terminated due to 10YR 5/4 impenetrable base w/ black clay (10YR 2/1) mottling

STP 16 Base of modified slope - 12m East 500 500 110+ 1 0 30 Dark grey Friable Humic silty clay Thick compaction of 10YR 4/1 6 of Darebin Creek very fine rootlets and medium to small basalt inclusions present

2 30 110 Yellowish brown Firm Silty clay Moderate medium 10YR 5/4 6.5 to large basalt inclusions present

3 110+ Black Compact Clay Closed pit due to 10YR 2/1 6.5 exposed impenetrable floodplain clay

STP 17 Embankment, slight slope towards 500 500 130 1 0 120 Grey Friable Humic silty clay Small quartz pebbles 10YR 5/1 6 east, alongside tracks and small to medium weathered carbonate inclusions with grass roots and spider tunnel present

2 120 130 Dark grey Friable Clay Clay base with 10YR 4/1 6.5 medium weathered carbonate nodule present

STP 18 Embankment adjacent to dirt track 500 500 90+ 1 0 90 Grey Friable Humic silty clay Topsoil includes 10YR 6/1 5.5 moss and grass roots, spider nest, roots and mycorrhizal layer present

2 90+ Yellowish brown Compact Clay High plasticity clay 10YR 5/4 6.5 base present STP 19 Gentle sloping embankment near 500 500 90+ 1 0 90 Dark grey Firm Humic silty clay Topsoil containing 10YR 4/1 6 dirt track occasional basalt sub-rounded fragments and carbonate pebbles up to 9cm present

2 90+ Black Compact Clay High plasticity clay 10YR 2/1 6.5 base present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 149

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

STP 20 Modified moderate grass slope (Re- 500 500 170+ 1 0 170 Very dark Humic Ants nest present 10YR 3/2 6 aligned STP approx. 3m south of greyish brown with occasional small original proposed location due to and large weathered underlying sewage drain) sub-rounded basalt. Thick and compacted fine rootlets present

2 170+ Black Compact Clay Continuation of ants 10YR 2/1 6.5 nest and clay base present STP 21 Towards top of moderate modified 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark greyish Friable Humic silty clay Small (under 5cm)- 10YR 4/2 6 slope brown medium (10cm) sub- rounded basalt on surface and within context one and smaller fragments and brick fragments present on the surface. Two types of basalt present: 'bluestone' and vesicular, along with lots of grass rootlets present

2 60 200 Black Compact Silty clay Basalt present 10YR 2/1 6.5 embedded across pit. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 22 Gentle slope above track and 500 500 200 1 0 110 Dark grey Friable Humic silty clay Thick compaction of 10YR 4/1 5.5 adjacent to Darebin Creek matted grass roots melted small pieces of glass, plastic, plastic comb, moderate levels of small to large subangular basalt present. Samples collected as examples of disturbance

2 110 200 Black Firm Silty clay Moderate levels of 10YR 2/1 7 small to large subangular basalt present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 150

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm) STP 23 4WD track cutting through very 500 500 90 1 0 90 Dark grey Compact Silty clay Embedded basalt 10YR 4/1 6 gentle slope near Darebin Creep present throughout pit which also contains small pieces of glass, brick, glazed ceramic tile present (board fragment, dimples). Pit closed due to suspected asbestos

STP 24 Lower slope of modified mound 500 500 200 1 0 90 Dark grey/ dark Friable Humic silty clay Moderate small 10YR 4/1 6.5 adjacent to creek (20m from creek) greyish brown rootlets and some and 10YR basalt stones (5- 4/2 10cm2) inclusions and grass is present

2 90 200 Very dark Firm Silty clay Basalt embedded in 10YR 3/1 6.5 greyish brown clay. Basalt stone (20cm2) in northwest quadrant with occasional rootlets and onion bulbs and glass fragments present. Closed pit due to CHMP requirement

STP 25 Lower slope of modified mound 500 500 180 1 0 70 Dark greyish Friable Humic silty clay Moderate grass 10YR 4/2 6 adjacent to creek (20m from creek) brown rootlets and small (5cm2) bluestone and basalt stones are present

2 70 180 Very dark Compact Clay Fill consisting of 10YR 3/1 6.5 greyish brown occasional rootlets and onion bulbs and small basalt stone fragments (5-10cm2) with larger basalt stones in NE corner. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 26 Upper slope of a modified mound 500 500 200 1 0 70 Dark greyish Friable Humic Moderate bluestone 10YR 4/2 6.5 adjacent to creek (20m from creek) brown gravel fragments (2- 5cm2) and basalt stones (10-15cm2) present. A moderate amount of small rootlets present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 151

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

2 70 200 Very dark Firm Silty clay Fill consisting of 10YR 3/1 6.5 greyish brown basalt stones, occasional rootlets, broken brick, occasional onion bulb present. Disturbed clay base with embedded basalt inclusions. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 27 Upper slope of a modified mound 500 500 210 1 0 60 Very dark Friable Humic Moderate amount of 10YR 3/2 6.5 overlooking creek to the east - 20m greyish brown small rootlets and from creek small (2-5cm2) bluestone gravel fragments along with basalt stones (5- 10cm2) present

