maritime archaeology management plan for lot … and building...the archaeological consultants...

P a g e | 1

Maritime Archaeology Management Plan – Koombana Bay, Bunbury

December 2019

MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR LOT 1881 DP 410595, KOOMBANA BAY, BUNBURY

December 2019

By

Archae-aus Pty Ltd

For

Discovery Holiday Parks

P a g e | 2


December 2019

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

18 December 2019

Version: 2.0

Prepared by Archae-aus Pty Ltd for Discovery Holiday Parks.

Table 1. Archae-aus Document Control

Version Effective Date Prepared By Reviewed By Approved Date

1.0 19/09/2019 Kate Edwards Fiona Hook 3/10/2019

2.0 04/12/2019 Kate Edwards Fiona Hook 18/12/2019

Table 2. Distribution of Copies

Version Date Issued Media Issued to

1.0 4/10/2019 PDF Peter Stanley, Master Plan

2.0 1/12/2019 PDF Peter Stanley, Master Plan

Archae-aus Project Code: ST19KB4a

CITATION: Archae-aus (2019) Maritime Archaeology Management Plan for Lot 1881 DP 410595, Koombana Bay, Bunbury. Prepared for Discovery Holiday Parks by Archae-aus Pty Ltd, North Fremantle. December 2019.

Archae-aus Pty Ltd

1/107 Stirling Highway North Fremantle WA 6159 PO Box 742 Fremantle WA 6959

T: 08 9433 1127 E: [email protected]

http://www.archae-aus.com.au

Project Manager: Fiona Hook Email: [email protected]

P a g e | 3


December 2019

COPYRIGHT

This report and the information contained herein is subject to copyright and may not be copied in whole or part without the written consent of the copyright holders being Archae-aus Pty. Ltd. and Discovery Holiday Parks.

DISCLAIMER

The authors are not accountable for omissions and inconsistencies that may result from information which may come to light in the future but was not forthcoming at the time of this research.

The information contained in this Maritime Archaeology Management Plan relates only to the works detailed in the Scope of Works, which is provided in Section One.

AUTHORSHIP

The contributing authors were Kate Edwards and Fiona Hook.

P a g e | 4


December 2019

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Term / Abbreviation Meaning / Interpretation

AHA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)

Archaeologist See Project Archaeologist.

Archaeological site Is a place (or group of physical sites) in which evidence of human past activity is preserved (either prehistoric or historic or contemporary), and which has been, or may be, investigated using the discipline of archaeology and represents a part of the archaeological record.

Artefact Any object (article, building, container, device, dwelling, ornament, pottery, tool, weapon, work of art etc.) made, affected, used, or modified in some way by humans.

Assessment Professional opinion based on information that was forthcoming at the time of consideration. Cultural material / archaeological material

Any object (article, building, container, device, dwelling, ornament, pottery, tool, weapon, work of art etc.) made, affected, used, or modified in some way by humans.

Development Application / Development Proposal

Discovery Holiday Parks’ proposed activities at the Koombana Bay project area

DHP Discovery Holiday Parks

DPLH Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. Comprises the former WA State government bodies of the State Heritage Office and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Excavation The systematic and scientific recovery of cultural, material remains of people as a means of obtaining data about past human activity. Excavation is digging or related types of salvage work, scientifically controlled so as to yield the maximum amount of data.

Feature

A non-moveable/non-portable element of an archaeological site. It is any separate archaeological unit that is not recorded as a structure, a layer, or an isolated artefact; a wall, hearth, are examples of features. A feature carries evidence of human activity and it is any constituent of an archaeological site which is not classed as a find, layer, or structure.

Find Individual movable artefacts that are in original depositional context with each other. Also known as ‘loose find’

Ground Disturbing Works These are defined as any activity that disturbs the ground below 100 mm. It can include activities such as topsoil clearing, grubbing, geotechnical testing, grading, cutting, trenching, potholing pits (excluding vacuum potholing), deep excavation and directional drilling (launch and retrieval pits).

HA Historic Heritage Act 2018

Heritage site / place See ‘Archaeological site’

Loose Find See ‘Find’.

Monitoring Monitoring, more often known as a watching brief, is where an archaeologist watches ground disturbance activity in areas where prior evaluation has shown there to be low potential or the impact of the development has been assessed and cultural material is expected to occur.

Maritime heritage The remains of a vessel or an associated object. Maritime archaeology is the study of human interaction with the sea, lakes and rivers through the study of vessels, shore side facilities, cargoes and human remains. One speciality is underwater archaeology, which studies the past through any submerged remains.

Project Archaeologist The archaeological consultants appointed by the developer to manage the archaeological and heritage concerns of the project.

MAMP Maritime Archaeology Management Plan

Salvage Process of the retrieval of as much information as possible about the archaeological sites before it is damaged or destroyed by development.

SHO State Heritage Office, now amalgamated into the DPLH.

Scope The nature of the work undertaken as requested by the client/developer. UCHA Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018

WAM The Western Australian Museum

P a g e | 5


December 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 2

COPYRIGHT ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

DISCLAIMER ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

AUTHORSHIP ................................................................................................................................................... 3

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF MAPS ................................................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF PLATES................................................................................................................................................. 7

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 7

SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8

SCOPE OF WORKS ................................................................................................................................................ 8

PROJECT BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 8

LEGISLATION AND GUIDING DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................ 10

Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 ........................................................................................................ 10

Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 .................................................................................................................... 10

The Burra Charter .......................................................................................................................................... 11

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (repealed) ................................................................................ 11

Heritage Act 2018 .......................................................................................................................................... 11

The Planning and Development Act 2005 ...................................................................................................... 12

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 ........................................................................................................................ 12

SECTION TWO – HISTORICAL TIMELINE .......................................................................................................... 13

TIMELINE OF SHIPWRECKS ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................... 13

The Elizabeth 1839 ........................................................................................................................................ 13

The Samuel Wright 1840 ............................................................................................................................... 13

The North America 1840 ................................................................................................................................ 14

The North America 1843 ................................................................................................................................ 15

Perseverance 1845 ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Midas 1872 .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Annie M Young 1876 ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Citizen of London 1880 .................................................................................................................................. 15

Agra 1885 ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

Cingalee 1887 ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Laughing Wave 1903 ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Solglyt 1888 ................................................................................................................................................... 16

SECTION THREE – HERITAGE LISTINGS ........................................................................................................... 17

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE PLACE LISTINGS ........................................................................................................... 17

HISTORICAL HERITAGE PLACE LISTINGS ............................................................................................................ 17

Heritage Lists ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Non-Statutory Listings ................................................................................................................................... 18

P a g e | 6


December 2019

SECTION FOUR - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 19

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................... 19

Cable Sands 1956-1982 ................................................................................................................................. 19

WA Museum 1982 ......................................................................................................................................... 19

WA Museum 2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 19

WA Museum 2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 20

PREDICTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ......................................................................................................... 20

Shipwrecks ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

Shipwreck anomalies ..................................................................................................................................... 20

SECTION FIVE - MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ..................................................................................................... 23

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 23

GUIDING PRINCIPLES ......................................................................................................................................... 23

STAGE 1 – DESKTOP ASSESSMENT AND CHMP .......................................................................................................... 24

STAGE 2 – GOVERNMENT APPROVALS ...................................................................................................................... 24

STAGE 3 – HERITAGE IMPACT MANAGEMENT AND PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 24

Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Archaeological Impact Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 28

STAGE 4 – FINDS AND FEATURE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 29

STAGE 5 – REPORTING .......................................................................................................................................... 29

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX ONE – ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PROCEDURE ................................................................... 31

APPENDIX TWO – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY PROCEDURE ...................................................................... 32

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF ABORIGINAL ARTEFACTS ........................................................................ 35

Surface Finds .................................................................................................................................................. 35

Sub-Surface Material / Sites .......................................................................................................................... 35

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL FEATURES/FINDS ................................................................ 36

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS .................................................................................. 37

PROCEDURE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SALVAGED FINDS ............................................................................. 38

APPENDIX THREE – SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ............................................................................. 41

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT THEMES AND VALUES .......................................................................................... 41

Historic Themes ............................................................................................................................................. 41

Aesthetic, Historic, Social or Spiritual Value .................................................................................................. 42

Scientific/Research Value .............................................................................................................................. 42

Comparative Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 42

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 43

APPENDIX FOUR – FIND RECORDING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES ........................................................... 45

LOOSE FIND RECORDING PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 45

FEATURE RECORDING PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 46

COLLECTION PROTOCOLS .................................................................................................................................. 46

STORAGE PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................ 47

APPENDIX FIVE – CONTRACTOR PROCEDURE HANDOUT ............................................................................... 48

PROCEDURE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS DISCOVERY ......................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX SIX – HERITAGE REGISTER SEARCHES ............................................................................................ 51

P a g e | 7


December 2019

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. HERITAGE RISK MATRIX FOR THE WORKS OUTLINED IN THE PROJECT AREA .............................................................. 25

FIGURE 2. FINDS MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART ............................................................................................................... 40

FIGURE 3. FINDS SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ..................................................................................................... 44

LIST OF MAPS

MAP 1. KOOMBANA BAY PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 9

MAP 2. WRECKAGE AND ANOMALY LOCATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA .................................................................................. 22

MAP 3. AREAS OF CONFIRMED WRECKAGES AND AREAS OF HIGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ................................................. 27

LIST OF PLATES

PLATE 1. ONLOOKERS AT THE EXCAVATION OF THE WHALER THE SAMUEL WRIGHT BY THE CABLE SANDS COMPANY IN 1963 (IMAGE

SOURCE: HTTPS://BUNBURY2015.WORDPRESS.COM/2016/02/10/WHALER-EXCAVATIONS-1962-1963/) ...................... 14

PLATE 2. THE SURVIVING HULL OF NORTH AMERICA SHORTLY AFTER ITS DISCOVERY, C. 1962 (IMAGE SOURCE:

HTTPS://STORIES.ANMM.GOV.AU/SAMUEL-WRIGHT/OF-SHIPWRECKS-LOST-AND-FOUNDAND-LOST-AGAIN/) ....................... 14

PLATE 3. ABORIGINAL FLAKED ARTEFACT (QUARTZ) .......................................................................................................... 32

PLATE 4. ABORIGINAL FLAKED ARTEFACT (DOLERITE) ........................................................................................................ 32

PLATE 5. ABORIGINAL GROUND-EDGE ARTEFACT (DOLERITE) .............................................................................................. 33

PLATE 6. ABORIGINAL GRINDSTONE FRAGMENT (GRANITE) ................................................................................................ 33

PLATE 7. 19TH CENTURY POTTERY SHERDS ..................................................................................................................... 33

PLATE 8. CLAY TOBACCO PIPE FRAGMENTS...................................................................................................................... 33

PLATE 9. MINERAL WATER BOTTLE ................................................................................................................................ 33

PLATE 10. HISTORICAL BRICK ....................................................................................................................................... 33

PLATE 11. SHIP’S TIMBER (KEEL) WITH COPPER ALLOY FASTENINGS ...................................................................................... 34

PLATE 12. SHIP’S TIMBER (KNEE) .................................................................................................................................. 34

PLATE 13. SHIP’S TIMBER AND COPPER ALLOY FITTING (RUDDER GUDGEON) .......................................................................... 34

PLATE 14. SHIPWRECK (IMAGE CREDIT: WAM) .............................................................................................................. 34

PLATE 15. STORAGE TUBS ........................................................................................................................................... 45

PLATE 16. STORAGE TUBS ........................................................................................................................................... 46

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. ARCHAE-AUS DOCUMENT CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES ................................................................................................................................. 2

TABLE 3. PLACES ON INHERIT THAT INTERSECT THE PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................... 18

TABLE 4. PLACES ON WAM DATABASE THAT INTERSECT THE PROJECT AREA ......................................................................... 18

TABLE 5. APPENDICES FOR MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 29

TABLE 6. IDENTIFIED KEY CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES OF THE PROJECT AREA ........................................................................ 41

P a g e | 8


December 2019

SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Maritime Archaeology Management Plan (MAMP) is to provide Discovery Holiday Parks (DHP) with an archaeological mitigation strategy for the maritime heritage values in Lot 1881 DP 410595 at Koombana Bay in the City of Bunbury. Section One (this section) of the MAMP outlines the nature of the project and the guiding principles that apply to its management.

