b ward expert witness statement final · expert witness statement of bradley ward 1. introduction...

ABN:66129413297ICN:3630POBox11219,FrankstonVIC3199

Ph:(03)97701273www.bunuronglc.org

1

Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Gas Pipel ine Advisory Committee

Expert Witness Statement of Bradley Ward

1. Introduction

1.1. I have been asked to undertake a review of the Aboriginal cultural heritage implications of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline (the Project).

1.2. I have reviewed the technical report for Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Environment Effects Statement (EES).

1.3. I have been instructed by Dr Sean Sexton on behalf of the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) to review the relevant parts of the EES, Technical Report and give evidence on the cultural heritage implications of the Project relevant to my area of expertise.

1.4. The BLCAC has been appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 as the recognised Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the Mornington Peninsula, Western Port and part of South-West Gippsland.

1.5. I am employed by BLCAC as a Senior Archaeologist & Heritage Advisor.

1.6. Annexure A contains a statement setting out my qualifications and experience, and the other matters raised by Planning Panels Victoria’s Guide to Expert Evidence which I have read.

1.7. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Annexure B.

2. Summary of key issues, opinions and recommendations

2.1. Key issues identified in this Statement are:

• The narrow level of assessment undertaken as part of the EES Technical Report P.

• The reliance on incomplete information included in the EES Technical Report P.

• The lack of assessment/review undertaken for the broader geographic region of Western Port Bay.

• The lack of consultation with the BLCAC regarding proposed management conditions included in the EES Technical Report P.

• The poorly defined nature of the activity area and potential impacts to cultural heritage outside of the project corridor.

2.2. Recommendations

• Further consultation with the BLCAC is required to discuss potential cultural heritage management conditions and to determine the cultural significance of Aboriginal places and values of the project area.

• Further assessment must be undertaken to determine the potential risks to coastal sites in Western Port Bay.



2

• An assessment as to the potential risks to cultural heritage as part of the EES must be deferred until the complex assessment has been completed for CHMP 15383, including any additional assessment required for any changes to the current project activity area.

3. Declarations

3.1. I declare that I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the IAC.

3.2. In giving my evidence before the IAC I confirm I:

• will be alone in the room from which I am giving evidence and will not make or receive any communication with another person while giving my evidence except with the express leave of the Panel;

• I will inform the Panel immediately should another person enter the room from which I am giving evidence;

• during breaks in evidence, when under cross-examination, I will not discuss my evidence with any other person, except with the leave of the Panel; and

• I will not have before me any document, other than my expert witness statement and documents referred to therein, or any other document which the Panel expressly permits me to view.

Bradley Ward

2 October 2020



3

Report of Bradley Ward to the Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Gas Pipel ine Advisory Committee

1. What sites or places ( including types of places) of an archaeological/cultural nature are in the vicinity of either the pipeline or other related works of the Crib Point Project. This would include Western Port Bay, and French Island. Is there any indication as to the antiquity of these places?

1.1 An appropriate geographic region for the project area would include the western portion of Western Port Bay, including all of the coastline east of Cardinia Creek to HMAS Cerberus. In addition, all of French Island and the northern coastline of Phillip Island are included within this study area. An approximate buffer of 200 m either side of the pipeline is also included so that an appropriate sample of Aboriginal places can be included within this discussion.

1.2 Within the extent of this geographic region, three Aboriginal place types have been previously recorded on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR). These are stone artefact sites (including artefact scatters and low density artefact distributions [LDADs]), shell middens and earth features (hearths). Also included in this assessment are object collection records where they are known to be associated with cultural material recovered from within the geographic region.

1.3 Other Aboriginal place types that have been identified in the geographic region include sources of ochre such as the ochre cliffs and potential fish traps. These places were identified in March 2019 during archaeological surveys at French Island in collaboration with Parks Victoria, Aboriginal Victoria and the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC) (hereafter referred to as the French Island survey). Further research as to the nature of these places is being undertaken, and as a result, they have not yet been fully recorded and registered on the VAHR.

Stone artefact sites

1.4 Stone artefact sites are the most common Aboriginal place type in the geographic region. These sites reflect the material remains of past Aboriginal occupation. Stone artefact sites are usually formed by the discard of stone artefacts and other materials during a range of activities. These sites largely comprise stone artefacts as this type of cultural material is preserved longer in the environment than objects made of organic material. Stone artefact sites represent occupation areas, which include campsites and foraging areas. Activities which produced this material are primarily associated with stone tool manufacture. Other activities likely to have occurred at these places are not limited to the use of stone alone but can reflect the use of a place for the manufacture of other implements including wood and bone, the construction of shelters as well as the processing and preparation of food and cloths. There may be evidence of these other activities at stone artefact sites, where other place components have also been identified. These multi component places include other cultural materials including shell deposits, charcoal from hearths and occasionally, ochre fragments. Spiritual and ceremonial activities may also have been undertaken at these places.