2 60 210 Very dark Firm Silty clay Fill consisting of 10YR 3/1 6.5 greyish brown occasional small rootlets and onion bulbs, basalt stones (5-10cm2) present, a piece of plastic and some small charcoal chunks present. Thick tree root (20cm2) dissecting STP. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 28 Adjacent to creek (15m from creek) 500 500 220 1 0 50 Very dark Firm Silty clay Grass present with 10YR 3/1 6.5 - east of escarpment greyish brown occasional small rootlets and snails, plastic pipe/tube present - possible disturbed content

2 50 220 Very dark Firm Silty clay Fill with occasional 10YR 3/2 6.5 greyish brown rootlets and snails, along with plastic pieces and a moderate amount of bluestone gravel (2- 5cm2) present. Also present was a shell fragment, piece of foil and fake grass - possibly disturbed content

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 152

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm) STP 29 Adjacent to creek at foot of 500 500 200 1 0 70 Very dark Friable Silty clay Two glass fragments 10YR 3/1 6.5 escarpment greyish brown and occasional fine rootlets frequently present - possibly disturbed content

2 70 200 Very dark Compact Clay Occasional small 10YR 3/2 6.5 greyish brown bluestone gravel fragments and small basalt stones (3- 6cm2) present. Pit closed as per CHMP requirements

STP 30 Base of moderate slope, alongside 500 500 170 1 0 90 Grey Firm Humic silty clay Occasional plastic 10YR 5/1 6 track next to Darebin Creek and fabric fragments, and frequent grass roots present - possibly disturbed content

2 90 170 Grey Compact Clay Occasional 10YR 5/1 6.5 weathered sub- rounded basalt, occasional plastic fragments and grass roots present. Clay base reached at 170mm

STP 31 Adjacent to Darebin Creek - 12m 500 500 170+ 1 0 100 Greyish brown Compact Humic silty clay Fill consisted of 10YR 5/2 6 north yellowish-brown mottling mudstone, and yellowish-brown claystone and pebble fragments present

2 100 170 Greyish brown Compact Clay Consists of white and 10YR 5/2 6 yellowish flecks throughout. Includes bottle glass fragments, small quartz pebbles, slabs and mudstone are present

3 170+ Grey Compact Clay Clay base present 10YR 5/1 6.5 STP 32 Adjacent to Darebin Creek 500 500 200 1 0 110 Greyish brown Friable Humic silty clay Frequent grass roots 10YR 5/2 6 and leaf litter present along with a spider tunnel and spider

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 153

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

2 110 200 Black Compact Clay Some rootlets and 10YR 2/1 6.5 high plasticity floodplain clay present

STP 33 Adjacent to creek, 10m from the 500 500 200 1 0 50 Very dark Firm Silty clay Fill with frequent 10YR 3/2 6 creek, floodplain greyish brown grass and occasional moderate small rootlets and some plastic pieces present

2 50 200 Very dark grey - Firm Silty clay Frequent onion 10YR 3/1 - 6 very dark bulbs, moderate 10YR 3/2 greyish brown rootlets, occasional plastic pieces and spider disturbance present. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 34 Adjacent to creek on floodplain 500 500 190 1 0 40 Very dark Friable Humic Frequent grass and 10YR 3/2 6 greyish brown small rootlets and worms present

2 40 190 Very dark Compact Clay Occasional small 10YR 3/1 - 6 grey/very dark rootlets and onion 10YR 3/2 greyish brown bulbs present and spider disturbance. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 35 Adjacent to creek on floodplain 500 500 200 1 0 90 Very dark grey - Friable Humic Occasional rootlets 10YR 3/1 - 6.5 (10m from creek) very dark present 10YR 3/2 greyish brown

2 90 200 Very dark Firm Silty clay Occasional rootlets 10YR 3/2 6.5 greyish brown present and artefacts collected STP 36 Base of moderate modified slope - 500 500 200 1 0 20 Black Firm Humic silty clay Grass roots present 10YR 2/1 6.5 12m away from Darebin Creek

2 20 200 Black Compact Clay Quick transition 10YR 2/1 6.5 straight into dense river floodplain clay with high plasticity

STP 37 Moderate slope - 20m north of 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark grey Firm Humic silty clay Thick compaction of 10YR 4/1 6 Darebin Creek grass roots and occasional whiteish yellow mudstone inclusions. Occasional plastic and bluestone chips, one piece of concrete bitumen present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 154

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

2 60 200 Dark grey Compact Clay Moderate amount of 10YR 4/1 6 small to medium sized mudstone present

STP 38 Side of (upper slope) of modified 500 500 300 1 0 100 Very dark Friable Humic Frequent small 10Yr 3/2 7 mound adjacent to creek greyish brown rootlets, glass and porcelain fragments present. Artefacts collected - possible disturbed fill

2 100 200-300 Very dark Friable Sandy clay Fill consists of 10YR 3/2 7 greyish brown occasional rootlet and snail inclusions, ochre fragment, porcelain and glass fragment (possible worked glass), and charcoal chunks present. Closed pit due to CHMP requirement