SCOPE OF WORKS

In March 2019, Archae-aus prepared a detailed desktop review and constraints analysis of maritime heritage values for the purpose of pre-purchase due diligence advice to Discovery Parks. This analysis revealed that there are significant heritage values associated with the project area that are protected under the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 (Archae-aus Pty. Ltd. 2019).

In September 2019, Archae-aus was engaged by Discovery Holiday Parks (DHP) to provide a Maritime Archaeology Management Plan (MAMP) to support a development application for the proposed Koombana Bay Caravan Park expansion into Lot 1881 DP 410595. This MAMP provides archaeological management strategies, guidelines and recommendations pertaining to the heritage values highlighted in the desktop review and constraints analysis. It will also provide detailed finds discovery and management procedures that can be referred to throughout the development of the project area.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Koombana Bay is in the City of Bunbury on the south-west coast of Western Australia, approximately 150 km south of Perth. It is a north facing bay, encircled on the east by the Inner Harbour and Turkey Point, and on the west by Casuarina Point and the Breakwater. A development application (DA) has been submitted to enable DHP to extend the Koombana Bay Caravan Park to the east along Koombana Drive, into Lot 1881 DP 410595 (the Project Area). Lot 1881 DP 410595 was created in 2017 from two former parcels of land: Lot 881 DP 28148 and part of Lot 500 DP 410594. The remainder of Lot 500 was amalgamated with the adjacent Lot 501 DP 410594. The DA seeks approval for the construction of a caravan park and chalets in Lot 1881 which will involve infill and management of contaminated soils.

A Maritime Archaeology Desktop Review and Constraints Analysis was commissioned by Strategen Environmental on behalf of Discovery Parks in March 2019 (Archae-aus Pty. Ltd. 2019). This analysis revealed that Koombana Bay has at least 29 historical shipwrecks and that the Project Area contained three areas with shipwreck material (see Map 1). This management plan details the processes that should be utilised during any ground disturbing works.

6311500

6312000

6312500

6313000

6313500

6314000

6314500

372000 372500 373000 373500 374000 374500 375000 375500 376000 376500 377000 377500 378000

Map 1. Koombana Bay project area overview

Drafted by Archae-aus, 27/11/2019. GDA94, Zone 50. Satellite imagery courtesy of Google.

BunburyLot 501

Lot 1881

Legend

Casaurina Point

Perth

Koombana Bay

Breakw

ater

Turkey Point

Albany

Koombana Drive

Inner Harbour

Bunb

ury Timbe

r

Jetty

P a g e | 10


December 2019

LEGISLATION AND GUIDING DOCUMENTS

The Project Area is within Western Australia and within the local government jurisdiction of the City of Bunbury. The following section summarises the relevant legislation and guiding principles that may relate to cultural heritage places within the Project Area.

Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018

Maritime heritage is protected by the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (Cwlth) and the Maritime

Archaeology Act 1973 (WA).

The Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (UCHA) came into effect as of 1st July 2019, replacing the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. The UCHA is administered by the Department of the Environment and Energy. Under Section 16, it provides automatic protection for the remains of a vessel, an aircraft or an associated article that has been under Australian waters for at least 75 years.

An associated article is defined as anything that formed part of, was carried on, or appears to have been constructed or used by a person associated with, a vessel, aircraft or other vehicle that is protected by the UCHA. This is extended to articles that have been wholly or substantially incorporated into another object and those that have been removed from Australian or Commonwealth waters.

Section 17 gives the Minister authority to declare protection for an article of underwater cultural heritage that is not automatically covered by section 16, i.e. for a wreck less than 75 years old. Section 30 defines the penalties associated with conduct that directly or indirectly physically disturbs, damages or causes the removal of the protected underwater cultural heritage form waters or from its archaeological context. However, section 30 does not apply if the conduct is in accordance with a permit granted under section 23.

Maritime Archaeology Act 1973

The Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 (MAA) protects the remains of ships lost, wrecked or abandoned, or was stranded, on or off the coast of Western Australia before 1900 and any associated relics in State waters. It extends protection to bays, rivers and inland waters that are not automatically covered by the UCHA.

The protection of maritime sites is on a case by case basis. The legislation is as follows:

Sections 4b and 4c of the MAA defines what constitutes a ‘maritime archaeological site’ as

4.(1)(b) any area where any relic is known to be located or where uncovered relics associated

with a ship which may have been an historic ship are likely to be located.

4.(1)(c) any structure, campsite, fortification or other location of historic interest…associated

with…an historic ship.

A ‘relic’ is defined as:

anything of historic interest that appears to have formed part of, or to have been carried by or

derived from or associated with any historic ship;

A maritime archaeological site may be below the low water mark, between the tide marks or on

land.

In addition, the MAA includes protection of material derived from or associated with any ship, whether or not it is ‘historic’. Section 6(3) vests in the Western Australian Museum, on behalf of the Crown, property in and the right to possession of any object (relic), which in the opinion of the Director of the Museum, was abandoned in the State prior to 1900 and was derived from or associated with any ship and which, immediately prior to 1973, was not in the lawful possession of any person.

The Western Australian Museum Maritime Archaeology Advisory Committee (MAAC) in 1982 advised that confusion over legal responsibilities has prevented the Museum from effecting legal protection over any land sites the MAAC has considered to be of historic significance. In 1993 this was expanded upon:

The use of the [Maritime Archaeology] Act to protect land sites raises some problems;

P a g e | 11


December 2019

The Maritime Archaeology Act was written to enable protection of sites associated with historic ships; and

Other important maritime sites are not covered (McCarthy, 1998).

A reappraisal of the legislation has led to the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 applying to certain land sites. In the case of the French bottle site, the objects themselves are covered under s6(3) taking the expansive view that the objects were ‘abandoned in the State prior to 1900 and were derived from or

associated with any ship’. Also, s4(1)(b) of the State Act provides that any area in which any relic is known to be located is a maritime archaeological site. At first, the provisions of the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 appear to reflect values and contexts associated with protecting relics from shipwrecks rather than all terrestrial sites of maritime archaeological significance. As a result, and until this re-evaluation in relation to the French annexation site, such sites became the sole concern of management and perhaps the sum of what was perceived to require management. Implications are that other material in other terrestrial sites not owned by anyone may be protected under the MAA.

The Burra Charter

The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) is the key document for conserving Australia’s cultural heritage. The Charter encapsulates two important aspects in conserving

heritage places. First, it establishes the best practice principles and processes for understanding and assessing a place’s significance, as well as developing and implementing a conservation plan. Second, the Charter defines and explains the four primary cultural values that may be ascribed to any place: aesthetic, historic, social or spiritual and scientific. These values are essential as they delineate the types and quality of information needed to accurately determine a heritage place’s significance.

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (repealed)

Under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (the HWAA), local governments were required to compile and maintain an inventory of buildings with cultural heritage significance. This predominantly includes historic heritage; however, some places may also have Aboriginal heritage values and thus fall under the auspices of the AHA as well. Whilst the HWAA was repealed by the Heritage Act 2018, these municipal heritage inventories are still a functioning resource for local governments. Any heritage agreements entered into under Section 29 of the HWAA that were in effect on the commencement day of the Heritage Act 2018 continue to have effect as if it were certified under the new legislation.

Heritage Act 2018

The purpose of the Heritage Act 2018 (HA) is to recognise and promote WA cultural heritage by defining principles for conservation, use, development or adaptation for heritage places. In repealing the HWAA, the HA is the main legislative framework for historical heritage, sometimes referred to as European heritage, in the State.

The HA sets out processes for the management of the State Register of Heritage Places, including the establishment of a Heritage Council. The purposes of this Council include assessment places of significance, advising the Minister for Heritage, guiding public authorities on best practice, promoting public awareness and administration of the register of places. The Heritage Council of Western Australia is Western Australia’s advisory body on heritage matters and focuses on places, buildings and archaeological sites, with a mission to provide for and encourage the conservation of places significant to the cultural heritage of WA under the jurisdiction of the HA.

The HA requires the keeping of a Register of Heritage Places for places that are protected by the provisions of the Act. Heritage places generally gain registration under the HA by being shown to be of cultural heritage significance or possessing special interest relating to or associated with cultural heritage. Section 38 outlines relevant factors in determining the significance of heritage places. This section uses definitions and values like those of the Burra Charter (see above): the Council are to consider values such as aesthetic, historical, scientific, social or spiritual, and characteristics such as fabric, setting, associations, use and meaning.

P a g e | 12


December 2019

Part 5 outlines the responsibilities of public authorities to consider heritage matters within development planning. Under Section 73 of the HA, public authorities must refer a development proposal to the Council when the proposed works have potential to impact a registered place. The advice provided by the Council in response to a referred proposal may consider the restoration, maintenance and interpretation of the heritage place in question

Part 11 outlines the definitions and penalties for offences and contraventions of the Act. Under section 129 of the HA, unauthorised impact to registered heritage places is subject to penalty. Section 129 defines damage as including altering, demolishing, removing or despoiling any part of, or thing in, a registered place. The penalties for contravention of the Act are severe, including a $1 million fine, imprisonment for one year and a daily penalty of $50,000. Applications to develop, disturb or alter any place entered on the Register can be made under Part 5 Division 2 of the HA. The HA is currently administered by the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage in Perth.

The Planning and Development Act 2005

The purposes of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (the PDA) are to consolidate the provisions of the Acts repealed by the Planning and Development (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005 (i.e. the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959, the Town Planning and Development

Act 1928 and the Western Australian Planning Commission Act 1985). The PDA is intended to provide for an efficient and effective land use planning system in the State, as well as promoting the sustainable use and development of land in the State.

The PDA requires that the advice of the Heritage Council (within the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage) be sought in cases relating to places listed on the State Register of Heritage Places under the HA 2018 section 35(1) or in any local heritage survey prepared under section 103(1) (i.e. a Local Government / Municipal Inventory). In such instances the local government in preparing or amending a local planning scheme is to refer the proposed scheme or amendment to the Heritage Council for advice and is not to proceed without the consent of the Minister for Heritage.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972

Western Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (the AHA) is the main legislative framework for Aboriginal heritage in the State. All important and significant Aboriginal heritage sites and objects are protected under it. The AHA protects sites and objects that are significant to living Aboriginal people as well as Aboriginal sites of historical, anthropological, archaeological and ethnographic significance. The AHA is currently administered by the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage in Perth.