1.5 Common stone raw material types which make up stone artefact sites include silcrete, quartz, crystal quartz, hornfels, coastal flint, chalcedony, quartzite, chert, mudstone and



4

tachylyte, all of which have been identified in the geographic region. Less commonly occurring stone materials which may be identified at stone artefact sites include greenstone, basalt and sandstone. Few of these raw materials types occur naturally within the geographic region, which is indicative of trade from outside the region (Plate 1).

1.6 Detailed usewear, residue and conjoin analysis of these stone artefacts may determine the primary use of these tools and may also be used to determine site formation. Usewear analysis involves the examination of microscopic polish, abrasion and other forms of artefact edge damage. This analysis is compared to results of experimental studies to determine if the stone artefacts were used to work wood, bone, hide or plant materials. Similarly, residue analysis involves the examination of microscopic residues which may adhere to the artefacts themselves. These residues include wood fibres and starch, associated with wood working and food processing, as well as animal tissues associated with game processing. Other residues, such as gum and resins may indicate the media used for hafting multi component tools. Artefact conjoin analysis involves the refitting of stone flakes to determine the core reduction sequence. Refitting of artefacts also indicates site preservation as it may demonstrate spatial patterning of artefacts in a primary context.

1.7 More recent scientific techniques including portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF) analysis are currently being researched for their practicality in identifying stone quarry sources by comparing the geochemical signature of artefacts with known extraction areas. These techniques are currently being employed for silcrete artefacts and ochre samples recovered from French Island.

1.8 The distribution of stone artefacts sites occurs in either a coastal environment (often associated with shell middens) or inland areas adjacent to freshwater sources or elevated areas (i.e. sand dunes). The majority of the stone artefact sites recorded along the coast were identified by Gaughwin (1981) and Sullivan (1981), whereas the majority of the inland stone artefact sites have been recorded during cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) assessments for a range of different activities.



5

Plate1:Exampleofthedifferentrawmaterialsencounteredinthegeographicregion.

Coastal shell middens

1.9 Coastal shell middens are also a common place type located in the geographic region. Shell middens contain the remains of shellfish eaten by Aboriginal people in the past and may comprise the refuse from a single meal or a regularly frequented site incorporating shells deposited over many thousands of years. These place types are present in the coastal environments of Western Port Bay including dunes, cliffs, estuaries and wetlands. Shell middens may be small in extent or cover vast areas, sometimes hundreds of metres in length (Plate 2).

1.10 Most of the shell middens in the geographic region comprise rocky shore shellfish species, located near these medium to high energy geomorphological areas. Occasionally shell middens have also been recorded in proximity to lower energy environments comprising mangroves and tidal flats in Western Port Bay.

1.11 Shell middens in the region primarily comprise shellfish including mussel, oyster, warrener, pipi, abalone, turbo, whelks and limpets. Like stone artefact scatter sites, shell middens may also comprise a range of other cultural materials including stone artefacts, charcoal from hearths, fish and animal bone, and occasionally human remains. The occurrence of these other materials reflects the diverse use of the places for a range of activities.

1.12 Shell middens provide important information about Aboriginal use of the coast and can indicate changes in diet, behaviour, activities and settlement patterns over thousands of years. Importantly, some shells can be directly dated through radiocarbon methods to determine the age of the deposits.



6

1.13 The distribution of shell middens occurs primarily on the north western coastline of Phillip Island, with occasional occurrences on the south western coastline of French Island as well as the coastal fringe at Cannons Creek and Crib Point. As with coastal stone artefact sites, most of these shell middens were recorded by Gaughwin (1981) and Sullivan (1981). During these initial surveys, all of the shell middens were assessed as being at risk from immediate erosion. Since these early surveys there has not been any substantial reassessment of these coastal environments, outside of the ongoing collaborative research at French Island.

Plate2:ExampleofastratifiedcoastalshellmiddenfromBunurongcountry.

Earth features (hearths)

1.14 Earth features associated with hearths have only occasionally been registered in the geographic region. However, closer examination of the shell midden site cards show that cultural charcoal is present in many of the midden deposits within the geographic region, yet these sites have not been recorded as multicomponent places given the standards for recording and registration employed at the time they were identified.

1.15 Hearths, if present, are an important site component as they reflect the actual campsite or cooking area of Aboriginal people. Charcoal recovered from such places can be directly dated by radiocarbon methods to reliably determine the age of the deposit. Microscopic



7

analysis of charcoal can also be used to determine what materials were being burned and may allow interpretation of environmental change over time.

Object collections

1.16 Object collection records refer to a collection of artefacts being held in custody, often in museums or the offices of heritage advisors or Traditional Owners. Object collection records may also reference artefact reburial locations.

1.17 Object collection records may not necessarily refer to cultural material recovered from the geographic region and are therefore not often assessed when constructing a predictive model of Aboriginal occupation in a given area. Occasionally however, object collections may hold some association with an identified place or locality. This is the case with two object collection records in the geographic region.

1.18 VAHR 7921-0374 (Harewood Artefact Collection) contains a number of greenstone axes and tools as well as two round stones which have been interpreted as having ceremonial associations. The collection also includes wooden clubs and numerous wooden spears with kangaroo binding. The registration of this collection states that it is highly likely that these objects were collected from the historic Harewood grounds and around Tooradin. This suggest that area around Tooradin is of high archaeological and cultural significance requiring further investigation.