STP 39 Modified moderate slope bank - 500 500 200 1 0 20 Grey Friable Humic silty clay Thick compacted 10YR 6/2 6 15m north of Darebin Creek grass roots present

2 20 200 Grey Firm Silty clay Fill consisted of 10YR 6/1 6 frequent bluestone and basalt gravel, yellowish and orangish white mudstone, occasional concrete with bluestone aggregate, bitumen fragments and occasional pieces of red and orangish yellow clay present

STP 40 Upper slope of modified mound 500 500 200 1 0 70 Very dark Friable Humic silty clay Disturbed fill with 10YR 3/2 6.5 adjacent to creek greyish brown occasional rootlets and some porcelain fragments present

2 70 200 Very dark Friable Silty clay Occasional rootlets 10YR 3/2 6.5 greyish brown and some porcelain fragments present. Closed as per CHMP requirement

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 155

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm) STP 41 Upper slope of modified mound 500 500 200 1 0 40 Very dark Friable Humic silty clay Moderate small 10YR 3/2 6.5 adjacent to creek greyish brown rootlets and grass, disturbed gravelly fill with some possible bluestone fragments present

2 Very dark Friable Silty clay Gravelly silty 10YR 3/3 6.5 greyish brown disturbed fill with occasional small rootlets present

STP 42 Modified revegetated bush land 500 500 700 1 0 50 Brown Friable Humic silt Disturbed pit with 10YR 5/3 6.5 thick compacted fine rootlets and occasional broken glass fragments present

2 50 350 Dark yellowish Compact Silty clay Fill consisted of 10YR 4/6 6.5 brown frequent small to medium sub-angular mudstone and gravel

3 350 640 Light grey Firm Silt Occasional small iron 7.5YR 7/1 6.5 stone flecks

4 640 700 Dark yellowish Compact Clay Frequent small to 10YR 4/6 6.5 brown medium sub- rounded buckshot inclusions intermixed with clay

STP 43 Modified revegetated landscape 500 500 700 1 0 150 Dark yellowish Friable Humic silt Disturbed fill with 10YR 3/4 6.5 brown plastic, thick compacted fine rootlets and tree roots (3cm2) present

2 150 700 Brown Compact Silty clay Ceramic pipe present 10YR 5/3 6.5 in eastern section. Base of pit closed due to it being impenetrable because of large rock inclusions on walls and base

STP 44 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 360 1 0 80 Brown Friable Humic silt Moderate small 10YR 5/3 5.5 rootlets present

2 80 140 Light brownish Compact Silty clay 10YR 6/2 5.5 grey

3 140 220 Mid brownish Friable Silt Small yellowish grey mudstone inclusions present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 156

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

4 220 360 Light brownish Friable Silt grey

5 360 Light yellowish Compact Clay Sterile clay base brown reached with subangular buckshot inclusions. Closed pit as per CHMP requirements

STP 45 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 370 1 0 70 Brown Friable Humic silt Moderate fine 10YR 5/3 5.5 rootlets present

2 70 230 Pinkish grey Friable Silt 10YR 6/2 5.5

3 230 370 Light greyish Compact Silty clay brown STP 46 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 420 1 0 90 Very dark Friable Humic silt Moderate fine 10YR 3/2 6 greyish brown rootlets present

2 90 230 Dark greyish Friable Silt 10YR 4/2 6 brown

3 230 420 Greyish brown Compact Silty clay 10YR 5/2 6

4 420 Light yellowish Compact Clay Sterile clay base brown reached with small buckshot inclusions present. Closed pit at per CHMP requirement

STP 47 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 450 1 0 100 Brown Friable Humic silt Moderate fine 10YR 5/3 6 rootlets present

2 100 160 Dark greyish Friable Silt 10YR 4/2 6 brown

3 160 320 Greyish brown Friable Silty clay 10YR 5/2 6

4 320 450 Greyish brown Compact Silty clay Gravelly deposit 10YR 5/2 6 present

5 450 Light greyish Compact Clay Sterile clay base with brown ironstone and buckshot inclusions present. Closed pit as per CHMP requirement

STP 48 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 420 1 0 90 Brown Friable Humic silt Frequent rootlets 10YR 5/2 6 present and artefact found

2 90 170 Brown Friable Silt 10YR 5/3 6

3 170 370 Grey Compact Silty clay Charcoal flecks 7.5YR 6/1 6 present

4 370 420 Pinkish grey Compact Clay Frequent inclusions 7.5YR 6/2 6 of ironstone and gravelly buckshot present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 157

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

5 420 Pinkish grey Compact Clay Sterile clay base 7.5YR 6/3 6 embedded with ironstone and buckshot inclusions. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 49 Modified revegetated bushland 500 500 370 1 0 100 Mid greyish Friable Humic silt Occasional fine brown rootlets

2 100 220 Mid greyish Friable Silt brown

3 220 370 Light greyish Compact Clay Gravely deposit with brown frequent small ironstone and buckshot present