For archaeological places, the primary sections of the AHA that need to be considered are section 5 which defines the term ‘Aboriginal Site’ and section 39 (2) which details what the Aboriginal Cultural

Materials Committee (ACMC) should have regards to in considering the importance of objects and places. Section 17 of the AHA states that it is an offence to: alter an Aboriginal site in any way, including

collecting artefacts; conceal a site or artefact; or excavate, destroy or damage in any way an Aboriginal

site or artefact; without the authorisation of the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites under section 16 or the Minister

of Aboriginal Affairs under section 18 of the AHA.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/padatpa2005680/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/padatpa2005680/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/repealed_act/wapca1985422/

P a g e | 13


December 2019

SECTION TWO – HISTORICAL TIMELINE

Between 1840 and 1897, 29 ships were wrecked in Koombana Bay. These waters were considered especially unsafe in the winter months due to the north-west gales. To provide protection for ships in the bay and those moored alongside the Bunbury Timber Jetty, a breakwater was built at Casuarina Point. C. Y. O’Connor, the Engineer-in-Chief at the Public Works Department, proposed and designed a “Pierres

Perdues” type breakwater, which curved in a north-east direction from Casuarina Point with approximately a half mile radius. At this time, O’Connor also proposed an inner harbour, but this idea

was abandoned. On 27th April 1897 the first truck load of stone was tipped into the harbour. The breakwater was built over a period of three years and, when completed in 1900, it was 980 m in length.

As the timber jetty was extended over the years, so was the breakwater so that it could provide continued protection for ships. There were many extensions to the breakwater over the years; the Port Authority reports that it achieved a length of 1661 m, but its final length is noted on the State Heritage Register as 1,200 m.

The building of the breakwater and the construction of several rock groynes around the bay substantially increased the rate at which the bay filled with sand. This changed the shoreline, bringing it approximately 200 m north and further into the bay than the pre-breakwater shoreline. As a result, many of the coastal wrecks are now buried slightly inland.

A timeline of wrecks was constructed from the following documents and databases:

WAM Shipwreck Database;

Technical reports provided by the WAM; and

Unpublished material provided by Dr Ross Anderson (Curator, WAM).

TIMELINE OF SHIPWRECKS ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT AREA

Of the 29 ships that are wrecked in Koombana Bay, 11 were (or are now) wrecked adjacent to the project area. These wrecks are detailed below. The following information is summarised from the WAM Database1.

The Elizabeth 1839

The Elizabeth was a Schooner built in Calcutta in 1831 and launched in 1832. In 1839, she was blown ashore in Fremantle and re-floated soon after. In November 1843, she was anchored in Koombana Bay where she was taking on a cargo of materials salvaged from the wrecked North America (1843) and barrels of whale oil from the wrecked Samuel Wright. On the 15th November the schooner lost its port side anchor, it then spent the 16th November repairing this until the morning of 17th November when a gale struck and cut the starboard anchor and dragged the replacement port anchor. It was driven ashore by the winds at 2pm that day where it struck heavily and keeled over.

The Samuel Wright 1840

The Samuel Wright was a whaler, built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA. It had collected whale oil and whale bones from Albany and was anchored in Bunbury harbour when it was struck by a storm on the night of July 8th, 1840. The storm caused the ship to part an anchor and despite two other anchors she dragged and eventually struck the beach. She rested on the shore in an upright position and was utilised as a storehouse by its owner for a number of years after the beaching. The photo below (Plate 1) was taken by ALW ‘Bron’ Sharp, a shipwright by trade and the photo was donated to Local Studies by Mary Taylor.

1 http://museum.wa.gov.au/maritime-archaeology-db/

P a g e | 14


December 2019

Plate 1. Onlookers at the excavation of the whaler The Samuel Wright by the Cable Sands Company

in 1963 (image source: https://bunbury2015.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/whaler-excavations-1962-

1963/)

The North America 1840

Constructed in 1834 in Scarborough, Maine, USA, the North America was a whaler. She was at anchor in Koombana Bay with two other whalers, the Samuel Wright and the Hudson. On the morning of the 8th July 1840 she was blown ashore along with the Samuel Wright and wrecked. It appears that the shipwreck was dismantled after it was auctioned off. Reports in December 1841 by the ship HMS Beagle stated that only one ship was wrecked on the beach at that time, this was likely the Samuel Wright which was used as a storehouse for a number of years after it was wrecked.

Plate 2. The surviving hull of North America shortly after its discovery, c. 1962 (image source:

https://stories.anmm.gov.au/samuel-wright/of-shipwrecks-lost-and-foundand-lost-again/)

P a g e | 15


December 2019

The North America 1843

The North America was built in 1804 in New York, USA. Whilst at anchor in Koombana Bay on 10th April 1843, a violent storm hit the area and the ship dragged two anchors and the kedge anchor and drifted onto a sand bar. On the 12th April the crew managed to re-float her off the sand bar, however she eventually drifted back onto and over the sand bank. The ship was then sold to a Captain Daniel Scott who managed to again re-float her on 14th June. The ship appeared to have very little damage from the two incidents but on the evening of 10th July she was once again blown ashore during a storm. On this occasion the ship broke its back and was declared a wreck. Scott then proceeded to dismantle the wreck as salvage.

The wreck was unearthed again during mining operations by Cable Sands in 1963 (see below), where she was found to be lying in an approximately east-west direction close to the wreck of the Samuel

Wright.

Perseverance 1845

The Perseverance, a cutter built in NSW in 1841, was anchored in Koombana Bay on 28th February 1845 when a storm struck causing her to lose her anchor and be driven ashore. The shipwrecks current location is unknown.

Midas 1872

The Midas had sailed from Dunedin in New Zealand to Bunbury, Western Australia in early 1872 to collect a timber cargo. On 10th March 1872 a sudden storm struck the area causing the Midas to drag both anchors and was blown into shallow water where she struck heavily and took on water and was wrecked.

Annie M Young 1876

The Annie M Young was a Brig built and launched in 1863 in Yarmouth Canada. On 1st November 1876 whilst loaded with timber she set sail from the port of Bunbury only to have the wind die on her and she was forced to anchor in an exposed position. On 3rd November a gale struck whilst the captain was ashore, and she lost all three anchors and the wind drove her ashore onto the north beach and was wrecked.

Citizen of London 1880

Whilst tied to the Bunbury Jetty on 20th August 1880 to take on a load of sandalwood a strong surge smashed the Citizen of London into the jetty. She was built in Vasse, WA in 1878. She had three planks below the waterline smashed during the surge and was taking on water. The Captain let her go from the jetty, raised sails and drove her ashore. The ship was repaired by 1882, however, it was never re-floated, it was broken up and it is not known if any of the ship remains on the shore.

Agra 1885

The Agra was a Barque, built in Norway which was under charter to WR. Cave and Co from Adelaide and was transporting jarrah paving blocks to London at the time of her sinking. On the 25th of July 1885, the ship’s mate made the decision to move her from her safe anchorage to the Bunbury Jetty to continue loading. As she was being moored at the jetty, she dragged her anchor during a heavy swell. She started to scrape the bottom and take on water and was eventually abandoned by the mate. In late 1895 timber was salvaged from the wreck. In 1896 the wreck of the Agra was purchased by John Bateman, raised, repaired and renamed Rose. It was eventually sold to Chinese interests in 1905.

Cingalee 1887

The Cingalee was built by the Dundee Shipping Co and launched in May 1872. In February 1877 she was struck by a severe cyclone off the north west coast of Australia a severe cyclone near the Lacepede Islands. The Cingalee was deliberately run ashore during the storm in an endeavour to save it and its crew. By September the barque had been re-floated, temporarily repaired and sailed to Fremantle where she was thoroughly refitted. During a storm on the 18th June 1887 in Koombana Bay she was struck by big seas and struck bottom lightly a number of times. After the loss of all three anchors the captain set

P a g e | 16


December 2019

sail with the intention of beaching the ship in order to save it. On the way in it scraped over an existing wreck (likely the Midas) which damaged the hull.

Laughing Wave 1903

The Laughing Wave was a Brig built in 1868 in Fremantle, WA. Whilst at anchor in Bunbury harbour in 1903 a storm caused her to lose her anchor and drift. She drifted over the wreck of Solglyt, losing its rudder. It was made secure again by anchor but was taking on water from the Solglyt collision. The Laughing Wave eventually sank with only the bulwarks and rigging showing above sea level. The hull continued to roll as it lay on a rough rock sea bottom, seriously damaging the hull.

Solglyt 1888

Built in Norway the vessel after being loaded with jarrah. On the 12 July 1901 during stormy weather the vessels anchor cables parted and the Solglyt ran aground on a reef where the Agra was wrecked five years earlier.

P a g e | 17


December 2019

SECTION THREE – HERITAGE LISTINGS

The following section summarises the relevant lists and registers that relate to cultural heritage places in Western Australia and details the places on these lists that are within the Project Area.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE PLACE LISTINGS

All important and significant Aboriginal heritage sites and objects are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA). Aboriginal sites in Western Australia are listed on the Register of Aboriginal Sites which is managed by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). The Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) is the tool through which the public can access information about Aboriginal heritage places and their legal status. The AHIS provide information about heritage sites under two broad categories: Aboriginal sites (registered sites) or Other Heritage Places.

A search of the DPLH online Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) (18/10/2018) showed no known

Registered Aboriginal Sites or Other Heritage Places within the Project Area. The Developer should be aware that, while no Registered Sites of Other Heritage Places intersect the Project Area, there are Aboriginal sites and heritage places along the Bunbury coastline and in association with inland watercourses. Therefore, there is always the potential for Aboriginal cultural materials to be found that could be considered a site under sections 5 and 39(2) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. However, this is a low probability within the project area: this section of the bay’s shore is further out than the or iginal shoreline due to sand deposition resulting from the construction of the breakwater that was completed by 1900. Given the relatively recent natural reclamation of this area and the intensive use of it as a harbour, the likelihood of Aboriginal occupation of this specific area during this time is low.

HISTORICAL HERITAGE PLACE LISTINGS

The Western Australian Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 (MAA) protects pre-1900 maritime archaeological sites on Western Australian lands and waters, including protected bays, harbours, estuaries, rivers and creeks. The Western Australian Museum (WAM) is the government body responsible for administering the Act. Section 4 of the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 defines what constitutes a maritime archaeological site which may be located below the low water mark, between the tide marks or on land. Maritime archaeological site types include shipwrecks and relics associated with historic ships, early maritime infrastructure and shipwreck survivor camps. This Act defines an ‘historic ship’ as any ship

that before the year 1900 was lost, wrecked, abandoned or stranded within Western Australia. The term ‘relic’ pertains to anything of historic interest that appears to have formed part of, or to have been

carried by, derived from or been associated with an historic ship and can include anchors, ballast, cargo, etc. Information about the nature and location of maritime heritage can be found in the WAM’s Maritime Archaeology shipwreck database (WAM Database) and the DPLH’s InHerit online database.

The InHerit database contains information on State Registered places and places that are on local government heritage inventories (LGHI), also known as Municipal Inventories. LGHI were originally compiled by the Local Authority (Local Government) under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (HWAA). These inventories, or Local Heritage Surveys, are now subject to the Heritage Act 2018 (HA).

The City of Bunbury has a Local Government Heritage Inventory (LGHI) that contains information on places that the City considers having, or may have in the future, cultural heritage significance. In addition to this, they have a Heritage List which is compiled from the places and heritage areas identified in the LGHI but does not necessarily include all places. Places and heritage areas in the LGHI do not have any legal protection and are not subject to heritage provisions under the Town Planning Scheme unless they are included in the City’s Heritage List. The Planning and Development Act 2005 requires that the advice of the Heritage Council be sought in cases where places on the Local Government Heritage List will be subject to development or impact.