1.19 Another important object collection record is at the Parks Victoria office on French Island (VAHR 7921-0649). This collection was examined by the BLCAC archaeologists during the first stage of archaeological surveys at French Island. This collection comprises a range of stone artefacts recovered primarily from coastal areas on the island. The collection comprised a large assemblage of a diverse range of stone materials including silcrete, quartz, crystal quartz, hornfels, coastal flint, quartzite, chert, mudstone and tachylyte flaked artefacts, as well as greenstone and basalt ground stone artefacts. The collection also comprises some midden shell and unidentified animal bones. This collection includes a large number of formal tools which will be analysed as part of ongoing research. The artefacts held within this collection demonstrate the archaeological significance of French Island and the need for further surface artefact recovery in areas subject to increased erosion.

Ochre cl iffs

1.20 During the French Island survey, two areas noted as having significant geological formations were inspected. These formations are known to the Traditional Owners as being ochre cliffs (Robert Ogden pers comm 2019) (Plate 3). These cliffs occurred along the southern coast of the island in areas subject to increased erosion. Ochre is known to have been used as pigments for rock art and body art, usually comprising red, yellow, brown and white pigments. Ethnographic evidence from the journal of William Thomas suggests that white ochre was used as a sign of death and grief, while yellow and brown ochres were used in corroborees (Fels 2011:166). Samples of ochre were collected during the survey from both locations and will be subject to PXRF analysis to compare geochemical signatures with other



8

ochre fragments recovered from elsewhere in Bunurong county. It is hoped that this analysis will show patterns of resource procurement both within and outside of Western Port Bay.

Plate3:TheochrecliffslocatedonFrenchIsland.

Potential f ish traps

1.21 Another area identified as having archaeological potential during the French Island survey was at Tortoise Head on the south western tip of the island. This area comprises significant geological features associated with the formation of the basalt promontory. Coastal processes in this area have created a series of curved cobble berms and rock pools. Artificial stone features resembling weirs were identified in this area as were several isolated stone artefacts along the beach fringe (Plate 4). It is possible that these cobble features have been altered to create fish traps, as the geomorphic environment is certainly conducive for the presence of such site types. Further research in collaboration with La Trobe University will be undertaken to determine the potential cultural origin of these features.



9

Plate4:PotentialfishtrapslocatedonFrenchIsland.

Dating of Aboriginal places in the geographic region

1.22 There have not been any Aboriginal places that have been directly dated within the geographic region, with most Aboriginal places dated relatively either by stone artefact typology or geomorphological association. In these cases, artefacts which can be associated with the Australian Small Tool Tradition (ASTT) are thought to date to the last 5000 years. Other relative dates for Aboriginal places in the geographic region are tied with their geomorphological context, where the age of the landforms themselves are dated and by association, the archaeology found within them. The coastal landscape of Western Port Bay is thought to have stabilised between 3000-1000 years ago, therefore any intact low-lying coastal sites are likely to date to the last 1000 years. The only exception to this would be artefacts found within a lag deposit. These deposits were identified in the mangroves, beaches and tidal flats during the French Island survey. In this case, it is likely that the artefacts were deposited prior to the formation of the current coastline. There is also some potential for older sites to be present in elevated areas in both the coastal and inland environments, where suitable pre-Holocene landforms are present.

1.23 The nearest reliable date we have for an archaeological deposit is at Coronet Bay (Mitchell 2019). Six charcoal samples were recovered from four excavation pits within a multi component Aboriginal place (VAHR 7921-1746), comprising both an artefact scatter and ancestral remains. This sequence of dates demonstrated that the stratigraphy of the site was intact, with the deepest stratigraphic horizon (55cm in depth) dated to 4300-4090 cal BP and the shallowest stratigraphic horizon (30 cm in depth) dated to 605-562 cal BP.

1.24 Comparable radiocarbon dates have been obtained from three sites in the broader region at Phillip Island. Two shell midden sites investigated by Gaughwin (1983) yielded dates ranging from 1400 to 1900 BP at Point Grant (VAHR 7920-0179) and 250 BP at Stinker Bay (VAHR 7920-0120). A hearth feature associated with an artefact scatter was also excavated



10

and dated at the site VAHR 7921-0902, yielding a date of 473+/- 47 BP (Murphy and Thomson 2008:46).

2. What archaeological s ites are currently identif ied within the pipeline al ignment and/or project area?

2.1 As no Aboriginal places have been identified within the CHMP 16300 activity area for the gas import jetty, the following description of known Aboriginal places is restricted to the CHMP 15383 activity area for the gas pipeline within the BLCAC RAP area.

2.2 At present, there are 11 known Aboriginal places within the CHMP 15383 activity area. All of these places comprise stone artefact sites. One Aboriginal place (Railway Road LDAD) is yet to be registered on the VAHR. It must also be stated that given complex assessment has not been completed for the CHMP 15383 activity area, it is likely that addition places will be identified within the alignment.