4 370 Light greyish Compact Clay Sterile clay base brown embedded with ironstone and buckshot inclusions. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 50 Modified revegetated landscape 500 500 415 1 0 70 Brown Friable Humid silt Frequent small 7.5YR 5/2 6 rootlets present

2 70 130 Brown Friable Silt 7.5YR 5/2 6

3 130 330 Grey Compact Silty clay Occasional charcoal 7.5YR 6/1 6 flecks present

4 330 415 Pinkish grey Compact Silty clay Gravelly deposit with 7.5YR 6/2 6 small frequent ironstone and buckshot inclusions

5 415 Pinkish grey Compact Clay Sterile clay base 7.5YR 6/2 6 embedded with ironstone and buckshot inclusions. Pit closed as per CHMP requirement

STP 51 Adjacent dam north of the STP area 500 500 770 1 0 110 Very dark brown Friable Humic silt Disturbed fill with 10YR 2/2 6 that impacts the integrity of this metal, plastic and landform (STPs 42, 43 and 1x1c) brick present

2 110 180 Dark greyish Friable Silt Clay inclusions 10YR 4/2 brown present

3 180 320 Brown Friable Silt Grey lens present 10YR 4/1

4 320 480 Brown Friable Silt 10YR 4/3 6

5 480 570 Grey Compact Clay Yellow clay with 10YR 6/1 mudstone inclusions present

6 570 770 Brown Compact Silty clay 10YR 5/3

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 158

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

7 770 Pale brown Compact Clay Sterile clay base with 10YR 6/3 moderate charcoal flecks. Closed pit due to CHMP requirements

1x1A N5 Flat floodplain adjacent to Darebin 500 500 200 1 0 70 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 Creek brown rootlets present

2 70 180 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown

3 180 200 Dark grey Compact Clay 10YR 3/1 7 1X1A Flat floodplain adjacent to Darebin 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 N10 Creek brown rootlets present

2 60 180 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Small subangular 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown basalt present embedded on top of clay

3 180 200 Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 3/1 7 clay base present 1X1A S5 Flat floodplain adjacent to Darebin 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine grass 10YR 3/2 6.5 Creek brown rootlets present

2 60 130 Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 3/1 7 clay base present 1X1A Flat floodplain adjacent to Darebin 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine grass 10YR 3/2 6.5 S10 Creek brown roots present

2 60 200 Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 3/1 7 clay base present 1X1B N5 Adjacent to 4WD track 500 500 120 1 0 50 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine grass 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown roots present

2 50 100 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional small 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown sub-rounded basalt present

3 100 120 Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 3/1 7 clay base present 1x1B Adjacent to 4WD track 500 500 170 1 0 50 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine small 10YR 3/2 6.5 N10 brown rootlets

2 50 100 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional small 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown sub-rounded basalt present

3 100 170 Dark grey Compact Clay 10YR 3/1 7 1X1B S5 Flat floodplain adjacent to 4WD 500 500 200 1 0 70 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 track brown and occasional small glass inclusions and occasional small to medium basalt present

2 70 170 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional small to 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown medium sub rounded basalt

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 159

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

3 170 200 Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 3/1 7 clay base present 1X1B Adjacent to 4WD track 500 500 130 1 0 30 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 S10 brown and a small clear glass fragment present with occasional medium sub rounded basalt inclusions

2 30 130 Dark grey Compact Clay Consisted of fill clay 10YR 3/1 7 in southern section

STP 28 Below escarpment approx. 5m East 500 500 170 1 0 50 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 N5 of Darebin Creek brown compacted roots present

2 50 140 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional medium 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown to large subangular basalt fragments present

3 140 170 Dark greyish Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 3/2 6.5 black clay present STP 28 In front of escarpment 500 500 180 1 0 60 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Thick compaction of 10YR 3/2 6.5 N10 brown frequent fine rootlets with occasional small red plastic fragments present

2 60 150 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Small to medium 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown subangular basalt

3 150 180 Dark greyish Compact Clay Strong compact clay 10YR 2/1 7 black STP 28 Gentle westerly decline in front of 500 500 200 1 0 70 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 N20 escarpment brown rootlets and occasional small red plastic fragments present

2 70 180 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional small to 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown large sub rounded basalt

3 180 200 Dark greyish Compact Clay Strong compacted 10YR 2/1 7 black clay STP 28 Top of the escarpment above 500 500 160 1 0 40 Mid greyish Friable Humic silt Moderate very fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 S5 floodplain brown rootlets with occasional small to medium sub rounded basalt present

2 40 140 Mid greyish Friable Silty clay Moderate small to 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown large subangular basalt present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 160

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

3 140 160 Dark greyish Compact Clay Frequent large 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown subangular basalt embedded in clay base

STP 28 Moderate westerly decline on top 500 500 200 1 0 40 Dark greyish Friable Humic silt Moderate fine Dark Dark S10 of escarpment brown rootlets and greyish greyish occasional small brown brown clear glass fragments present

2 40 180 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Moderate small to Dark Dark brown medium subangular greyish greyish basalt present brown brown