P a g e | 18


December 2019

Heritage Lists

A search of the InHerit database (25/01/2019) and City of Bunbury’s Local Government Heritage Inventory and Heritage List indicates that one place intersects with the Project Area (Table 3).

Table 3. Places on InHerit that intersect the Project Area

Register Number Place Name Status Location

5661 Wreck site - Samuel Wright’, Heritage List North Shore, Koombana Bay, Bunbury

The location of this listing does not match the current WAM Database. The current WAM Database indicates the wreck of the Samuel Wright is further to the east in Lot 501, not Lot 1881, along with the wrecks of the North America and the Cingalee. Further discrepancies between the databases are found for the location of the Cingalee which the InHerit system plots offshore and the Local Government Heritage Inventory of the City of Bunbury plots near to Turkey Point. These discrepancies will be discussed in the next Section of this MAMP, along with summaries of the past archaeological investigations that have taken place in the project area.

As the administering body for the MAA and as a research institution, the WAM Database is considered to be the authority on maritime wreckages. Therefore, based on the WAM database, Lot 1881 includes the presence of an unidentified wreckage (Map 2) and two other areas of archaeological potential (Table 4).

Table 4. Places on WAM Database that intersect the Project Area

Register Number Place Name Location

- Unidentified Wreck Site Lot 1881 - Potential Wreck Site Lot 1881 - Potential Wreck Site Lot 1881

5661 Wreck site - Samuel Wright’, Lot 501, 42m east of Lot 1881 5660 Wreck Site - North America No 1 Lot 501, 158m east of Lot 1881 5657 Wreck Site - Cingalee Lot 501, 80m east of Lot 1881

Non-Statutory Listings

No other heritage listings were identified with the Project Area.

P a g e | 19


December 2019

SECTION FOUR - ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

To date, there have been a number of professional and amateur archaeological investigations undertaken within the Project Area.

Due to the changes in Lot names and boundaries since 2017, much of the source material for the desktop review refers to former Lot allocations. For clarity, the previous assessments will be discussed in reference to where they lie in relation to the current Lot allocations.

Cable Sands 1956-1982

The Cable Sands Company began mining the mineral rich sands around Koombana Bay in 1956. Between the years 1962 and 1963, the company’s bulldozer operators uncovered the remains of four

shipwrecks. Of these, one was identified as a whaler whilst the three others remained unidentified.

Site M was discovered by Cable Sands operators during the construction of a drying shed. The site was left unexcavated.

Site K also discovered by Cable Sands Co and then later excavated by the Bunbury Historical Society and other locals. The WA Museum’s Dr Ian Crawford visited the site in 1962 to photograph it, take measurements and timber samples as well as some artefacts. The length of this wreck matches the dimensions of the American whaler North America which was wrecked there in 1843 and has been identified as such.

Site L is only 30 m from Site K, it was identified tentatively as the Samuel Wright, however it could be one of seven shipwrecks recorded as having gone ashore in this location. The site was left unexcavated.

Site J was uncovered by the Cable Sands Company and relocated during the WA Museum 1982 visit. The wreckage was identified as a section of a mid to late 19th century ship’s hull.

After the cessation of mining in the area, all sites were reburied but accurate locations for all four wrecks were not made.

WA Museum 1982

A WA Museum survey for the Western Australia State Energy Commission in 1982, led by Dr Michael McCarthy, identified the approximate location of a number of sites in the Koombana Bay area including the whaling ships Samuel Wright and North America.

WA Museum 2011

The WA Museum conducted a series of water probe surveys and excavations at Lots 1881 and 501 (former Lot tenure 881 and 882), on the Koombana Bay foreshore between 21—28 November 2011. A total of three archaeological sites relating to shipwrecks were located.

One shipwreck site on Lot 501 was identified as being protected by the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 (MMA) and two sites on Lot 1881 were identified as being parts of shipwrecks that may be protected by the MMA.

The shipwreck site in Lot 501 is buried on the pre-1896 shoreline, which means that it is a pre-1900 shipwreck and thus protected as a maritime archaeological site under the MMA. It was identified as either the Annie M. Young (1876) or Cingalee (1887).

Two areas containing detached sections of wooden hull structures from shipwrecks were located in Lot 1881, and both appear to have been moved to their current position from their initial wreck locations sometime during the Cable Sands sand mining operations in the 1960s. The site located in Lot 1881 Trench 1 was identified as detached hull side wreckage from either the Midas (1872) or Solglyt (1901). Due to this uncertainty of identification it was not confirmed whether this site may be protected as a

P a g e | 20


December 2019

maritime archaeological site under the MMA 1973. The section of shipwreck found in Lot 1881 Trench 2 is part of a ship’s deck and is possibly detached wreckage from either the Midas (1872) or Solglyt (1901). It was uncertain at the time whether the site was protected as a maritime archaeological site under the MMA 1973.

A water probe survey conducted on the last day of the investigation of Lot 501 located a cluster of solid wood targets at a depth of 5 metres in the area of the pre-1896 shoreline and concrete interpretation plinth. This plinth was placed in the position of the wreck of the Samuel Wright (1840) and is likely to be the remains of a shipwreck.

WA Museum 2016

In 2016, the WA Museum followed up the 2011 investigations with further water probing and archaeological excavation.

A large wooden feature buried between 3.5 m and 6.0 m below ground surface level on Lot 501 (former Lot tenure 882) was located by water probe surveys in 2011 and 2015. This was archaeologically excavated in February 2016. As a result of the excavation and associated research, the site is confirmed to be the remains of the North American-built whaling ship Samuel Wright (1831-1840) that was blown ashore at Koombana Bay during a gale on 8th July 1840.

In addition to a large wooden wreck that was found in November 2011 and the Samuel Wright, a water probe survey conducted between 14th and 18th April 2016 identified the presence of a third shipwreck nearby. The location of this wreck corresponds with historical research and analysis of historical photography that identifies this site as the whaling ship North America (1843) (Anderson and McAllister 2012; McCarthy 1982). North America was blown ashore in a gale at Koombana Bay on 12th April 1843, was refloated, but was then blown ashore again on 10th July 1843 to end up close to the wreck of Samuel

Wright.

On 3rd June 2016, further water probe surveys were carried out to establish that the large wooden shipwreck located and excavated in 2011 has an overall length of between 40 m and 40.5 m. This measurement confirms its identification as the three-masted Scottish-built barque Cingalee (1887) with a recorded length of 40.1 m. Cingalee was blown ashore in a gale while unloading a cargo of 200 tonnes of railway lines and timber at Bunbury on 18 July 1887.

PREDICTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Based on the information summarised above, there is one area containing confirmed shipwreck material and two areas with high archaeological potential that occur in the Project Area (see Map 2 and Map 3). Three named shipwrecks are located within 160m of the Project Area.

Shipwrecks

As outlined in Section Three, the spatial information provided for three statuary protected places in the Project Area varies between databases.

The WAM Shipwrecks Database provides the most accurate and up-to-date information on shipwrecks. This database indicates that the wrecks of the Samuel Wright, North America and Cingalee are not within the Project Area (Lot 1881 DP 410595) but are within Lot 501.

Shipwreck anomalies

The City of Bunbury’s Heritage List does not include an area of wreckage material that WAM excavations identified in 2011 in Lot 1881. This unidentified wreckage is thought to of relate to either the Midas (1872) or the Solglyt (1901).

During archaeological survey in 2011 the WAM excavated two areas in Lot 1881 (Trenches 1 and 2) – see Map 2. The trenches contained detached sections of wooden hulls from shipwrecks, and both appear to have been moved to their current position from their initial wreck locations sometime during the Cable Sands mining operations in the 1960s. The Trench 1 find was identified as a detached hull side from either the Midas (1872) or Solglyt (1901). The wreckage sits between 0.5 m to 1.5 m below the ground surface.

P a g e | 21


December 2019

The section of shipwreck found in Trench 2 is part of a ship’s deck and is possibly detached wreckage from either the Midas (1872) or Solglyt (1901). This wreckage sits between 0.5 m and 1.5 m below the surface. Borehole testing identified further material surrounding Trenches 1 and 2 and other wooden anomalies to the north and west. Discussions with Ross Anderson, Curator - Department of Maritime Archaeology, suggests that these areas may contain additional parts of shipwrecks comprising individual planks and perhaps sections of wrecks. The WAM’s borehole testing confirmed that there are two additional areas with wreckage anomalies to the east and north of Trenches 1 and 2 (see WAM Identified Anomalies in Map 2 and Map 3).

Therefore, there are three areas within Lot 1881 DP 410595 that have known maritime heritage value (see Map 2).

6312000

6312100

6312200

6312300

374000 374100 374200 374300 374400 374500 374600

Map 2. Wreckage and anomaly locations


WAM advised extent of wreckage materials

WAM 2011 excavation trenches

WAM advised anomaly areas

Wreck Site - Samuel Wright

Wreck Site - North America

Wreck Site - Cingalee

Legend

Bunbury

Perth

Lot 501

Albany

Trench 2Koombana Drive

Lot 1881(Project Area)

Trench 1

P a g e | 23


December 2019

SECTION FIVE - MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

The proposed management of heritage within the DHP Development Application requires the following stages of work:

Stage 1 – Desktop assessment, management plan and procedure development (this document).

Stage 2 – Heritage referrals, approvals and advice from relevant government bodies.

Stage 3 – Heritage Impact management including the monitoring of ground disturbance works, assessment of any unexpected finds and recording of archaeological finds and features.

Stage 4 – Assessment of all features and finds identified.

Stage 5 – Reporting of all heritage assessment work completed during the development.

The following section will discuss these stages and the guiding principles used in the construction of these recommendations.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Relevant sections from the Burra Charter (Burra Charter 2013) have been used to assist in the assessment of risk and the management of heritage, including the following articles:

Article 2. Conservation and management

2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved.

2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place.

2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance.

2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state.

Article 3. Cautious approach

3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.

3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.

Article 7. Use

7.1 Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained.

7.2 A place should have a compatible use.

Article 8. Setting

Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate setting. This includes retention of the visual and sensory setting, as well as the retention of spiritual and other cultural relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place. New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate.

Article 9. Location

9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other element of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival.

P a g e | 24


December 2019

9.2 Some buildings, works or other elements of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other elements do not have significant links with their present location, removal may be appropriate.

9.3 If any building, work or other element is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance.

STAGE 1 – DESKTOP ASSESSMENT AND CHMP

This document fulfils Stage 1 of the management strategy:

Sections Two to Four detail the results of the desktop assessment of heritage features within the areas designated for development works.

Section Five (this section) and Appendices 1-5 detail the management protocols for dealing with the potential impacts to the heritage values during the development.

STAGE 2 – GOVERNMENT APPROVALS

The shipwreck and potential wreckage materials in the Koombana Bay Project Area protected under the Maritime Archaeology Act 1973 (MMA). Therefore, DHP will need to avoid direct or indirect impact to these locations (Map 3). If impact is deemed unavoidable, DHP will need to gain the consent of the Trustees of the Western Australian Museum appointed pursuant to the Museum Act 1969.

Whilst these materials are not automatically protected under the federal Underwater Cultural Heritage

Act 2018 (UCHA), there are provisions in the Act for the Minister to extend protection to any wrecks and shipwreck materials under Section 17.