2.3 A description of each known Aboriginal place is provided below. This information has been provided by A. Barker who is the heritage advisor for CHMP 15383.

VAHR 7921-1750 (South Boundary Rd East LDAD)

2.4 This place comprises an LDAD containing six subsurface stone artefacts identified at four find locations on a sandy rise (EP010 contained one artefact; STP020 contained one artefact; STP028 contained two artefacts; and EP033 contained two artefacts). Due to a realignment of the activity area Components 5-6 (EP033) are no longer in the current activity area. The LDAD is considered to be relatively in situ where it occurs in deposits below the plough zone. The find locations are characterised by loose sandy soils in a paddock that has been subject to agricultural and pastoral land use which is likely to have impacted the upper 200-300mm of the soil profile. Below the plough zone movement of material through the loose sands would be limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw materials identified within this place comprise silcrete, quartz and fine-grained siliceous material. The artefacts types include complete flakes, distal flakes and angular fragments.

VAHR 7921-1751 (Warringine Creek AS)

2.5 This place comprises a subsurface artefact scatter of 21 artefacts identified in the upper 400mm of the soil profile in one 1x1m test pit (EP026). The place is located on a sandy rise and is considered to be relatively in situ from 200mm depth (the upper 200mm of the soil profile at this location is likely to have been impacted by previous clear and grade activities associated with the installation of the ESSO alignment). Raw materials identified within this place comprise quartz and quartzite. The artefact types include angular fragments, complete flakes, distal flakes, proximal flakes and medial flakes.

VAHR 7921-1752 (Bungower Road Pearcedale LDAD)

2.6 This place comprises an LDAD containing 11 subsurface artefacts identified on a sandy rise (EP043 contained two artefacts; EP044 contained three artefacts; STP164 contained one artefact, EPBP03 contained two artefacts, STPR01 contained one artefact, STPR03 contained one artefact and STPR05 contained one artefact). The LDAD is considered to be relatively in situ where it occurs below the plough zone. The find location is characterised by loose sandy soil in a paddock that has been subject to agricultural and pastoral land use which is likely to have impacted the upper 200-300mm of the soil profile. Below the plough zone movement



11

of material through the loose sands would be limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw materials identified within the place comprise silcrete and quartz. The artefact types include complete flakes, distal flakes, medial flakes, proximal flakes and angular fragments.

VAHR 7921-1753 (Callanans Lane LDAD)

2.7 This place comprises an LDAD containing seven subsurface artefacts identified in sandy soils on a slight rise on low-lying land (EP034 contained two artefacts; EP048 contained two artefacts; EP049 contained one artefact; SPT138 contained one artefact; and STP142 contained one artefact). The LDAD is considered to be relatively in situ given the find locations in loose sand below the plough zone, which is likely to have impacted the upper 300mm of the soil profile. Below the plough zone movement of material through the loose sands would be limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw materials identified within this place comprise quartz. The artefact types include complete flakes, proximal flakes and angular fragments.

VAHR 7921-1754 (Craigs Lane LDAD)

2.8 This place comprises an LDAD containing three subsurface artefacts identified in sandy soils on a gentle slope on low-lying land (EP017 contained one artefact; STP102 contained one artefact; and STP104 contained one artefact). The LDAD is considered to be relatively in situ given the find locations between 550-800mm depth in loose sand below the plough zone. The movement of material below this depth is limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw materials identified within this place comprise silcrete. The artefact types include complete flakes.

VAHR 7921-1755 (Baxter-Tooradin Rd AS)

2.9 This place comprises a subsurface artefact scatter containing 83 artefacts identified on a sandy rise (EP001 contained 26 artefacts; EP003 contained one artefact; EP004 contained 13 artefacts; EP005 contained five artefacts; EP019 contained two artefacts; STP1 contained one artefact; STP2 contained one artefact; STP016 contained three artefacts; STP019 contained two artefacts; STP057 contained 22 artefacts; STP061 contained two artefacts; STP062 contained two artefacts; and STP073 contained three artefacts). The place is located in loose sandy soils and is considered to be relatively in situ from 300mm depth below the plough zone. Below the plough zone movement of material through the loose sands would be limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw materials identified within the place comprise silcrete, quartz, basalt, fine grained siliceous material and quartzite. The artefact types include angular fragments, flaked piece, complete blades, distal blades, core fragments, multidirectional cores, complete flakes, distal flakes, proximal flakes and medial flakes.

VAHR 7921-1756 (Baxter-Tooradin Rd LDAD)

2.10 This place comprises an LDAD containing seven subsurface artefacts identified at five find locations on two discrete sandy rises (Components 1-2 are located on one sandy rise and Components 3-5 are located on another sandy rise). Component 1 contained one artefact from EP002; Component 2 contained two artefacts from STP004; Component 3 contained one artefact from EP011; Component 4 contained two artefacts from STP054; and Component 5 contained one artefact from STP048. This place is considered to be relatively in situ given the find locations in loose sand blow the depth of the plough zone, which is likely



12

to have impacted the upper 300mm of the soil profile. Below the plough zone movement of material through the loose sands will be limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw material identified within the place comprise silcrete, quartz and fine-grained siliceous material. The artefact types include angular fragments, flaked pieces and complete flakes.