3 180 200+ Dark greyish Compact Clay Large basalt Dark Dark black embedded in the greyish greyish base of the pit - no brown brown further digging possible

STP 31 Adjacent to Darebin Creek 500 500 120 1 0 40 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine roots Dark Dark E5 brown present greyish greyish brown brown

2 40 100 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional small Dark Dark brown white ceramic greyish greyish fragments present brown brown 3 100 120 Dark greyish Compact Clay Strong compact clay Dark Dark black base greyish greyish brown brown STP 31 Approx. 15m north of Darebin 500 500 120 1 0 50 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Fine frequent roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 E10 Creek brown

2 50 100 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Small subangular 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown basalt present

3 100 120+ Dark black Compact Clay Strong compact clay 10YR 2/1 7

STP 31 Adjacent to Darebin Creek 500 500 100 1 0 50 Dark greyish Firm Humic silty clay Frequent fine roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 W5 brown present

2 50 90 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown

3 90 100+ Dark greyish Compact Clay Strong compact clay 10YR 3/2 6.5 black base STP 31 Approx. 15m north of Darebin 500 500 100 1 0 40 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Frequent fine roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 W10 Creek brown present

2 40 90 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Spiders and worms 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown present

3 90 100+ Dark greyish Compact Clay Strong compact clay 10YR 3/2 6.5 black base

STP 35 Adjacent to Darebin Creek 500 500 130 1 0 45 Dark greyish Firm Frequent and fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 N5 rootlets present

2 45 100 Dark greyish Firm Occasional small 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown plastic fragments present

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 161

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

3 100 130+ Dark greyish Compact Strong 10YR 2/1 7 black compacted clay base

STP 35 Adjacent to Darebin Creek 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark greyish Firm Frequent fine 10YR 3/2 6.5 N10 brown roots and occasional small white plastic fragments

2 60 160 Dark greyish Firm Occasional small 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown sub rounded basalt fragments present

3 160 200 Dark greyish Compact Strong compact 10YR 2/1 7 black clay base STP 35 Floodplain approx. 25m east of 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark greyish Friable Humic silt Frequent leaf litter 10YR 3/2 6.5 S5 Darebin Creek brown and occasional fine roots present

2 60 180 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Occasional tree roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown up to 12mm thick present

3 180 200 Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compact clay 10YR 3/1 7 STP 35 25m east of Darebin Creek 500 500 120 1 0 50 Dark greyish Friable Humic silt Frequent fine roots 10YR 3/2 6.5 S10 floodplain brown and leaf litter present

2 60 100 Dark greyish Firm Silty clay Worms present 10YR 3/2 6.5 brown

3 100 120+ Dark grey Compact Clay Strong compact clay 10YR 3/2 6.5 base STP 38 Top of steep modified slope approx. 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark brown Friable Humic silty clay Thick matted grass 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 N5 30m east of Darebin Creek roots and decomposing organic material with small occasional fragments of siltstone, 20mm bluestone and plastic present

2 60 200 Dark brown Firm Silty clay Consisted of fill 7.5YR 3/2 7.5

Closed pit at 200mm as per CHMP requirements STP 38 Top of modified steep slope east of 500 500 200 1 0 100 Dark reddish Friable Silty clay Frequent plastic and 2.5YR 3/3 7.5 N10 Darebin Creek brown ceramic inclusions

2 100 200 Dark brown Friable Silty clay Plastic and ceramic 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 inclusions with iron and some staining present 2.5YR 3/3

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 162

Pit Landform Length Width Maximum Context Starting Base Colour Consistency Composition Comments Munsell pH Name (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) Depth Depth (mm) (mm)

Closed pit at 200mm as per CHMP requirements STP 38 Top of modified slope/embankment 500 500 200 1 0 50 Dark brown Friable Humic silty clay Thick matted grassy 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 S5 approx. 20-30m east of Darebin layer with moderate Creek glass and ceramic inclusions present

2 50 200 Dark brown Friable Silty clay Fill consisting of 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 moderate glass and ceramic inclusions and one large rounded basalt present in base

Closed pit at 200mm as per CHMP requirements STP 38 Top of modified embankment 500 500 200 1 0 60 Dark brown Friable Humic silty clay Thick layer of grassy 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 S10 topsoil present

2 60 200 Dark brown Friable Silty clay Fill consisting of 7.5YR 3/2 7.5 occasional ceramic and buckshot with frequent glass and occasional oyster shell (n.1) inclusions

Closed pit at 200mm 7 as per CHMP requirements

Table 45: 0.5x0.5 m pit database

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 163

No. ALA_ID Place name Location Raw Manufacture type Cortex Flake Flake Core scars Modification Tool type L W Th MD material platform termination (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

1 1 Darebin 5 Surface Quartzite Flake Plain Feather 32.97 38.04 14.87 42.78

2 2 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Flake Flaked Axial 26.51 27.04 6.93 26.51

3 3 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Flake Flaked Axial 42.07 38.41 11.15 50.41

4 4 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Flake Focal Axial 18.37 5.78 8.46 57.91