STAGE 3 – HERITAGE IMPACT MANAGEMENT AND PROCEDURES

Risk Assessment

Ground disturbance activities pose a risk to the archaeological heritage values that were outlined In Section Four.

The Australian government’s fact sheets23 for Environmental planning with reference to the Underwater

Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (UCHA) lists practical risk mitigation measures that include:

Desktop studies, impact assessments and modelling indirect impacts;

A program of chemical / electrochemical and physical monitoring before, during and after works that documents the effectiveness of safeguards and mitigation measures; and

Buffer zones and stabilisation measures.

A number of recognised management strategies have been used to mitigate against impacts to historic shipwrecks (Williams 1997). These include:

1) revising development plans to avoid potential impacts to a shipwreck; 2) conducting detailed archaeological survey and excavations prior to:

i) permitting disturbance to a wreck; ii) specifically designing a development to bury in situ or incorporate the wreck;

2 https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/dbc611e9-1792-4682-bf95-994267c5bd17/files/underwater-heritage-artefact-

factsheet.pdf 3 https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/56f68231-2a88-4b78-9a96-1383e48d74b2/files/underwater-heritage-guidance-

offshore.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/dbc611e9-1792-4682-bf95-994267c5bd17/files/underwater-heritage-artefact-factsheet.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/dbc611e9-1792-4682-bf95-994267c5bd17/files/underwater-heritage-artefact-factsheet.pdf

P a g e | 25


December 2019

iii) conducting archaeological excavations as a means of recovering portions of a wreck; and

3) a combination of the above.

By commissioning this MAMP, DHP have already reduced the risks associated with heritage in the Koombana Bay project area. The location of one shipwreck and two areas of interest have been identified in Lot 1881 by the Western Australian Museum (WAM) Shipwrecks Database. Archaeological investigation has definitively confirmed the presence of materials protected by the Maritime

Archaeology Act 1973 (MMA). The spatial data for these locations is provided along with this MAMP.

Only parts of the Project Area have been investigated for wrecks and it is clear that there are spatial inaccuracies in the City of Bunbury’s Heritage List and the DPLH’s InHerit online system. Indeed, there are at least 29 ships wrecked in Koombana Bay, but the location of only a small number have been investigated and confirmed. Based on the work by WAM in 2011 and 2016, there is the potential that additional wreckage material may occur across the Project Area and that cultural materials protected under the MAA and UCHA may be impacted by any ground disturbance below 500 mm.

Potential ground disturbance activities within the Project Area include:

Landform Preparation – grading and clearing

Landscaping – revegetation and planting, weeding,

Services and Utilities – trenches and pipework

Irrigation – trenches and pipework

Foundations for structures

Construction of retaining walls

Stormwater drainage

Waste Water Pumping Station

Postholes for signage

The Risk Matrix below links the depth of ground disturbance with location of disturbance (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Heritage risk matrix for the works outlined in the Project Area

At the time of this risk assessment the earthworks design includes the laying of imported, clean fill to raise the current surface level across the Project Area prior to construction. By doing so, minor ground disturbance activities, such as landscaping, are likely to only impact within the depth of the new infill.

The Waste Water Pumping Station, however, is a ground disturbance activity that will impact below 500 mm of the natural surface, despite the addition of clean fill to the site. As such, this is a high-risk activity. The design associated with the Development Application has currently place this pump outside

P a g e | 26


December 2019

of areas of known shipwrecks / high archaeological potential. During the excavation for the water pump management recommendations included in this document should be followed.

Should future design amendments involve ground disturbance below 500 mm of the natural surface level, then the risk matrix and archaeological impact strategies should be followed to ensure DHP mitigate the impact.

6312100

6312200

6312300 374100 374200 374300 374400

Map 3. Areas of confirmed wreckages and areasof high archaeological potential


Bunbury Areas of High Archaeological Potential

Areas of confirmed wreckages

Lot boundaries

LegendPerth

Lot 501

Albany

Koombana Drive

Lot 1881(Project Area)

P a g e | 28


December 2019

Archaeological Impact Mitigation

The following recommendations manage impact to archaeology:

All site supervisors, including for contractors/sub-contractors, will need to undergo specific heritage training to effectively manage unexpected heritage finds. This training is to be developed by a suitably qualified archaeologist.

All contractors or personnel working on site will undergo an archaeological heritage induction to introduce them to the heritage values. A specific contactor procedure for inclusion in contractors’ scopes of work is in Appendix Five.

Any contractors or personnel undertaking ground disturbance activities should be prepared to follow the Archaeological Discovery Procedure (see Appendix Two).

There is the potential to encounter wreckage materials across the Project Area at a depth of 500 mm below the current surface. These cultural materials are protected under the Maritime Archaeology

Act 1973 (MMA) and subject to the penalties of section 8 should they be adversely impacted without consent under the MAA.

Ground disturbance within 500 mm of the current surface has no maritime heritage impediment.

Prior to any ground disturbance works, including contaminated soil removal, below 500 mm of the current surface in areas of confirmed wreckages, the following actions should be deployed:

Engage a suitably qualified maritime archaeologist to provide advice.

Gain the consent of the Trustees of the Western Australian Museum under the MAA for any proposed works. Conditions attached to the consent may include archaeological investigation and salvage.

If drainage and other infrastructure works need to be excavated below 500 mm of the current surface, then those works need to be designed in a way that avoids areas of confirmed wreckages and high archaeological potential (see Map 3).

Any ground disturbing works, including any contaminated soil removal, that occur below 500 mm of the current surface anywhere in the project area should be considered high risk. If such works are unavoidable, the following actions should be deployed prior to ground disturbance:

Engage a suitably qualified maritime archaeologist to provide advice, monitor works and be on-call to assess any unexpected finds.

The works programme shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for additional recording of any archaeologically significant deposits or features uncovered during the disturbance. Such recording may include archaeological excavation.

If archaeological finds or features are identified during the works, the Archaeological Discovery Procedure (see Appendix Two) should be followed.

Any cultural material uncovered should be assessed for significance by the archaeologist using the Significance Assessment Process (see Appendix Three) and the Finds Recording and Collection Procedures (see Appendix Four).

Three statutory protected wrecks occur in the Project Area (Table 4). The spatial information for these places is incorrect on the DPLH InHerit system and the City of Bunbury’s LGHI. Archae-aus recommends that the City of Bunbury is informed so its Heritage List can be amended.

The City of Bunbury’s LGHI and Heritage List does not include the wreckage remains identified in Trenches 1 and 2 of WAM’s 2011 excavations, nor of the areas of archaeological potential identified

in 2016. Archae-aus recommends that the City of Bunbury is informed of these locations so that it can assess if the locations should be entered into the Heritage List.

P a g e | 29


December 2019

Table 5. Appendices for Management Procedures

Appendix Contents

One Archaeological Monitoring Procedure

Two Archaeological Discovery Procedure

Three Significance Assessment Process

Four Find Recording and Collection Procedures

Five Contractor Procedure Handout

STAGE 4 – FINDS AND FEATURE ASSESSMENT

Stage 4 of the MAMP includes the assessment of the finds and features identified during the archaeological investigations or unexpected finds during development activities.

Features and finds should be assessed by a suitably qualified archaeologist to industry-standard using the Significance Assessment Process outlined in Appendix Three.

STAGE 5 – REPORTING

Stage 5 of the MAMP is the reporting of results for any heritage assessment (survey, excavation or monitoring) that has taken place within the Project Area. The project archaeologist will provide DHP with final reports that include the following components:

1) Background archaeology and history of the site and surrounding area

2) Methods

3) Personnel and qualifications

4) Excavation results including feature and finds catalogues

5) Monitoring results including feature and finds catalogues

6) Significance assessments

7) Detailed site plans, section diagrams and photographs of work and features/finds

8) Conclusions and discussion of the identified archaeological material in terms of the research values and themes outlined in APPENDIX THREE – SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS.

9) Guidance for the interpretation of the results and any conservation, display or safe keeping of the archaeological material recovered during the development.

Copies of all reports will be given to the Western Australian Museum and the DPLH by the DHP project manager.

P a g e | 30


December 2019

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. 2016. “Beneath the Colonial Gaze: Modelling Maritime Society and Cross-Cultural Contact on Australia’s Southern Ocean Frontier - the Archipelago of the Recherche, Western Australia.”

Anderson, R, and M McAllister. 2012. “Koombana Bay Foreshore Maritime Archaeological Survey and

Excavations. November 2011. Report No. 286 Western Australian Museum, Department of Maritime Archaeology. Fremantle.”

Archae-aus Pty. Ltd. 2019. “Maritime Archaeology Desktop Review and Contraints Analysis, Koombana Bay Discovery Caravan Park Extension, Bunbury.”

Australia ICOMOS. 2013. “Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice.” Vol. 2013.

Melbourne.

Australian Heritage Commission. 2001. “Australian Historic Themes: A Framework for Use in Heritage Assessment and Management / Australian Heritage Commission.” Canberra.

Burra Charter. 2013. “The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013.” Burwood.

Gibbs, M. 2000. “Conflict and Commerce: American Whalers and the Western Australian Colonies 1826-1888.” Great Circle: Journal of the Australian Association of Maritime History 22 (2): 3–23.

McCarthy, M. 1982. “Koombana Bay Wrecks: An Investigation of Wrecks in the Bay for the State Energy Commission of Western Australia. Report - Western Australian Museum, Department of Maritme Archaeology No. 19. Fremantle.”

Russell, R, and K Winkworth. 2009. Significance 2.0: A Guide to Assessing the Significance of Collections. 2nd ed. Adelaide: Collections Council of Australia Ltd.

WA Heritage Council. 2012. “Heritage Themes.” Perth. http://stateheritage.wa.gov.au/docs/assessment-and-registration/heritage-themes.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Williams, K. 1997. “Management of Wrecks ‘in the Way’. Discussion of the Move of the Day Dawn.” Bulletin

of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 21 (1&2): 125–28.

P a g e | 31


December 2019

APPENDIX ONE – ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING

PROCEDURE

During archaeological monitoring (if required) the following should be undertaken:

1) The monitoring archaeologist is provided with sufficient scope to closely monitor works.

2) It is the responsibility of the Discovery Holiday Parks and/or the contractor in charge of the project to ensure that the archaeologist is briefed and ready to deploy.

3) The Discovery Holiday Parks / contractor is required to provide the archaeologist with at least two (2) days’ notice of any proposed works.

4) The Discovery Holiday Parks / contractor is required to provide the archaeologist with accurate location information as to the areas of proposed ground disturbance in the form of maps and GIS spatial information (in DXF or SHP format using MGA 94 grid).

5) The project archaeologist is on site during all ground disturbing works in areas of high archaeological potential.

6) The continued monitoring of the works will occur at the discretion of the project archaeologist. The archaeologist may decide that their on-site attendance is not required. In such instances:

a) A heritage-inducted Site Supervisor will monitor the works for archaeological finds and features.

b) If archaeological finds or features are identified during the works then the Archaeological Discovery Procedure should be followed.

c) The project archaeologist will undertake spot inspection of the works to ensure that Heritage Management Strategies outlined in this document are being met.

d) The project archaeologist should be notified when Discovery Holiday Parks plans to commence new instances of ground disturbance.

7) The monitoring archaeologist has the right to stop works to sufficiently analyse any identified archaeology as per the Archaeological Discovery Procedure in Appendix Two.

8) The archaeologist should be contacted immediately in the event of archaeological finds or features and works should cease as per the Archaeological Discovery Procedure in Appendix Two.

