Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological ... · 6 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd

1 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)


Document Version Control

Version/ Date Author Reviewed Review date

28 April 2019 Richard Woolfe

14 May 2019 Ben Keys Richard Woolfe 14 May 2019

21 May 2019 Ben Keys

Supplement Report to the EIS Archaeological Impact Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project

Prepared for: Nitro Solutions Pty Ltd and KGL Resources Ltd Prepared by: Richard Woolfe & Ben Keys Earthsea Pty Ltd PO 351 The Gap, QLD 4061

Cover Image: Grindstones recorded in-situ, Site ID: LC08 (photographed 18/04/2019)


Contents

CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND LAND TENURE ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 NATIVE TITLE ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 THE AUTHORS ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.5 PROJECT LOCATION MAPS ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2 HERITAGE REGISTER SEARCHES ............................................................................................................. 11

2.1 NORTHERN TERRITORY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE REGISTER ............................................................................................. 11 2.2 NORTHERN TERRITORY HERITAGE REGISTER .............................................................................................................. 11 2.3 ABORIGINAL AREAS PROTECTION AUTHORITY (AAPA). ............................................................................................... 11 2.4 NATIONAL AND COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE LISTS .................................................................................................... 12

3 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................ 13

3.1 CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 LAND SYSTEMS AND GEOMORPHOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 SURFACE GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 16 3.4 LAND USE AND DISTURBANCE FACTORS .................................................................................................................... 18

4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 19

4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 20

5 SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 TRANSECTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.2 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ....................................................................................................................... 22 5.3 HISTORICAL FEATURES .......................................................................................................................................... 26 5.4 SITE DISTRIBUTION MAPPING ................................................................................................................................. 27

6 CULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 30

6.1 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED .............................................................. 30 6.2 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL FEATURES RECORDED ................................................................................. 31

7 PROJECT RISKS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLANNING ............................... 33

7.1 IMPACTS ON RECORDED ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (LC01 TO LC016) ............................................................ 33 7.2 POTENTIAL FOR PREVIOUSLY UNDETECTED ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ............................................................. 33 7.3 IMPACTS ON RECORDED HISTORICAL FEATURES ......................................................................................................... 33 7.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 33 7.5 SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 34

8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 38

ATTACHMENT 1: PROJECT AREA AUTHORITY CERTIFICATE C2019/030 .......................................................... 39

ATTACHMENT 2: ABORIGINAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS, SITES LC01 TO LC016 ...................................................... 40


Figures

Figure 1: Project Area Location ............................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Project Area and ILUA Locations .............................................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Project Area and Native Title Boundaries .............................................................................. 10

Figure 4: Land System Mapping ............................................................................................................ 15

Figure 5: Outcropping Geology ............................................................................................................. 17

Figure 6: Site Distribution Map, NW Project Area ................................................................................ 27

Figure 7: Site Distribution Map, NE Project Area .................................................................................. 28

Figure 8: Site Distribution Map, SE Project Area .................................................................................. 29

Tables

Table 1: Land Tenure Project Area .......................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Northern Territory Heritage Register Extract 10 May 2019.................................................... 11

Table 3: Project Area Bioregion subregions, based on the IBRA 7 spatial data .................................... 14

Table 4: Outcropping rock descriptions and archaeological interpretations ....................................... 16

Table 5: Transects recorded during field survey. .................................................................................. 21

Table 6: Artefact tool types recorded in survey ................................................................................... 22

Table 7: Aboriginal Archaeological Sites Survey Results ....................................................................... 23

Table 8: Isolated artefacts in Project Area ............................................................................................ 25

Table 9: Scientific significance of Aboriginal Sites recorded in field survey ......................................... 32

Table 10: Site Specific Recommendations and Relationship to Proposed Works ................................ 35


1 Introduction

Nitro Solutions engaged Earthsea Pty Ltd to prepare this Supplementary Archaeological Assessment

Report for the Jervois Base Metal Project (the Project) draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Earthsea completed a draft ‘Archaeological Desktop Assessment and Survey Report for the Jervois

Base Metals Project’, which was submitted as Appendix C-8 to the Northern Territory Environment

Protection Authority (NT EPA) by Nitro Solutions in October 2018. Stakeholder comments on the draft

EIS were received in December 2018. The NT EPA has directed KGL Resources to prepare a Supplement

Report to the draft EIS to address all matters that were raised in the submissions during the exhibition

period.