5 5 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Flake fragment 3.9 19.26

6 6 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Proximal flake Flaked 9.86 3.79 16.13

7 7 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Angular fragment Present 17.11 48.24

8 8 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Medial flake 7.04 5.5 12.66

9 9 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Angular fragment 3.07 14.88

10 10 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Proximal flake Flaked 10.12 3.68 20.36

11 11 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Proximal flake Plain 14.56 2.61 16.83

12 12 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Flake Flaked Axial 25.08 28.95 7.5 30.29

13 13 Darebin 5 Surface Silcrete Angular fragment 13.08

14 14 Darebin 5 1x1A Silcrete Longitudinally broken flake Weathering Flaked Feather 37.4 6.42 38.91

15 15 Darebin 5 1x1A Silcrete Longitudinally broken distal Weathering Feather 5.58 37.12 flake

16 16 Darebin 5 1x1A Silcrete Flake Flaked Hinge 24.89 14.94 8.1 28.08

17 17 Darebin 5 1x1A Silcrete Flake Plain Plunge Dorsal scalar Notched 31.82 19.92 5.71 36.44 notch; Usewear flake

18 18 Darebin 5 1x1A Silcrete Longitudinally broken medial 3.34 17.42 flake Table 46: Artefact database – 7922-0210

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 164

Easting Northing Zone Depth Raw Primary Form Cortex % of edge Flake Flake Number Longest Length Width Thickness Maximum (m) Material % with retouch/ Platform Termination of scar - axial - axial (mm) Dimension usewear (complete (complete, complete (axial for for (mm) (flakes, and proximal distal and scars mm) flakes flakes blades and flakes and longitudinal (cores (cores and and angular blades only) split flakes only) only) blades blades fragments and blades (mm) (mm) only) only) 326967.579 5823036.542 55 0.05 Silcrete Flake - None 67-99% Flaked Feather 21.07 25.43 7.68 34.75 Complete 326895.684 5823085.673 55 0.05 Quartzite Flake - None None Flaked Hinge 18.14 21.38 5.72 28.81 Complete 326832.293 5823132.834 55 0.05 Silcrete Blade - Proximal 1-32% None Flaked 14.38 7.68 2 14.59 326827.285 5823213.873 55 0.05 Silcrete Angular None 1-32% 22.43 15.24 6.79 22.43 fragment 328827.256 5824144.268 55 0.075 Silcrete Angular None None 22.52 15.96 11.33 22.52 Fragment 327111.96 5822782.766 55 0 Silcrete Core - None 1 17.14 24.92 25.11 15.66 27.37 Unidirectional 327110.6 5822787.297 55 0 Silcrete Angular None None 26.4 17.17 8 26.4 Fragment 327105.735 5822793.906 55 0 Silcrete Flake - None None Crushed Hinge 19.19 18.11 2.54 20.9 Complete 327105.181 5822794.814 55 0 Quartz Angular None None 16.56 9.64 6.43 16.56 Fragment 327103.612 5822795.333 55 0 Silcrete Flake - None None Plain Hinge 14.42 24.51 3.69 24.51 Complete 327095.061 5822808.012 55 0 Silcrete Angular None None 40.2 30.55 20.48 40.2 Fragment 327095.231 5822805.508 55 0 Silcrete Flake - None None Flaked Hinge 15.35 17.65 7.43 20.5 Complete 326960.111 5823044.525 55 0.05 Silcrete Blade - Distal None 1-32% Feather 19.47 5.79 2.96 19.68 326832.846 5823126.723 55 0.05 Silcrete Flake - Medial None 1-32% 15.07 21.66 2.12 23.64 327115.115 5822779.735 55 0.05 Silcrete Flake - Proximal None None Plain 19.83 8.99 6.23 22.75 326895.59 5823086.296 55 0.15 Silcrete Core - 1-32% 1 13.57 16.99 13.99 13.01 16.99 Unidirectional 326895.59 5823086.296 55 0.15 Silcrete Angular None 1-32% 34.02 24.7 15.01 34.02 Fragment 326895.59 5823086.296 55 0.15 Silcrete Flake - None None Plain Feather 35.26 23.8 8.11 50.01 Complete 326895.59 5823086.296 55 0.15 Silcrete Flake - 67-99% 67-99% Plain Feather 23.78 20.81 4.52 29.84 Complete