9) That once all ground disturbing works are completed that a detailed report is produced and submitted to Western Australian Museum.

P a g e | 32


December 2019

APPENDIX TWO – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY

PROCEDURE

1) The Discovery Holiday Parks and relevant contractors should familiarise themselves with this Archaeological Management Plan and any specific conditions of approval that relate to the archaeological potential of the site.

2) The Discovery Holiday Parks is the primary custodian of any historical archaeological finds and features; however, it should be noted that the Western Australian Museum (WAM) may expect the Discovery Holiday Parks to gift back to the State certain objects once salvaged.

3) The contactor’s works programme shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for the implementation of the following Archaeological Discovery Procedure within the designated areas of archaeological potential.

4) A variety of archaeological material may be encountered during ground disturbing works, including but not limited to:

a) Flaked and ground Aboriginal stone artefacts (Plate 3, Plate 4, Plate 5 and Plate 6)

b) Wooden Aboriginal artefacts/features

c) Skeletal materials;

d) Historical footings, stones, bricks

e) Historical artefacts such as glass bottles, clay pipes, metal, timber and ceramics (Plate 7 to Plate 10)

f) Shipwreck timbers or remains (Plate 11 and Plate 14)

Plate 3. Aboriginal flaked artefact (quartz)

Plate 4. Aboriginal flaked artefact (dolerite)

P a g e | 33


December 2019

Plate 5. Aboriginal ground-edge artefact

(dolerite)

Plate 6. Aboriginal grindstone fragment (granite)

Plate 7. 19th Century pottery sherds

Plate 8. Clay tobacco pipe fragments

Plate 9. Mineral water bottle

Plate 10. Historical brick

P a g e | 34


December 2019

Plate 11. Ship’s timber (keel) with copper alloy

fastenings

Plate 12. Ship’s timber (knee)

Plate 13. Ship’s timber and copper alloy fitting

(rudder gudgeon)

Plate 14. Shipwreck (image credit: WAM)

P a g e | 35


December 2019

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF ABORIGINAL ARTEFACTS

Items of cultural significance may be identified during the works, which may include isolated and collections of Aboriginal artefacts such as stone, or less commonly, wooden or bone tools.

Surface Finds

Should surface Aboriginal artefacts or cultural material be found during works, the following procedures should be implemented:

1) All works in the immediate vicinity of the find must cease and the project archaeologist should be notified immediately (if not on site);

2) The artefact should not be removed or disturbed further, and barriers or temporary fences may be erected around the area if required;

3) The archaeologist will create accurate records, including GPS coordinates and photographs of the archaeological material, including an in-situ evaluation of the find;

4) Work may be permitted to continue at an agreed upon distance from the find;

5) A written statement of the archaeologist’s assessment and recommendations will be provided to the

DPLH for their consideration; and

6) Based on the recommendations of the archaeologist, decisions regarding the treatment of the find shall be made in consultation with the archaeologist, the Traditional Owners and the DPLH.

Sub-Surface Material / Sites

In the event that Aboriginal archaeological material or site in a sub-surface context is identified, the following should occur:

1) All works in the immediate vicinity of the find must cease and the project archaeologist should be notified immediately (if not on site);

2) The artefact should not be removed or disturbed further, and barriers or temporary fences may be erected around the area if required;

3) An archaeological assessment should be arranged with the consent and involvement of the Gnaala Karla Booja Traditional Owners.

P a g e | 36


December 2019

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL FEATURES/FINDS

1) If historical features/finds are encountered during the works, the cultural material should not be moved and works should be halted immediately in the immediate vicinity of the find and the Project Archaeologist notified.

a) If the Project Archaeologist is not present, they should be informed at once. Depending on the nature of the find and discussion with the Project Archaeologist, work may be permitted to continue at an agreed upon distance from the find.

b) Once the archaeologist is present, they may decide to undertake further hand excavation / cleaning around the cultural material to assess its size / extent and determine its provenance and potential cultural significance.

c) If the finds are maritime related, and if it is considered necessary, the archaeologist will inform Discovery Holiday Parks and the Western Australian Museum (WAM) of the cultural material. If the historical finds are not maritime related, then archaeologist may inform the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) of the cultural material.

d) If the cultural material is assessed by the archaeologist as not in its primary context at the discretion of the archaeologist, works may proceed with caution and with direction from the archaeologist after the cultural material has been recorded, bagged and removed from the work area.

e) In the unlikely event that the historical cultural material is assessed by the project archaeologist as a significant historical in-situ feature, in consultation with Discovery Holiday Parks and WAM / DPLH, options for the recording, preservation or salvage of the feature will be determined. This may involve further archaeological excavation to determine the precise nature and extent of the feature.

f) After recording, all salvaged finds will be recovered by the archaeologist, bagged and removed from work area.

g) The Archae-aus Finds Management Process should be followed for appropriate storage or use of these finds.

P a g e | 37


December 2019

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

1) There is the possibility that human remains could be found during the project works.

2) Should human remains be found during works, the following legislation becomes applicable:

a) Coroners Act 1996 – all human remains;

b) Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 – Aboriginal remains; and

c) Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 - Aboriginal remains.

3) Should human remains be found during works, the following procedures should be implemented:

a) all works must cease immediately, and personnel must comply with the instructions of the project archaeologist. The remains should not be removed or disturbed further, and barriers or temporary fences may be erected around the area if required;

b) the Discovery Holiday Parks should be notified immediately;

c) under section 17 of the Coroners Act 1996 the local police and Coroner’s office must be notified;

d) if the human remains are thought to be Aboriginal then the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites at the DLPH must be informed. The Registrar of Aboriginal Sites will inform the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; and

e) in consultation with the police, Coroner and DLPH, steps to identify the remains must be taken. This may necessitate engaging a physical anthropologist to complete this task on site.

4) If the human remains are determined to be of Aboriginal (or undetermined) origin:

a) Traditional Owners should be consulted as to the management of the remains;

b) no further work at the location should be undertaken until all parties have been consulted and an agreement has been reached. Once an agreement has been reached, works may continue at an agreed distance away from the human remains; and

c) if left in situ, the location of the remains should be recorded in sufficient detail for their future protection.

5) If the human remains are determined to be of Aboriginal (or undetermined) origin, and in situ preservation is not a practical solution, provided all parties agree to the relocation of the remains:

a) approval to disturb the remains under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act (AHA), and/or a permit to excavate the remains for archaeological purposes under section 16 of the AHA should be sought;

b) an archaeological excavation plan should be developed and implemented in consultation with the Traditional Owners and the DLPH; and

c) provision be made for the return of the remains to the Traditional Owners for their repatriation at a safe location.

6) If the human remains are non-Aboriginal and are of a historical nature and cannot be avoided:

a) The Heritage Council of Western Australia and the Western Australian Museum will be consulted regarding the proposed disturbance.

b) A data recovery programme, planned in consultation with the Heritage Council of Western Australia / Western Australian Museum and a historical archaeologist and osteoarchaeologist, may be developed and implemented by the Discovery Holiday Parks.

c) The curation / collection of any excavated remains will be discussed between the Discovery Holiday Parks and the Heritage Council of Western Australia.

P a g e | 38


December 2019

PROCEDURE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SALVAGED FINDS

1) Archaeological find is located

i) Identified as a Loose Find

(a) Person who located the find notifies the onsite archaeologist

(b) Archaeologist assesses the find

(c) Find is collected

(d) Find is assessed for archaeological significance by an archaeologist with additional input from the Western Australian Museum (WAM)

1. Find is assessed as significant

i. Recorded in detail including notes taken regarding suitability for interpretation

ii. Data is entered into the find database

iii. Conserved using best practise methods

iv. Bagged, tagged and boxed

v. Stored in a stable environment

2. Find is assessed as not significant

i. Recoded in basic detail

ii. Data is entered into the find database

iii. If Aboriginal material, offered to Traditional Owners

iv. Discard options for historical material:

1) Offered to a 3rd Party in the following order – Discovery Holiday Parks, WAM, other government organisations, UWA, Archae-aus, artists

2) Destroyed

ii) Identified as a Feature

(a) Work is halted around feature

(b) Area is bunted off to protect the feature

(c) Person who located the find notifies the Project Archaeologist

(d) Archaeologist assesses the feature

(e) Assessed for archaeological significance (see Significance Assessment Criteria) with additional input from the WAM

1. Feature is assessed as significant

i. Feature is recorded in situ and in detail by archaeologists.

ii. Notes taken regarding suitability for interpretation

iii. Data is entered into the database

iv. Selected elements are retained for interpretation if suitable

v. Conserved using best practice methods

vi. Bagged, tagged and boxed

P a g e | 39


December 2019

vii. Stored in stable environment

i. Offered to a 3rd Party in the following order – Discovery Holiday Parks, WAM, other government organisations, UWA, Archae-aus

2. Feature is assessed as not significant

i. Recorded in basic detail

ii. Data is entered into the database

iii. If an Aboriginal feature, offered to the Traditional Owners / SWALSC

iv. Discard options

1) Offered to a 3rd Party in the following order – Discovery Holiday Parks, WAM, other government organisations, UWA, Archae-aus

2) Destroyed

P a g e | 40


December 2019

Figure 2. Finds Management Flow Chart

P a g e | 41


December 2019

APPENDIX THREE – SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT THEMES AND VALUES

The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) is the cornerstone document for conserving Australia’s cultural heritage. The Charter encapsulates two important aspects

in conserving heritage places. First, it establishes the best practice principles and processes for understanding and assessing a place’s significance, as well as developing and implementing a

conservation plan. Second, the Charter defines and explains the four primary cultural values that may be ascribed to any place: aesthetic, historic, social or spiritual and scientific. These values are essential because they delineate the types and quality of information needed to accurately determine a heritage place’s significance.

Places with archaeological significance may embody a range of values. Usually they are significant for their potential to yield data that are of value for understanding the past (scientific significance). However, a place with archaeological significance may also embody aesthetic, historic, social and / or spiritual values. The archaeological evidence at a place may yield information that is useful for understanding these other values too (Australia ICOMOS 2013).

Historic Themes

The following criteria can be used to determine archaeological significance within the Project Area. These criteria include the Federal Principal Australian Historic Themes and the Heritage Council of Western Australia Heritage Themes (WA Heritage Council 2012; Australian Heritage Commission 2001).

Table 6. Identified key cultural heritage values of the Project Area

Theme Commonwealth / State

3 Developing Local, Regional and National Economies 3.1 Exploring the coastline 3.4 Utilising natural resources

3.4.2 Fishing and whaling 3.8 Moving Goods and People 3.8.1 Shipping to and from Australian ports 3.11 Altering the environment 3.11.2 Reclaiming land 3.12 Feeding people 3.12.3 Importing foodstuffs 3.16 Struggling with remoteness, hardship and failure

Commonwealth

1 Demographic Settlement and Mobility 101 Immigration, emigration and refugees 107 Settlements 110 Resource exploitation and depletion 112 Technology and technological change

State

2 Transport and communication 201 River and sea transport 209 Technology and technological change

State

3 Occupations 305 Fishing and other maritime activities

State

6 People 602 Early Settlers 603 Local Heroes and battlers 605 Famous and infamous people

State

P a g e | 42


December 2019

Aesthetic, Historic, Social or Spiritual Value

The Burra Charter identifies four cultural values - aesthetic, historic, social or spiritual and scientific. Aesthetic value concerns the sensory and perceptual experience associated with a place and its objects, such as the location, the raw materials selected to manufacture the objects, what technologies are represented in the objects or place and the aesthetic qualities they possess. Historic values pertain to any element of the place’s history. Social and spiritual values originate within the community for which a place has meaning. Social value relates to how a community’s identity may be marked or sustained

by a particular location.