This Supplementary Archaeological Assessment Report addresses the Draft EIS Comments from

Stakeholders regarding an Archaeological Assessment of the proposed borefield and pipeline route

which was not included as part of the scope for the original study submitted in 2018. The NT EPA

comments specifically stated:

“The water pipeline and borefield were not part of the archaeological surveys and not part of

the overall assessment in the Draft EIS. As a minimum and as per the TOR, undertake a desktop

likelihood analysis of the area to be impacted by the borefield and pipeline for potential

occurrences of archaeological values. If the analysis indicates likely occurrences, undertake

targeted surveys. Assess the significance and risks of the potential impact according to the

requirements outlined in the TOR.”

This Report should be read in conjunction with the Archaeological Desktop Assessment and Survey

Report for the Jervois Base Metals Project EIS, Appendix C-8.

1.1 Scope of the Study

To respond to the stakeholders’ comments, an archaeological assessment involving the following

scope was undertaken:

1. A desktop analysis of the proposed borefield and pipeline area to identify potential occurrences of archaeological/heritage sites;

a. Bore field consists of 10 bores (approx. 50m (L) x 30m (W) drill pad clearing) b. Pipeline is 48.5km long1. The Pipeline Right of Way (ROW) width was not known at

the time of survey and will be dependent on the final pipe diameter and contractor requirements.

2. A field survey to analyse the nature and location of archaeological and heritage values in the area; and

3. A report which assesses the significance of archaeological and heritage values and the risks of the potential impact in accordance with the requirements of the Terms of Reference (ToR).

The resulting report (this Report) will form part of the Supplement Report for the Jervois Base Metal

Project (the Project) draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The study is limited to assessing the significance of archaeological sites of Aboriginal origin and

historical features associated with post-contact to modern period. Sacred Sites, mandated as sites of

1 48.5km doesn't include the possible branch lines for pipes in the NE bore field (i.e. Bore LC21-LC25).


significance in the Aboriginal Tradition by the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern

Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA), are not covered under this study.

The field survey component of this study was not conducted in direct consultation with Traditional

Owners of the area. At this stage of the Project, the consultations with the Central Land Council and

Traditional Owners, the Arrernte People (also spelled Aranda in some documents2), will be undertaken

through KGL Resources Ltd and the Central Land Council.

1.2 Project Location and Land Tenure

The Jervois Base Metal Project proposed borefield is located within Lucy Creek Station approximately

410 km north east of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory (see also Figure 1 and Table 1). The site is

accessed via the Plenty Highway and Lucy Creek Access Road, then via a combination of existing

pastoral tracks, cross country driving and pedestrian access within Lucy Creek Station. The proposed

borefield comprises 10 water bores proximal to Arthur Creek, which are connected to the Jervois Base

Metal Project Mine Site via a proposed 48.5km long water pipeline.

The pipeline has been planned to connect the individual bores via the shortest route between each,

coupled with utilising the easement of existing stations roads where possible and to follow along the

eastern side of the Lucy Creek Access Road reserve to the mine site. The last 0.5km of the pipeline

which exits the Lucy Creek Access Road reserve into the mine site was proposed to follow along an

existing station track on the northern side of Unca Creek, crossing the latter near the remains of the

Plenty River Mining Company camp within EL25429.

The Land Tenure for the Project areas is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Land Tenure Project Area

Parcel Key Property Name Owner Category Tenure Type Proposed Works

(Supplementary Report)

NT Por 366 Jervois Pastoral Station

Private, Jervois Pastoral Company Pty Ltd.

Perpetual Pastoral Lease

0.5km of pipeline

NT Por 686 Lucy Creek Station

Private, Fogarty Holdings Pty Ltd.

Perpetual Pastoral Lease

10 ground water bores, associated drilling pads and 33.34km of pipeline

NA Lucy Creek Access Road Reserve 194

Northern Territory Government

NA 14.8km of pipeline

1.3 Native Title

A search of the Native Title Register returned one Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) applying in

the Jervois Base Metal Project Mine Site Project Area (DI2016/003, Jervois Project ILUA) and a

Registered Native Title Claim (DC2018/02, Jinka Jervois Pastoral Leases) encompassing all of Jervois

Pastoral Station NT Por 366 (refer Figure 2 and Figure 3). These areas encompass 0.5km of the

proposed water pipeline outlined in this Report.