VAHR 7921-0036 (Bluescope Western Port 1 (Lysaght 1))

2.11 Information from this place was obtained from the site registration and place inspection forms for VAHR 7921-0036. This place comprises a subsurface artefact scatter initially recorded in 1976 with the artefact count not included. CHMP 10200 (Wheeler et. al. 2009) identified 265 artefacts at this place and determined the extent to be 394.6 hectares in area. CHMP 10200 recorded that the assemblage comprises flaked stone manufactured from a range of raw materials. During geo-testing in 2014, an additional three artefacts were identified. CHMP 13355 (Ward et. al. 2015) conducted testing in a portion of the site extent of VAHR 7921-0036 where it intersected with the activity area for CHMP 13355. No Aboriginal cultural material was identified in the site extent during the CHMP 13355 assessment. CHMP 12826 (Mathews et. al. 2015) was undertaken in the north and west portion of the site extent and identified a single silcrete microlith at 100-200mm depth.

2.12 Subsurface testing undertaken for CHMP 15383 involved the excavation of 16 mechanical 3x0.6m test pits, nine manual 1x1m test pits and 38 manual 50x50cm shovel test pits where the CHMP 15383 activity area occurs in the registered site extent for VAHR 7921-0036. The CHMP 15383 activity area encompasses approximately 7% of the registered site extent. Four artefacts were identified during this most recent assessment (EP024 contained one artefact, MTP06 contained one artefact, MTP11 contained one artefact and EP042 contained one artefact).

2.13 Raw materials identified within the place as a result of the CHMP 15383 assessment comprised quartz and silcrete. Raw materials identified within the place as a result of the CHMP 10200 comprised silcrete, quartz, mudstone, chert, basalt, crystal quartz, flint, quartzite and unidentified fine-grained siliceous material. The artefact types from CHMP 15383 included angular fragments and flakes. The artefact types from CHMP 10200 included flakes, flaking debris, cores and formal tools.

VAHR 7921-0419 (Warringine Creek 1)

2.14 Information from this place was obtained from the site registration form for VAHR 7921-0419. This place comprises a surface find of an isolated artefact identified in 2001 in a disturbed area associated with the installation of a gas pipeline. The Aboriginal place is not considered to be in situ. This place comprised an isolated silcrete flake.

VAHR 7921-#### (Railway Road LDAD)

2.15 This place comprises an LDAD containing four subsurface artefacts identified in sandy soils on a deflated sand sheet on low-lying land (EPTP02 contained two artefacts, STP-R-09 contained one artefact, STP-R-05 contained one artefact). The LDAD is considered to be relatively in situ given the find locations in loose sand below the plough zone, which is likely to have impacted the upper 300mm of the soil profile. Below the plough zone movement of material through the loose sands would be limited to the effects of bioturbation. Raw



13

materials identified within the place comprises silcrete. The artefact types include complete flakes and a thumbnail scraper.

VAHR 7921-1533 (Warragul to Hastings LDAD 2) (Components 21 and 22)

2.16 This place comprises two surface silcrete artefacts identified during CHMP 12826 (one artefact at each component location) (Mathews et. al. 2015). Raw materials identified at these components comprised silcrete. The artefact types include a medial flake and a complete flake.

3. What issues or deficiencies have you been able to identify in the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Technical Report?

3.1 The following issues and deficiencies were identified during my review of the EES Technical Report P and have been presented under each individual section of the report.

Executive Summary

3.2 It is incorrect to state in Table 0-1 that places have been ‘partially removed’. These places remain regardless as to whether the physical remains have been removed. Refer to page ii, which states ‘All recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the Project Area (Table 0-1) will be impacted by the proposed works to some extent. Once artefacts are removed from an identified Aboriginal place, the place remains however the physical remains are recorded as having been destroyed’.

3.3 The last column in Table 0-1 refers to the ‘Significance Rating’. This should be ‘Scientific Significance Rating’ as all of the significance criteria for these places have not been assessed.

Section 1.2 Project Description

3.4 The broader effects of this development have not been assessed. It needs to be understood what affect increased shipping would have on coastal sites throughout Western Port Bay. It is also unclear what would be involved with the removal of the FSRU from Western Port Bay and what affect this operation would have on coastal sites.

Section 1.3 Project Area

3.5 The scope of the technical report was too narrow. It would be more appropriate to discuss the potential impacts of these works (both direct and indirect) in terms of the broader geographic region.

3.6 It is not understood what additional changes to the project area alignment might be made. What is shown in the EES Technical Report are these current options, not the final options. Therefore, the true extent of Aboriginal places subject to the assessment has not been determined. It also needs to be clarified what are the ‘sensitive land uses’ which the selected alignment aims to minimise impacts to.