The wreckages in the Koombana Bay have historical and archaeological significance to Bunbury and the state of Western Australia. They have social value through the story that they tell of the trials and dangers of early trade and transport in and out of the port of Bunbury. This is an innate part of Bunbury’s historic story. These wrecks also represent a phase of maritime exploration that led to early cross-cultural contact with many Pacific, African and Australian Aboriginal cultures, including in Western Australia.

The shipwrecks demonstrate aesthetic and technical value as evidence of early shipbuilding techniques. These wrecks show the repairs made to them and their conversions for use in different industries. Such information links these ships to a vast network of 19th century economy, worldwide.

Scientific/Research Value

The Koombana Bay wrecks are a resource of state, national and international significance. Shipwrecks provide a lens into the past by highlighting connections between people, places, ideas and events that might be otherwise be obscured.

The Solygt and Cingalee were three-masted European-built barques used for moving timber and other goods in the Western Australian Coastal trade network. Midas was built in the USA and was used for intercolonial timber trade. The Samuel Wright was originally built for the North Atlantic cotton trade but later converted to a whaler.

The wreck of the Samuel Wright has high archaeological significance. It includes substantial intact remains of up to 3.5m depth of the ship’s lower hull including features not often preserved such as vertical

deck stanchions. The Samuel Wright has high research potential to obtain further information on whaling activities, ship layout, cargo packaging techniques and long-distance voyaging in the early 19th century. American-built whalers are of national and international significance, with mutual heritage values shared between Australia and the USA. The Samuel Wright site is additionally associated with the wider complex of Koombana Bay shipwrecks that include other American whaling ships such as the North America and the Scottish-built barque the Cingalee (1887).

The whaler wrecks in Koombana Bay contribute to our understanding of how the American Whaling industry contributed to WA’s economic development and how whalers adapted to the new and isolated environment of the Western Australian coast (Anderson 2016; Gibbs 2000)

Through post-excavation analyses of the construction, modifications, timber sample identifications and fastenings, Bunbury’s shipwrecks offer a valuable insight into the missing information about the construction of the merchant ships in the late 19th century. This includes finding evidence for the conversion of the ships for use in different industries during their lifetime, their repurposing after being wrecked and the salvage of fittings or timber.

Comparative Criteria

Using the Primary Criteria listed in the Burra Charter, significance assessments are further enhanced using Comparative Criteria (Russell and Winkworth 2009). These secondary criteria include rareness, representativeness, provenance, condition and interpretative capacity. These criteria will be applied to the archaeological material recovered, as a means of assessing its cultural significance.

Rarity or Representativeness: the ability of the place or object to demonstrate rare, uncommon or threatened aspects of the archaeological heritage of the State. This particularly relates to how uniquely the place / object demonstrates the characteristics of a class of archaeological site or artefact.

P a g e | 43


December 2019

Condition: To what degree the place has been impacted by natural and/or human events.

Interpretive Capacity: Does the place/object allow for further interpretation in understanding the cultural history of the State. The finds will be assessed based on their ability to be displayed.

Provenance: The chain of evidence that supports a historical association with an artefact is key. In archaeological contexts a provenanced item is likely to be more significant than an equivalent unprovenanced item.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

1) Find / Feature Description

2) Significance Assessment check list and justification

a. What are the finds / features specific aesthetic or technical value?

b. What are the finds / features specific historic value?

c. What are the finds / features specific social value?

d. How does it relate to the research themes (i.e. what is the specific scientific/research value)?

e. How rare is the find / feature?

f. How representative is the find and how does the find relate to the other significant finds in and around the Koombana Bay area?

g. What is its condition (poor, fair, excellent) and is it salvageable?

h. Does it have interpretative value?

i. Can it be linked to people and culture?

ii. Does it represent a significant connection to the State’s European history and the identified Heritage Themes?

iii. Can it be used for further research?

iv. Can it help inform multi-audiences?

v. Can it be easily displayed and how?

i. Does it have good provenance?

3) If assessed as significant:

a. Can it be retained in situ?

b. If not is it salvageable and potentially useful for interpretation the find will be retained.

4) If assessed as significant but not salvageable the find will be recorded in detail and discarded.

5) If assessed as not significant the find will be noted and discarded.

P a g e | 44


December 2019

Figure 3. Finds Significance Assessment Process

P a g e | 45


December 2019

APPENDIX FOUR – FIND RECORDING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES

LOOSE FIND RECORDING PROCESS

1) Find is photographed in situ

2) Location of find recorded on site plan

3) Loose Find recording form completed

4) Find placed into a storage bag using the correct conservation collection technique

5) Find labelled with find number, location, collectors name and date collected

6) Find stored in durable plastic tubs (see Plate 15)

7) Data entered into Database

Plate 15. Storage tubs

P a g e | 46


December 2019

Plate 16. Storage tubs

FEATURE RECORDING PROCESS

1) Feature is photographed

2) Location of feature recorded on site plan

3) Feature recording form completed

4) Data entered into Database

5) Depending on the type of feature, specific procedures will be required to either preserve in situ or remove and then conserve.

COLLECTION PROTOCOLS

Careful collection of finds is required and if finds conservation is required, conservators at the Western Australian Museum need to be consulted immediately.

1) Any finds recovered from a waterlogged context need to be kept wet in the same water from which they were collected.

2) Organic finds should be wrapped and kept away from direct sunlight, then stored at between 4° – 5° C.

3) Glass, ceramics, brick and stone should be carefully collected, dry brushed and stored separately in labelled plastic bags.

4) Metal items should be carefully collected, dry brushed and stored separately in labelled plastic bags. If metals are recovered from a wet environment they need to be stored wet. Fresh water is preferable to salt water except for lead and lead alloys, such as pewter. Only store like metals in the same container. Retain any adherent concretions. Do not store metals in the same container as organic materials unless they are part of an inseparable, composite object.

P a g e | 47


December 2019

STORAGE PROCESS

Once any conservation procedures are complete, the finds will need to go into secure and appropriate storage. It is envisaged that with the guidance of heritage consultants, the relevant custodian will store the finds in suitable storage conditions until such a time as they are assessed.

Following analysis, interpretation and reporting, the collected historical materials can be used by the Discovery Holiday Parks for display. If any Aboriginal artefacts are found, these materials will be given to the Native Title holders or traditional owners - consultation with the South West Land and Sea Council is necessary.

Those materials which will not be permanently retained will be offered to organisations in the following order:

1) Western Australian Museum (WAM)

2) Discovery Holiday Parks

3) Archaeology Department, University of Western Australia

4) Archae-aus (for educational purposes)

If the material is not wanted by these organisations, the material will be disposed of after consultation with the Discovery Holiday Parks and WAM.

P a g e | 48


December 2019

APPENDIX FIVE – CONTRACTOR PROCEDURE HANDOUT

P a g e | 49


December 2019

PROCEDURE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS DISCOVERY

Archaeological potential occurs across the entire project area. Ground disturbance below 500 mm has the chance of impacting federally protected archaeological sites and objects.

PLEASE BE AWARE:

ALL GROUND DISTURBANCE BELOW 500 MM ANYWHERE IN THE PROJECT AREA MUST BE MONITORED BY THE PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST

NO GROUND DISTURBANCE SHOULD TAKE PLACE BELOW 500 MM IN AREAS WITH CONFIRMED WRECKAGES WITHOUT APPROVALS

ISSUED UNDER THE RELEVANT MARITIME LEGISLATION

During ground disturbing works within 500 mm of the pre-development surface level, the following must occur if objects such as the following are found:

1) Aboriginal artefacts including flaked stone and glass, shell, animal bone and metal, ground stone tools 2) Historical and shipwreck artefacts such as bricks, concrete, dressed stone blocks, timber, road surfaces, bottles, ceramics, metal and

bone

Action Process Personnel When

1. Stop Work Immediately The discoverer will notify machine operators working in the vicinity to stop work to avoid further disturbance of the structure or object. Do not move or touch the found item.

Discoverer Immediately upon discovery of any object

2. Notify the Site Supervisor and the Managing Contractor

Discoverer informs the Site Supervisor.

The Site Supervisor informs the Managing Contractor. Discoverer, Site Supervisor Immediately

3. Protect the Find

If possible, fence off the affected area with as large a buffer as possible to protect the find. Keep all work away from the area until it has been assessed by the Archaeologist.

Site Supervisor ASAP

4. Document Take at least two photographs (using mobile phones) of the find with something for scale (pens, hands, ruler, people) Site Supervisor ASAP

5. Notify the Archaeologist The Managing Contractor contacts the Archaeologist to advise of the find.

Managing Contractor

ASAP

P a g e | 50


December 2019

Action Process Personnel When

The Managing Contractor emails the photographs to the Archaeologist and provides details of where the find is located (including depth, if possible).

6. Initial Assessment of the Find The Archaeologist views the photographs and advises the Managing Contractor on whether a site visit is required.

Project Archaeologist

ASAP but within 24 hours to minimise delays

7. On-Site Assessment of the Find

If a site visit is required, the Managing Contractor will notify the Site Owner.

The Archaeologist assesses the find and in consultation with the Managing Contractor will arrange the recording of the objects and possible salvage.

Managing Contractor, Project Archaeologist

ASAP

8. Recording / Salvage The Archaeologist to follow the Archaeological Management Plan. Archaeologist ASAP

9. Clearance

Once salvage is complete the Archaeologist informs the Managing Contractor that the area is clear.

Archaeologist informs the Managing Contractor if additional conditions for continued work are required.

Archaeologist Following assessment

10. Resume Work Managing Contractor informs the Site Supervisor. Managing Contractor ASAP

Contact Numbers for Project

Role Name Contact Details

Project Coordinator

Site Supervisor

Project Archaeologist

P a g e | 51


December 2019

APPENDIX SIX – HERITAGE REGISTER SEARCHES

9/25/2019 Heritage Council of WA - Places Database

inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Places/AggregateDetails?placeNameContains=Cingalee&streetNameContains=&isCurrentlyStateRegistere… 1/2

Wreck Site - CingaleeAUTHOR Heritage Council PLACE NUMBER 05657

Last UpdateCreation Date 13 May 1997 Publish place record online (inHerit): Approved

AUTHOR City of Bunbury

LOCATION

North Shore, Koombana Bay BunburyLOCATION DETAILS

North shore from the flood gates to the inner habour

LOCAL GOVERNMENT Bunbury REGION South WestCONSTRUCTION DATE

Constructed from 1872

DEMOLITION YEAR 1887

Statutory Heritage ListingsTYPE STATUS DATE DOCUMENTS

Heritage List Adopted 15 Apr 2003

Heritage Council Decisions and DeliberationsTYPE STATUS DATE DOCUMENTS

(no listings)

Other Heritage Listings and Surveys

TYPE STATUS DATEGRADING/MANAGEMENT

CATEGORY

Municipal Inventory Adopted 31 Jul 1996 Historic Site -Shipwreck

01 Jan2017

DisclaimerThis information is provided voluntarily as a public service. The information provided is made available in goodfaith and is derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate. However, the information is providedsolely on the basis that readers will be responsible for making their own assessment of the matters discussedherein and are advised to verify all relevant representations, statements and information.