2 cifhs.com/ntrecords/ntcencus/jervois.html


Two other ILUA’s were noted within the proposed Project Areas, however both relate to Petroleum

activities unrelated to this Project. As presented in Figure 2, these ILUA’s Include: DI2006/002 -

Sandover Petroleum ILUA and DI2007/002 - NT Oil Ltd: EP 127 and 128 ILUA.

The Native Title Register search indicated that there are no Native Title Determinations, Claims or

Applications within the Lucy Creek Station Project Area.

1.4 The Authors

Project Archaeologist: Richard Woolfe

Richard holds a Bachelor of Archaeology from the University of New England, a Grad Dip in GIS and

Geomatics from Charles Darwin University and a Masters in Heritage Management and GIS from the

University of New England. Richard has 18 years’ experience in cultural heritage management in the

Northern Territory and Queensland. Richard also has extensive experience in community consultation

with Aboriginal groups and the wider community. Richard conducted the last public review of the NT

Heritage Conservation Act 1991 in 2003-2004 and co-drafted the original instructions for the NT

Heritage Act 2011.

Project Archaeologist: Ben Keys

Ben holds a Bachelor of Archaeology with Honours from Flinders University, South Australia. He has

extensive experience in cultural heritage management and community consultation, coupled with the

management of largescale developments such a mining projects in the Northern Territory. Ben also

has a professional background in land access management and aspects of environmental

management, including mining compliance. He has been an author of several published academic

archaeological journal articles and has been invited to speak at several mining industry conferences in

the Northern Territory.


1.5 Project Location Maps

Figure 1: Project Area Location: Lucy Creek Station and Jervois Station, Plenty Highway, Northern Territory


Figure 2: Project Area and ILUA Locations


Figure 3: Project Area and Native Title Boundaries


2 Heritage Register Searches

2.1 Northern Territory Archaeological Site Register

There have been few archaeological studies completed within the Plenty River Basin. Accordingly, as

presented in the Archaeological Impact Assessment (EIS Appendix C-8, 2018), the Archaeological

Database held by the Heritage Branch, NT Department of Tourism and Culture records only one site

within a 50-kilometre radius of the Project Area (EL25429). There has been no change to this

information at the time of writing the Supplementary Archaeological Report.

The lack of recorded sites demonstrates a lack of archaeological investigation in the region rather than

a paucity of sites3.

2.2 Northern Territory Heritage Register

A search of the Northern Territory Heritage Register indicates there are two declared heritage places

located within Lucy Creek Station. These consist of two ELDO rocket shelters constructed during or

after 1966. Both sites fall outside the proposed borefield and pipeline route and will not be impacted

by related Project activities.

Table 2: Northern Territory Heritage Register Extract 10 May 2019. Heritage Places in Lucy Creek

Place Name Easting Northing Status Zone S26

Eldo Rocket Shelters Lucy Creek No.1 632824 7517880 Declared Zone 53 19 May 2007

Eldo Rocket Shelters Lucy Creek No.2 632905 7517759 Declared Zone 53 19 May 2007

2.3 Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA).

The AAPA is an independent statutory authority established under the Northern Territory Aboriginal

Sacred Sites Act 1989. As stated in Section 3.3 of the EIS Project Overview 2018, an AAPA Authority

Certificate has been issued for EL25429 for ‘all operations, activities and incidental matters’ of the

ILUA between the CLC and KGL. This certificate would also encompass 0.5km of the proposed pipeline

route from the Lucy Creek Access Road reserve into the mine site.

KGL were issued a separate Authority Certificate by AAPA on 17 April 2019 (Certificate: C2019/030,

See Attachment 1) covering the proposed borefield and remaining pipeline route outside EL25429. No

sites were recorded as being within the proposed borefield or pipeline Project Areas. It is however

noted that some Restricted Work Areas and Recorded Sacred Site Boundaries lie adjacent to the

proposed pipeline route and their boundaries should be clearly understood prior to undertaking

ground disturbing works.

Certificate C2019/030 also notes the existence of a number of sites likely to be Aboriginal Heritage

Places within the meaning of the NT Heritage Act 2011. Three of these sites were recorded burial

places that have been located and fenced off by Aboriginal Traditional Owners in the latter half

of 2018. A further site named 6152-41 has been named in the above Certificate. This site, along with

the other Sacred Sites and burials should be avoided in the course of the proposed works.