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 165

Table 47: Artefact database – 7922-****

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 166

Table 48: Variables recorded in the technological and typological analysis of the stone artefacts identified as part of this CHMP Variable Specification Technological class Basic technological category (flake, core, tool, angular fragment or manuport) Raw material E.g. quartz, silcrete, hornfels, fine-grained siliceous Silcrete type In the case of silcrete artefacts, this category denotes the texture of silcrete Cortex % The percentage of cortex. For flakes this denotes the percentage of dorsal cortex Cortex type The type of cortex (e.g. chalky, pebble, unsilicified) Burn traces Traces of exposure to heat (e.g. potlid, crazing) Artefact type A finer classification of the type of artefact than allowed by the technological class category (e.g. bladelet, split flake, backed blade, rejuvenation flake, discoid core) Missing The part of the artefact that is not present, e.g. none (i.e. the artefact is complete), distal, lateral, proximal+distal Manufacture type The artefact manufacture type as per the Affairs Victoria (AV) guidelines for completing artefact scatter component forms (e.g. flake, distal flake, longitudinally split flake) Bipolar Whether the artefact was produced with a bipolar technique. If clear traces of bipolar production are present: yes; if no clear traces are present: indet Termination Description of the termination in the case of flakes and tools where appropriate (e.g. feather, hinge, bipolar) Platform Description of the platform in the case of flakes and tools where appropriate (e.g. flaked, crushed, facetted) Retouch type For tools: the type of retouch (e.g. stepped, scalar, scalar+stepped, denticulate, invasive) Retouch side For tools: the side from which the retouch was initiated (i.e. ventral retouch is initiated from the ventral side and is mainly visible on the dorsal side, and vice versa) Tool blank For tools: the type of blank on which the tool was made. E.g. flake, bladelet, core, pebble Scar direction For cores: a description of the suite of core scar directions (e.g. unidirectional, multidirectional, bidirectional) Scar type For cores: the shape of the scars (e.g. elongate, intermediate, expanding, multiple) N platforms For cores: the number of core platforms N Scars For cores: the number of core scars, excluding small scars related to platform preparation. Length For flakes: the longest length from the platform to the termination measured along the axis of percussion; for tools that cannot be orientated along the axis of percussion: the length of the long axis of the tool Width For both flakes and tools: the widest width of the artefact perpendicular to the axis of length measurement Thickness For both flakes and tools: the thickest thickness of the artefact perpendicular to the axis of length measurement Max. dimension The maximum extent of the artefact, regardless of orientation Weathering The presence of rounded features, matt surfaces or patination indicating weathering (e.g. slightly rounded edges, very rounded edges and matt surfaces, white patination) Use wear The presence of (possible) use wear as visible at low magnification. E.g. possible, probable, yes. If (possible) use wear is present it is further described in the comments. Comments Any comments not covered by the above

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 167

APPENDIX 1: PLANNING SCHEME

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 168

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 169

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 170

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 171

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 172

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 173

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 174

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 175

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 176

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 177

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 178

APPENDIX 2: NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 2006 (VIC)

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 179

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 180

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 181

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 182

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 183

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 184

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 185

APPENDIX 3: DAREBIN PLANNING SCHEME AND SCHEDULE TO PUBLIC USE ZONE - EDUCATION (PUZ2)

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 186

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 187

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 188

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 189

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 190

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 191

APPENDIX 4: HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 192

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 (Vic) 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.10 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 and 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 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).

10 Source: Guide to preparing Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans (AV May 2007)

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 193

• 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 (if present) 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 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 the archaeological sites recorded. Research potential is in turn assessed by examining site contents and site condition. Site contents refer to all cultural materials and organic remains associated with human activity at a site. Site contents also refer 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. 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. 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.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 194

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: 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: 1-4 Low scientific significance 5-7 Moderate scientific significance 8-9 High scientific significance Scientific significance assessment These significance determinations may change on the basis of future examination, research and analysis.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 195

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 196

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 197

APPENDIX 5: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 198

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. 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.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 199

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 and 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 and 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. 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.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 200

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 and 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’, TheArtefact 4: 51- 60.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 201

APPENDIX 6: QUALIFICATIONS

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 202

Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates. Bachelor of Arts in Classics and Archaeology (University of Melbourne 1997) Master of Arts in archaeology (La Trobe University 2004) Industry experience – 15 years

Jay Yost, Lead Archaeologist, Andrew Long and Associates Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Archaeology, La Trobe University, 2012 Bachelor of Arts in Archaeology, La Trobe University, 2007 Industry Experience - 10 years

Annemarie Reich, Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates Bachelor of Archaeology, La Trobe University, 2012 Master of Cultural Heritage, Deakin University, 2016 Industry Experience -3 years

Alexandra Ariotti, Field Archaeologist, Andrew Long and Associates Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Archaeology, La Trobe University, 2001. Postgraduate Diploma of Art Curatorship and Museum Management, University Of Melbourne, 1998 Bachelor of Arts in Art History and Political Science, Monash University, 1993 Industry experience - 23 years

Caroline Bandurski, Lithics Officer/Archaeologist, Andrew Long and Associates Bachelor of Archaeology (Honours), La Trobe University, 2018 Industry Experience - 2 years

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 203

APPENDIX 7: WURUNDJERI STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE AWARENESS INDUCTION

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 204

Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for a Cultural Heritage Induction

The Wurundjeri Council have determined that a cultural heritage awareness induction must be conducted with all site workers/contractors who are undertaking ground disturbing works within the Activity Area as part of this CHMP.