Section 2.2 Assessment of Specif ic Environmental Effects

3.7 The potential affects to underwater Aboriginal sites have not been adequately assessed. It is incorrect to state the BLCAC did not have any concerns regarding potential impacts to underwater sites.



14

3.8 There has not been any consultation with BLCAC to identify cultural values of the project area and the BLCAC have not been provided with any of the draft CHMPs for the project.

Section 4.1 Existing Conditions Assessment

3.9 These CHMPs have not been fully prepared as fieldwork is still ongoing and management conditions have not been agreed to. It is also incorrect to state that the CHMPs have been ‘completed’.

Section 4.1.2.1 Traditional Owner Consultation

3.10 The BLCAC have not be appropriately consulted during the preparation of the EES Technical Report, which is a significant failing.

3.11 With regard to CHMP 16300, it is incorrect to state that mangroves would have a reduced potential for cultural heritage to be present. Archaeological surveys on French Island have shown that cultural material is present in such environments.

3.12 The Technical Report states that ‘given the lack of access to the bay through the mangroves, it was thought unlikely that any underwater cultural heritage places would be identified’. This claim is not supported by any evidence. The coastal area around Crib Point is a recent geological formation. The current environmental regime does not reflect the past geomorphology of the area, specifically prior to the formation of Western Port Bay. It is for these reasons that the BLCAC heritage advisor requested information from underwater sediment cores to determine the likelihood that underwater cultural heritage may be present. This information would also be useful in attempting to reconstruct the environment prior to the formation of the bay.

Section 4.1.2.2 Community Consultation

3.13 It is unclear who raised the concerns listed in this section as the BLCAC have not be appropriately consulted during the preparation of the EES Technical Report.

Section 4.3 Impact Assessment Method

3.14 It would have been appropriate for the BLCAC to be consulted with regard to the impact assessment. Furthermore, it is unclear how actual risks could be assessed given that fieldwork has not been completed, the project alignment has not been finalised and the extent of development impacts have not been clearly established.

Section 5 Existing Conditions

3.15 These CHMPs have not been fully prepared as fieldwork is still ongoing and the management conditions have not been formally agreed to.

Section 5.2 Historical Environment

3.16 There is a larger range of cultural materials within the project area than just quartz, quartzite, chert, chalcedony and silcrete.

Section 5.6 Summary of CHMPs prepared for the Project Area

3.17 This section refers to the CHMP 15383 investigations finding that the ‘landscape in the Pakenham area had been heavily modified’. This is incorrect as CHMP 15383 does not fall within the Pakenham area.



15

3.18 It is unclear how the CHMP 15384 investigations have identified areas of archaeological sensitivity on the Western Port landform, as the activity area for CHMP 15384 is located approximately 6 km from Western Port Bay. It is also unclear what the ‘Western Port landform’ is. As Western Port is a bay, this would suggest that underwater archaeology may be present.

3.19 It is unclear how the extensive ground disturbance at Crib Point, Warringine Park and Bluescope Steel could have been determined during CHMP 15384 investigations, as these areas do not fall within the CHMP 15384 activity area.

3.20 VAHR 7921-1752 falls within the CHMP 15383 activity area, yet this place and other places (VAHR 7921-#### [Railway Road LDAD]) currently being registered have not been discussed in the Technical Report.

Section 5.6.1 Implications of CHMPs Prepared for the Project Area

3.21 These CHMPs have not been fully prepared as fieldwork is still ongoing and the management conditions have not been formally agreed to. It is also incorrect to state that the CHMPs have been ‘completed’.

3.22 It is incorrect to state that the ‘Silty Rise Landform’ yielded the greatest quantity of artefacts, as Table 5-4 shows that this was the ‘Sandy Rise’ landform.


Section 5.7 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places


Section 5.7.9 Baxter- Tooradin Road AS (VAHR 7921-1755)

3.25 VAHR 7921-1755 does not comprise 83 components. These is only one artefact scatter component for this place.

Section 6 Risk Assessment

3.26 The conditions outlined in this section have not been constructed through appropriate consultation with the BLCAC, as fieldwork is ongoing and the final conditions meeting for the project has not been held.

3.27 It is incorrect to state that salvage minimises harm to an Aboriginal place. Salvage by its very nature causes harm.

Section 7 Impact Assessment


3.29 VAHR 7921-1751 was not identified during complex assessment for CHMP 15834. CHMP 15834 does not relate to this EES.



16

3.30 None of the conditions outlined in this section have been formally agreed to by the BLCAC, as fieldwork is ongoing and the final conditions meeting for the project has not been held.

Section 8 Recommended Mitigation Measures

3.31 The BLCAC were not appropriately consulted regarding any of the proposed mitigation measures and none of these have been formally agreed to by the BLCAC.


Section 9.2 Impact Assessment Summary

3.33 The BLCAC were not appropriately consulted regarding any of the proposed mitigation measures and none of these have been formally agreed to by the BLCAC.


3.35 With regard to CHMP 16300, it is incorrect to state that mangroves would have a reduced potential for cultural heritage to be present. Archaeological surveys on French Island have shown that cultural material is present in such environments.