3 Note that it is also likely that some sites recorded during the 2018 surveys (and potentially other surveys) are yet to be added to the NT Archaeological Database.


KGL have also noted in Section 3.3 of the EIS Project Overview 2018, that ‘should any future activities

require additional Certificates, an application will be made to ensure there is no accidental damage to

sites that are sacred or otherwise significant to Aboriginal tradition’.

2.4 National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists

A search of the National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists indicated that there were no heritage sites

recorded within the study area.


3 Physical and Environmental Setting

Understanding the environmental context of a region is critically important when analysing past

human settlement behaviour through interpreting archaeological features and site patterns.

Geomorphology, geology and vegetation changes in the landscape can heavily influence the types of

archaeological materials found, their condition, distribution patterns and predictability within a given

land system. From a survey methodological perspective, these environmental factors may also

obscure the visibility of the archaeological record and thus reduce the effectiveness of the surveyor’s

ability to identify a site, its contents or extent. Accordingly, the following section outlines the

environmental and physical background to the proposed borefield and pipeline route.

For the purposes of this study, the Consultants have analysed the land systems, hydrology and surface

geology against known site distribution in arid zone environments and those previously recorded

within EL25429. This analysis was utilised to build a predictive model of potential site distribution in

the Project Area, which informed the most appropriate survey methodology (refer Section 4). An

archaeological survey with 100% coverage would not be considered practical for this phase of the

proposed Project’s development.

The Project Area consists of a number of land surfaces with varying archaeological potential. The

purpose of the sections below is to assess each land surface for archaeological potential and develop

the survey methodology accordingly.

3.1 Climate and Hydrology

The climate of the proposed borefield and associated pipeline is analogous with the IBRA7 Bioregion

‘Channel Country’ description outlined in the Jervois Base Metals Project EIS, Appendix C-8 (p. 15).

Similarly, the Project Area’s surface water hydrology is ephemeral and dominated by Arthur Creek and

its tributaries, with most being unnamed except Unca Creek. Arthur Creek flows to the south into the

Hay River which has a terminal floodout in the Simpson Desert. There are references to springs along

Arthur Creek (Duguid et al. 2005:174), however the longevity of these refuge waterholes is not well

known or published. Small bodies of shallow standing water were noted in some of the tributaries

during the current survey, but not in Arthur Creek despite having had a significant flood event

(+170mm within 48h) 3 weeks prior.

Notwithstanding this, the vegetation along the length of Arthur Creek was dominated by Eucalyptus

camaldulensis (River Red Gums), Corymbia aparrerinja (Ghost Gums) and Eucalyptus coolabah

(Coolabah), which suggests the potential for significant sub-surface water resources.

3.2 Land Systems and Geomorphology

In the broadest sense, the Project Area falls within seven subregions which constitute part of the

‘Channel Country’ Bioregion as based on the IBRA 7 spatial data. As presented in Table 3 and Figure

4, these subregions and their Archaeologically Potential include:

1. Bond Springs

2. Ilgulla

3. Lucy

4. Sandover

5. Singleton

6. Sonder

7. Woodduck


Table 3: Project Area Bioregion subregions, based on the IBRA 7 spatial data

Land System

Map Unit

Geo Zone Class Description Archaeological Potential

Bond Springs

Bs Burt Plain Granite hills

Low hills and hills mostly on granite, gneiss, rhyolite and some schist; common rock outcrop and surface stone with shallow gritty or stony soils

Hight potential for archaeological sites along watercourses and proximal to suitable raw material sources e.g. quartz. Limited depth to sediment matrix, thus high exposure for visibility of sites. Site sizes are expected to be generally small due to the limited water resources.

Harts Ha Burt Plain Granite ranges

Rugged mountain ranges on gneiss, schist and granite; outcrop with shallow, gritty and stony soils

Outside Project Area

Ilgulla Il Tanami Limestone plains and rises

plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associated sand sheets; sandy and earth soils

Hight potential for archaeological sites along watercourses and proximal to suitable raw material sources e.g. Chalcedony and sandstone. Increased frequency, size and complexity of sites due to stone and water resources. Potential depth to sediment matrix and buried archaeological material proximal to river systems and paleo channels.