The induction will be provided by a representative of the Wurundjeri Land Council prior to or at the commencement of the activity. A heritage advisor/archaeologist may also attend this training session if necessary. The session must include a brief history of the Aboriginal occupation of the activity area and broader region; a summary of the archaeological investigations conducted within the activity area; specific details of any Aboriginal Places and Heritage located during the CHMP assessment; a summary of the conditions and contingencies contained within the CHMP; and the obligations of site workers/contractors and Sponsors under the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Wurundjeri representative will fill out a Cultural Heritage Induction Checklist which will be provided as a record of inducted individuals.

The main aim of the cultural heritage awareness induction is to explain the procedures outlined in the CHMP; show the site contractors examples of the most likely Aboriginal cultural heritage material to be located within the activity area; and explain the procedure outlined in the Contingency Plan Section of the CHMP in the event that this material is uncovered by them during the course of construction works.

This induction must be organised and paid for by the site contractors and/or Sponsor.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 205

APPENDIX 8: WURUNDJERI STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR REBURIAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE MATERIAL

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 206

All Aboriginal cultural heritage material collected as part of the preparation of a CHMP must be securely stored at the offices of the Heritage Advisor until the completion of ground disturbing works within the activity area. After the conclusion of the CHMP repatriation of cultural materials is to occur, with the timing to be determined in consultation with Wurundjeri. Repatriation can include the handover of cultural materials to Wurundjeri for storage and/or use for cultural purposes, or occur prior to the reburial of materials at a location determined in consultation between the Sponsor, the HA and the Wurundjeri elders. The exact method of repatriation is to be determined through the consultation process. All cultural material is to be returned in the following storage containers: • Keji 52L Plastic Storage Container Clear https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/keji-52l-plastic-storage-container-clear- ow52ltub?cm_vc=pdrp2 • Keji 15L Plastic Storage Container Clear https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/keji-15l-plastic-storage-container-clear- ow15ltub?cm_vc=pdrp1 • Ezy Storage 2.6L Rectangle Storage Container 2 Pack https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/ezy-storage-2-6l-rectangle-storage-container-2-pack- fba31861?cm_vc=pdrp1#!specifications • If the specified containers are not available, then a plastic storage container of similar dimensions must be sourced. All containers are to be labelled in permanent marker on both the side and the lid, in the following format: CHMP Number: Activity Area: CHMP Year: Site Numbers: For Reburial: (Yes/No) All relevant provenance (i.e. site information) documents are to be placed inside the container with the artefacts. An email must be sent to Wurundjeri acknowledging the transfer of artefacts. Hard copies of the paperwork (supplied by the HA) must be provided on the day of repatriation to acknowledge the transfer, which is to be signed in duplicate by both parties. Please note that if reburial of cultural material is to occur as a condition of the CHMP, a suitable container (as determined during the CHMP conditions meeting) will need to be provided at the time of reburial, not prior. Reburial If reburial was selected by Wurundjeri as the most suitable repatriation process for cultural material, the following will occur: At the completion of all ground disturbing works associated with the activity, the cultural heritage material must be reburied at a place that will not be disturbed in the future, as close as possible to the original Place extent boundary. The location for reburial will be chosen in consultation with Wurundjeri, and the cultural heritage material will be reburied in a container as requested during the consultation process. The Sponsor is responsible for providing the appropriate container, in addition to organising suitable manpower/machinery as needed to inter the cultural materials.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 207

The reburial is to be conducted by three representatives of the Wurundjeri Council, one representative from each Nevin, Terrick, and Wandin family group. An Elder of the Wurundjeri Council will conduct a smoking ceremony prior to the reburial and provide a brief history of the Aboriginal occupation in the area including details of the cultural heritage material. It is necessary that a Heritage Advisor be present at the reburial. The Advisor will record the location details of the reburied material with a differential GPS and supply this information to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Registrar along with all other relevant documentation. A Place Collection Form within the site card form must be updated to show the reburial location. The procedure in its entirety must be organised and paid for by the Sponsor.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 208

APPENDIX 9: WURUNDJERI STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR CHMP IMPLEMENTATION RAP INSPECTIONS

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 209

Wurundjeri Standard Procedure for RAP Compliance Inspections

The Wurundjeri Council have determined that three RAP Compliance Inspections will undertaken by Wurundjeri representatives over the duration of the activity in order to audit the works and ensure that they comply with the CHMP, Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the associated conditions and contingencies contained within this CHMP.

The Wurundjeri Council must be notified a week in advance before the RAP Inspections are required, prior to or, during the activity. A Worker Request Form must be filled out and sent to the Wurundjeri Council to book a Wurundjeri representative for each RAP Inspection.

A Wurundjeri representative will conduct the inspections and fill out the inspection form attached as an Appendix to this CHMP. A heritage advisor/archaeologist may also attend the inspections if necessary. If the inspections reveal suspected non-compliance of the CHMP, then the procedure outlined in Contingency 10.5 will be initiated. If the inspection reveals a suspected breach of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 then these actions must be reported to Aboriginal Victoria (AV) immediately and an Authorised Officer or Aboriginal Heritage Officer may be called out and/or a Stop Order may be issued by AV.

This procedure must be organised and paid for by the site contractors and/or Sponsor.

L a Trobe University Eco Corrid or – C H M P 1 5 7 2 4 210