CONSTRUCTION DATE



Statement of SignificanceSHIPWRECK 'Cingalee' is one of a number of shipwrecks in Koombana Bay from the colonial period that tell thestory of the trials and dangers of early trade and transport in and out of the port of Bunbury. The 'Cingalee' pliedthe Western Australian coast, moving goods between ports.

Physical DescriptionUnknown


inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Places/AggregateDetails?placeNameContains=Cingalee&streetNameContains=&isCurrentlyStateRegistere… 2/2

Last Update Publish place record online (inHerit): Approved

History'Cingalee' was a three masted, single decked wooden barque, weighing 336.6 tonnes and was 40 metres inlength. 'Cingalee' was built in Dundee, Scotland, by the Dundee Ship Co in 1872. She was registered inFremantle in 1878 from the Dundee Registry. In April 1877, 'Cingalee' ran ashore in a cyclone at the LacapedeIslands. W E Marmion and partners, merchants from Fremantle, purchased the vessel as a wreck, hauled her offand had her sailed to Fremantle under jury rig in January 1880 for repair. 'Cingalee' was then engaged in theWestern Australian coastal shipping trade. 'Cingalee' ran aground in Koombana Bay on 18 June 1887 under thecommand of Captain Pringle. The owners at the time were Pearse, Owston & Co. The vessel was condemned inJuly 1887 and a board of inquiry reported that the storm responsible for the wreck had also moved the baropening of the Estuary almost half a mile up North Shore. The ship’s fittings were auctioned. In 1938, the ship’sbell was used by the Bunbury Senior High School and remained in use even after an electronic siren systemwas installed. In 1970, the bell was stolen from the school.

ArchaeologySHIPWRECK

Integrity/AuthenticityNo visible remains.

ConditionDismantled and lying scattered in the sand.

24 Oct2017


��

�� !� �" ��#�"��$��%� ��&��'��('��'��)��*)+��''��(�+(�(��

,-./0�123.�4�56-37�89.-2/:�56�;8<=>?@�A23B�6C�DEFGE-B HI8AJ�5<KDJ@�LMNNLI?A8=O?5P��%��Q�R��S��T�$�T��$I?A8=O?5�UJ=8OI1P��%��"�$��Q�P��V��W��PX��S�W��Y��V��'I?A8I�Z?[J@5KJ5= �T��$ �@JZO?5 �%��A?51=@<A=O?5�U8=J��'��S��(*�UJK?IO=O?5�\J8@ �P��13:3E36-B�>.-23:].�I2̂32F]̂=\HJ 1=8=<1 U8=J U?A<KJ5=1�� V�� '��' �_��?37.-�>.-23:].�I2̂32F]̂�:F̀�1E-a.B̂=\HJ 1=8=<1 U8=J Z@8UO5ZbK858ZJKJ5=A8=JZ?@\Y��#�"��$ �'��' ��c��+ ��%��%��!��W13:3.9.F3�6C�12]F2C2/:F/.%�#��&X�R�d��!��W��eP��S��eQ�� !��!��W��R��S��T�$Q��$��'�'�� $��'��'��'��T��$ �eP��S��e�!��!�� "��'�!��!��"��Q��'��'��'��!��$�� H7B̂2/:f�U.̂/-2g326F%��W��'��S��'��'�h��'��W�!��i%�S�� ij >2̂36-BeP��S��e�!��!��'��!��S��Q�P��S��Q�!� �� (_��'�S�� S�� eP��S��e�!��'��(�*��P�!�k�W��'�� '��(*��!�� S�!��Q�*��W��Q��'��$��e�!��"�� %��'�'��'�Q��!��W��%�S�� S��!��!��'�!�� S��S�!�� S��'�� Q�'�� W��'� ��'��T��'�P��S��!��'��Q��$�� !��$�� '��"��'�!��S�� #��Q��S��!��"'�'��'��'�� S��T��$�!��'��'�� #��c��(*�Q�P��S��!��'��%��Q��l�S��Y��Q��m��_�n��m_��o �%��'��!��''��'Q��'��"��'��'�� !�"�Q��!��$�!��W�'�� c��(*� �%��X�p��T��$��"� ��S��Q��$��!��!��W�'�� nT��T��+o ��''��!��"��'��+�Q��q��S��!��pp��!��!�W�'��'��'��$�%��e��S��(*� �#��

��

�� !� �" ��#�"��$��%� ��&��'��('��'��)��*)+��''��(�+(�(��

,-./�012-/3453-/678�9-/3 ��:�$��) ;<=>6.?�1>-@3�53@752�78>683�A68B356/CD ��"�'��'��&�"��'��'��E�F��E��!��G��%�:�GH�� I�� J5@?-37>7KL%��!��G47826/678&�E��!��G��'��'��'��!��'�� *�M��)96.@>-6N35O��E��"'�'�"��$��"�� O��E��"'�'��E�'��"�� '��'��'�"�'��E��"�'��'�� !�"�I��E��"'�'��$��'��!��E�G� ��!��E��E��'��'��'��'"��'��"��$��"��I��E��'��E��

��

�� !� �" ��#�"��$��%� ��&��'��'��(()��))�*��+��*��

,-./0�123.�4�1567.8�,-29:3;<=>?@�A23B�CD�E7FG7-B HI;AJ�K<LEJ@�MNOOPI?A;=Q?KR��%��S�T��U��V�$�V��$I?A;=Q?K�WJ=;QI1R��%��"�$��S�R��X��Y��'��U�Y�I?A;I�Z?[J@KLJK= �V��$ �@JZQ?K �%��A?K1=@<A=Q?K�W;=JWJL?IQ=Q?K�\J;@ ��)(�135373C-B�>.-2359.�I2]32F9]=\HJ 1=;=<1 W;=J W?A<LJK=1�� X�� '��' �*��?3:.-�>.-2359.�I2]32F9]�5F̂�17-_.B]=\HJ 1=;=<1 W;=J Z@;WQKZ̀L;K;ZJLJK=A;=JZ?@\a��#�"��$ �'��' ��b��c ��%��%��!��Y1353.6.F3�CD�129F2D2/5F/.%�#��&d�T�e��!��Y��f%�U�� gS�� !��!��Y��T��U��V�$S��$��'�'�� $��'��'��'��V��$ �h%�U�� g�!��!�� "��'�!��!��"��S��'��'��'��!��$�� i��'��U��'�� !��Y��'��'��U��S��U�$��'��!��"��$�� !��V��$g��j��k�� H:B]2/58�W.]/-2l32CF#��"�'��Y��'��U��'��' >2]3C-Bh%�U�� h�!��U��'S�!��'��!�� "��!� �� +��j��'��U��'��+��k��'�U�� *�U�� h%�U�� h�!�� '��!�� %��US�a�� %��!��'��$�i��'��!��'��$�b�V�m� ��' ��U��!��!��'�!��!�� "�� U�� '�� Y��'� ��'��V��'�R��U��!��'��S��$�� !��$�� '��"��'�!��U�� #��S��U��!��"'�'��'��'�� U��V��$�!��'��'�� h%�U�� h�� '��b��$��)(��'�� U��T��U��V�$ ��S�R��U��R��S�� '�'�� U��U �jV�c�k��j��$��k��'�� '��U��h%�U�� h��'��'��U��U��S��!��'��U�$��*��S��Y��&"� �#��)(�S��'��$S��'� ��U��f��g��&�"��'�b��&��'��'��R��U�� %��a�Yg��

��

�� !� �" ��#�"��$��%� ��&��'��'��(()��))�*��+��*��

,-./�012-/3453-/678�9-/3 ��:�$��+ ;<=>6.?�1>-@3�53@752�78>683�A68B356/CD ��"�'�� !��E��$F��G��H�� %�"�$��IJJ��$��'��J��!��K��L%�J�� L�� !��'��'��!��"�$��)(� M5@?-37>7NO%�#��&P�QR8/3N56/OSM</?38/6@6/OT��"��J�� 47826/678U�K��!� �(�I��+96.@>-6V35W��J��"'�'�"��$��"�� W��J��"'�'��J�'��"�� '��'��'�"�'��J��"�'��'�� !�"�X��J��"'�'��$��'��!��J�K� ��!��J��J��'��'��'��'"��'��"��$��"��X��J��'��J��


inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/PrintSingleRecord/c087421b-3541-4789-9d63-12367ee07d70 1/2

Wreck Site - MidasAUTHOR City of Bunbury PLACE NUMBER 05662LOCATION


North shore - underneath the carriage way S of the Koombana Bay Sailing Club buildings







(no listings)



CATEGORY


Statement of SignificanceSHIPWRECK The wreck of the 'Midas', together with the other shipwrecks in Koombana Bay, tells the story ofthe trials and dangers of early trade and transport in and out of the port of Bunbury. Owned by Connor andMcKay of New Zealand, the 'Midas' was used for intercolonial trade.


History'Midas' was a three masted wooden sailing barque weighing 555 tons. She was 44 metres long and wasconstructed at Farmingdale, USA, by Duncan in 1865. By 1872, 'Midas' was owned by Connor and McKay ofNew Zealand. They loaded her with cut timber, 70 foot piles and jetty timber at Bunbury, but she was wreckedduring a cyclone on 10 March 1872. In March and June 1872, it was reported that the wreck was obstructing theharbour and she had to be moved by the Government. A law suit followed, and in 1876 the wreck still lay in theharbour.

ArchaeologySHIPWRECK

Integrity/AuthenticityNo visible remains

Condition


inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/PrintSingleRecord/c087421b-3541-4789-9d63-12367ee07d70 2/2


Unknown

24 Oct2017



inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Places/AggregateDetails?placeNameContains=Solglyt&streetNameContains=&isCurrentlyStateRegistered… 1/2

Wreck Site - believed to be the SolglytAUTHOR Heritage Council PLACE NUMBER 05663


AUTHOR City of Bunbury

LOCATION


North shore close to E side of the flood gates


Constructed from 1901, Constructed from 1888





(no listings)



CATEGORY


01 Jan2017


CONSTRUCTION DATE



Statement of SignificanceSHIPWRECK The wreck of the 'Solglyt', together with the other shipwrecks in Koombana Bay, tells the story ofthe trials and dangers of early trade and transport in and out of the port of Bunbury. The 'Solglyt' plied WesternAustralia’s coast, moving goods between the ports.



inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Places/AggregateDetails?placeNameContains=Solglyt&streetNameContains=&isCurrentlyStateRegistered… 2/2

Last Update Publish place record online (inHerit): Approved

HistoryIt is belived that the wreck of the 'Solglyt' is located in Koombana Bay. 'Solglyt' was a three masted woodenbarque, with a single deck and raised quarterdeck. She weighed 875 tonnes and was 176.5 metres long.'Solglyt' was built by M Suensen in Grimstead, Norway, in 1888. By the early 1900s, she was plying WesternAustralian coastal waters. On 10 July 1901, 'Solglyt' became stranded on the beach at Bunbury. She was fullyladen with jarrah and broke up in the mouth of the Bar. She was captained by Captain Rasmussen and ownedby O R Foreid. In 1973, when the Koombana Channel was being excavated, the 'Solglyt' was uncovered. Afterinspection, the wreck was bulldozed to its present location and reburied, which virtually destroyed any remains.

ArchaeologySHIPWRECK.

ConditionUnknown

24 Oct2017


maritime archaeology management plan for lot … and building...the archaeological consultants...

Documents