Lucy Lu Tanami Limestone plains and rises

Plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associated sand sheets; sandy and earth soils

Low probability of archaeological features 150m away from raw material sources and/or minor watercourses. Sites should be generally small in size with limited complexity due to the limited water and stone resources. Sites increasing in frequency towards the margins of plains in the tree and drainage lines.

Sandover Sa Davenport Murchison Range

Alluvial floodplains

Aalluvial floodplains, swamps, drainage depressions and alluvial fans; sandy, silty and clay soils on Quaternary alluvium

Hight potential for archaeological sites along watercourses. Increased frequency, size and complexity of sites due to the larger water resource of Arthur Creek. Potential depth to sediment matrix and buried archaeological material proximal to river systems and paleo channels.

Singleton Sn Tanami Desert sandplains

Level to undulating sandplains with red sands Low probability of archaeological features 150m away from raw material sources and minor watercourses. Site sizes are expected to be generally small due to the limited water resources.

Sonder So Burt Plain Sandstone ranges

Rugged ranges on quartzite, sandstone and conglomerate; outcrop with shallow, stony sandy soils

Low probability of archaeological features 150m away from raw material sources and minor watercourses on the plain outside the upland areas. Site sizes are expected to be generally small due to the limited water resources. Upland areas are likely to hold places of high cultural significance.

Unca Uc Burt Plain Granite plains and rises

Gently undulating to undulating plains with rises and low hills on granite, schist, gneiss (deeply weathered in places); coarse grained sandy, earthy and texture contrast soils

Outside Project Area

Woodduck Wo Tanami Alluvial floodplains

Alluvial floodplains, swamps, drainage depressions and alluvial fans; sandy, silty and clay soils on Quaternary alluvium

Low probability of archaeological features 150m away from raw material sources and minor watercourses. Site sizes are expected to be generally small due to the limited water resources.


Figure 4: Land System Mapping


3.3 Surface Geology

This section of the report uses modified NT Geological Survey data and mapping to identify areas of

outcropping rock, which assists to identify the potential raw material sources used in the manufacture

of stone artefacts (refer Table 4 and Figure 5).

Table 4: Outcropping rock descriptions and archaeological interpretations (alluvial and colluvial units have been omitted). Primary data extracted from Huckita 1:250K scale mapping, courtesy of the Northern Territory Geological Survey.

Formation Lithic

Classification Rock

Category Lithic

Primary Lithic Description

Arrinthrunga Formation

Sedimentary Chemical dolostone Dolostone and limestone, micrite to grainstone, oolitic, stromatolitic, intraclastic: minor silt or quartz-arenite interbeds: prominently evenly bedded, thin to thick-bedded, grey, pink and yellow

Arthur Creek Formation

Sedimentary Chemical calcareous siltstone

Calcareous siltstone, fossiliferous, poorly exposed, limestone interbeds and quartz-arenaceous limestone at top

Attutra Metagabbro

Igneous Mafic intrusive

Gabbro Gabbro; dolerite; rare norite: all altered; magnetite rock

Bonya Schist Metamorphic Other schist Muscovite, biotite and two-mica schists, some with andalusite, sillimanite or garnet; calc-silicate rock; metapelitic and meta-acid volcanic rocks; amphibolite; skarn-like rock; magnetite quartzite; rare migmatite

Bonya Schist Metamorphic Other schist Muscovite, biotite and two-mica schists, some with andalusite, sillimanite or garnet; calc-silicate rock; metapelitic and meta-acid volcanic rocks; amphibolite; skarn-like rock; magnetite quartzite; rare migmatite

Cenozoic materials silcrete

Other Regolith silcrete Silcrete to silicified rock

Elkera Formation

Sedimentary Siliciclastic siltstone Siltstone to sandstone, micaeous, laminated to thin-bedded, blue-grey to dusky red; dolostone horizons, some stromatolitic

Elyuah Formation

Sedimentary Siliciclastic shale Shale with interbeds of silty sandstone and a basal pebble conglomerate: brown to green-grey to dusky red

Errarra Formation

Sedimentary Chemical dolostone Dolostone, silty to clean, laminated to thick-bedded, fossiliferous, quartz siltstone to pebble conglomerate in east