3.36 The Technical Report states that ‘given the lack of access to the bay through the mangroves, it was thought unlikely that any underwater cultural heritage places would be identified’. This claim is not supported by any evidence. The coastal area around Crib Point is a recent geological formation. The current environmental regime does not reflect the past geomorphology of the area, specifically prior to the formation of Western Port Bay. It is for these reasons that the BLCAC heritage advisor requested information from underwater sediment cores to determine the likelihood that underwater cultural heritage may be present. This information would also be useful in attempting to reconstruct the environment prior to the formation of the bay.

3.37 The residual risk to Aboriginal cultural heritage values from the project has not been adequately assessed. This needs to consider the potential impact to coastal sites throughout Western Port Bay.

Appendix 7 Aboriginal Place Gazetteer


4. Are there particular r isks or sites at r isk from the project that the panel should be informed of?

4.1 This project presents a risk to all Aboriginal places within the project corridor. In some instances, it may be possible to minimise harm to the Aboriginal places within the project corridor, but it is unlikely that harm can be completely avoided given the constraints of the alignment.



17

4.2 Under boring of archaeological deposits would be the preferred option to minimise harm to cultural heritage, however, this would have to be at a substantial depth below any potential artefact bearing soil horizons. Even this construction method still presents a risk to cultural heritage given the poorly consolidated nature of the sandy soils where most of the cultural heritage has been identified. These soils are susceptible to collapse where cavities are created by drilling. It is also not greatly understood whether these construction techniques could lead to liquefaction of certain soil types.

4.3 Outside the project corridor the development may have an adverse effect on coastal sites in the broader Western Port Bay geographic region. Coastal sites at greatest risk are those that are situated in low-lying areas (i.e. beaches, tidal flats and foredunes) and also sites positioned precariously in cliffs subject to undercutting. All of these coastal sites are subject to ongoing erosion from wave action and increased storm surges. It is evident that predicted sea level rise will contribute to this erosion in the coming decades. At present, it is not understood what effect increased largescale shipping as a result of this development will have on these coastal sites. It is likely that the increased energy caused by bow waves will exacerbate coastal erosion in these environments.

4.4 Increased coastal erosion is also directly linked to a reduction of coastal vegetation. This is particularly the case with the depletion of mangrove environments in Western Port Bay, where large parts of the coast are no longer protected from increased wave energy.

4.5 The potential risk from these indirect processes has not been addressed in the Technical Report. Further investigation of these coastal environments is needed to be able to quantify to true extent of these risks.

References

Fels, M. (2011). ‘I Succeeded Once’ The Aboriginal Protectorate on the Mornington Peninsula, 1839-1840. Aboriginal History Monograph 22. ANU Press.

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

Gaughwin, D. (1983). Cultural Resources Information for the Shire of Bass, Victoria: An Exercise in Acquiring Data for use by Planners

Mathews, D., Albrecht, M. & E. Endacott (2015). Esso Pipeline Replacement Project (Western Section). CHMP 12826.

Mitchell, J. (2019). Proposed Hotel Development at 92 Norsemens Road, Coronet Bay. CHMP 15303.

Murphy, A., & S. Thomson (2008). Shearwater Residential Estate Cowes East. CHMP 10109.

Sullivan, H. (1981). An Archaeological Survey of the Mornington Peninsula. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Report Series, No.6. Ministry for Conservation, Victoria.

Ward, B., Szydzik, S. & R. Power. (2015). Fibre Optic Cable between AusNet Terminal Station and BlueScope Steel, Tyabb, Victoria. CHMP 13355.

Wheeler, J., Lane, S. & L. Matarese. (2009). Westernport Industrial Sub-division. Hastings, Victoria. CHMP 10200.



18



19

Annexure A – Matters Raised by PPV Guide to Expert Evidence

1. Name and address of the expert

Bradley Ward

Senior Archaeologist & Heritage Advisor

336 Nepean Highway, Frankston VIC 3199.

2. Expert’s qualif ications, experience and area of expertise

I hold the following degrees:

• Bachelor of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Vic (2010); and

• Masters of Archaeological Science, Australian National University (ANU) (2014).

Bradley has over 10 years of experience in Australian archaeology working in both the private and public sectors. Bradley has worked in a variety of roles over numerous cultural heritage and research projects in Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Bradley has also participated in archaeological excavations in Cyprus. Bradley has a diverse understanding of cultural values and maintains a high level of cultural sensitivity and ethical conduct whilst building professional relationships with Traditional Owner communities. Bradley has a very good understanding of both Aboriginal and historic heritage legislation, particularly in Victoria. As a heritage advisor, Bradley has provided expert advice on range of cultural heritage matters.

Bradley has a variety of skills including the identification of Aboriginal cultural heritage through survey and excavation, conducting research, artefact analysis and interpretation, geoarchaeological interpretation, report writing, CHMP evaluations and significance assessments. Bradley has previously prepared a number of CHMPs within the Western Port Bay area is also the supervising archaeologist of the French Island archaeological surveys.

A copy of my curriculum vitae outlining my experience is included as Annexure B to this evidence.

3. Details of any other signif icant contributors to this statement ( if any) and their expertise

Nil

4. All instructions that define the scope of this statement (original and supplementary and whether in writ ing or verbal)

Bradley Ward, Senior Archaeologist & Heritage Advisor at the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, was instructed by Dr Sean Sexton, Operations Manager at the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation, to provide an expert opinion on Aboriginal cultural heritage in relation to the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project for the Environmental Effects Statement (EES). Bradley was instructed to address the following four questions:



20

1. What sites or places (including types of places) of an archaeological/cultural

nature are in the vicinity of either the pipeline or other related works of the Crib Point Project. This would include Western Port Bay, and French Island. Is there any indication as to the antiquity of these places?

2. What archaeological sites are currently identified within the pipeline alignment and/or project area?

3. What issues or deficiencies have you been able to identify in the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Technical Report?

4. Are there particular risks or sites at risk from the project that the panel should be informed of?

This expert witness statement is based on a review of available relevant background material provided to me. This statement is restricted to information pertaining to CHMP 15383 and CHMP 16300 only, as these CHMPs are located within the BLCAC RAP area. Access to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) is restricted under my role to the BLCAC RAP area alone, therefore, specific information relating to CHMP 15384 has not been included.

5. Details and qualif ications of any person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert has rel ied in preparing the statement.

Nil



21

Annexure B – Bradley Ward Curriculum Vitae

Qualif ications

• Bachelor of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Vic (2010); and • Masters of Archaeological Science, Australian National University (ANU) (2014).

Brief Work History

• Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation – Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor (2017-present).

• RPS – Senior Environment and Heritage Consultant (2017). • Urban Colours – Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor (2017). • Godden Mackay Logan (GML) – Field Archaeologist (2017). • Aboriginal Victoria (AV) – Heritage Information Officer (2016-2017). • Ecology and Heritage Partners – Archaeologist and Heritage Advisor (2013-2016). • Australian Cultural Heritage Management (ACHM) – Archaeologist and Heritage

Advisor (2010-2012). • Archaeology at Tardis – Field Archaeologist (2007-2009).

Relevant Ski l ls

• Microsoft Office Programs; • Qualified Heritage Advisor under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006; • Global Positioning Systems; • Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop; • Project management and logistics; • Remote area work; • Level one first aid certificate; • OH&S construction white card; • Full Victorian drivers licence; • Off-road 4x4 and defensive driving certificate;

Selected Heritage Studies and Reports

Ward, B (2010). Cultural Heritage Assessment for 700 Steels Creek Road to Pinnacle Lane, Yarra Glen, Victoria (2010). A report to Melbourne Water. ACHM (Vic) Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2011). Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#11748) for the Proposed Relocation

and Installation of Communication and Signal Cabling, Williams Landing, Victoria. With E. Walther and V. Vaskos. ACHM (Vic) Pty Ltd.

Ward, B. (2013) Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#11702) for the Proposed Residential

Development at Hacketts and Sneydes Road, Point Cook West, Victoria. With R. Power. A Report to Satterley Property Group. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2014). Cultural Heritage Management Plan Salvage Implementation Project for the

Berringama Fire Station, Berringama, Victoria. With D. Cummins. A Report to the CFA. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.



22

Ward, B (2014). Implementation of CHMP 12623 archaeological surface salvage program: 485 Dohertys Road, Truganina, Victoria. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Preliminary Cultural Heritage Study for the Glenormiston Agricultural

College, Glenormiston South, Victoria. A Report to the Department of Education and Training. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment for the proposed shared

pathway at Rushall Station, North Fitzroy, Victoria. A report to the City of Yarra Valley. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#13355) for the proposed Fibre Optic

Cable between AusNet Terminal Station and BlueScope Steel, Tyabb, Victoria. With S. Szydzik. A Report to AusNet Services. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#13189) for the proposed 24 Unit

Development at 200-202 Nepean Highway, Seaford, Victoria. With D. Cummins and R. Power. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#13075) for the Avoca Gas

Development Project, Stage 1: Supply Mains, Avoca, Victoria. With R. Bullers, S. Szydzik and S. Beaton. A Report to AusNet Services. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#13132) for the Residential Subdivision,

71-75 and 85 Bodycoasts Road, Wollert Victoria. With S. Szydzik, R. Power and D. Cummins. A Report to Greencor Holdings No 1 Pty Ltd. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2015). Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#13121) for the Avoca Gas

Development Project, Stage 2: Reticulation Mains, Avoca, Victoria. With R. Bullers, S. Szydzik and S. Beaton. A Report to AusNet Services. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

Ward, B (2016) Cultural Heritage Management Plan (#13810) for the Residential

Development at 290 Craigieburn Road and 225 Boundary Road, Wollert, Victoria. With R. Power. A Report to WLT Development Pty Ltd. Ecology and Heritage Partners.

b ward expert witness statement final · expert witness statement of bradley ward 1. introduction...

Documents