Grant Bluff Formation

Sedimentary Siliciclastic arenite Quartz arenite to quartz-wacke, fine-grained, fissile and undulose-laminated; lesser coarse-grained, cross-bedded, ripple-marked, quartz arenite: grey

Mount Baldwin

Formation

Sedimentary Siliciclastic Quartz arenite

Quartz arenite, medium to coarse-grained, thin to thick-bedded, dusky red

Oorabra Arkose

Sedimentary Siliciclastic arkose Arkose, locally with block-sized intraclasts; siltstone; conglomerate; rare dolostone; sandstone

Tomahawk beds

Sedimentary Siliciclastic sandstone Quartz sandstone; quartz-arenaceous limestone and dolostone: glauconitic, fossiliferous and bioturbated, thin to thick-bedded, grey where fresh, yellow to brown-weathering, much complex meso-scale folding

Unca Granite Igneous Felsic intrusive

leucogranite Leucogranite, foliated, cream-pink


Figure 5: Outcropping Geology


3.4 Land Use and Disturbance factors

The land disturbing factors within the Lucy Creek Project Area included, but are not limited to:

1) Road construction and maintenance: The Plenty Highway, Lucy Creek Access Road and tracks for

mining and pastoralism have been rerouted, upgraded and maintained from 1928 onwards. This

disturbance tends to destroy or distort the archaeology in road and track corridors (i.e. gravel

extraction from quarries then laid on road surfaces often contain artefacts from the extraction

point. Crushed gravel can be misidentified as artefacts).

Road construction and maintenance impacts are highly prevalent along the proposed pipeline

route within the Lucy Creek Access Road reserve.

2) Pastoral impacts e.g. intensive grazing, stock watering infrastructure, fencing and permanent

yards.

3) Invasive species such as cattle, horses, donkeys and camels disturb watercourses, introduce weed

species and induce erosion in native environments. These factors impact on archaeological sites

in a number of ways:

i) Watercourses: Site and artefact densities are generally higher closer to water bodies.

Erosion of creek margins can impact on site integrity. Sub-surface sites are often

discovered due to erosion caused by cattle and feral animals.

ii) Weeds: Change fire regimes and can sometimes change the composition of native

vegetation.

iii) Introduced animals (including cattle) change the landscape by physical impact including

wallows, nesting, pads, rooting and destabilisation of creek banks. This in turn promotes

erosion and redisposition of sediment along creek lines. These impacts on archaeological

sites by either erosion or aggrading of artefact horizons making dating and accurate

recording of site utility difficult.

4) Mining and mineral exploration: Development of tracks, drill pads, mining footprints impact on

the survival of sites.


4 Archaeological Assessment Methodology

4.1 Archaeological Predictive Model

Based on the studies outlined in Appendix C-8 of the Jervois Base Metal Project draft EIS, the following

predictive model statements can be made for the Project Area:

1. Artefact and site density frequencies are higher in land systems adjacent to fresh water sources (including gilgai’s and former fresh water sources). In areas where major watercourses exist, the complexity of artefactual material and raw material types also generally increase.

All watercourses have a high potential for sites with archaeological materials, however small watercourses have a very low probability of archaeological features in land units more than 150m away (unless outcropping raw materials are prevalent). Sites adjacent to small watercourses and drainage lines tend to be generally small in size with limited complexity.

In land units without watercourses and outcropping rock suitable for artefact raw materials, there is generally a complete absence of sites. An exception to this understanding, are sites which occur within tree lines (or their outside sandy fringe) on the margins of substantial grass plains.

2. Stone artefact quarries occur where suitable rock is available on the land surface. In Central Australia, and likely in the Plenty Basin area, raw material such as cherts, silcretes and quartz were the primary materials used for flaked stone tools. Therefore, any related outcropping geology containing these raw materials should be regarded as having a high potential for lithic scatters, including, quarry sites and secondary reduction sites nearby.

3. Outcropping sedimentary rock, such as sandstones, have been used by Aboriginal people in the past for manufacturing grindstones, painting and engraving (petroglyphs). Both types of rock art have been previously recorded in the Project Area. Areas where this stone is present are highly likely to contain some archaeological materials and should be subject to a 100% sample survey.


4.2 Survey Methodology

Drawing on the predictive model above, the following protocols were adopted to adequately record

sites and artefacts:

1. The proposed survey sample areas were mapped using a GIS (using both ArcGIS 10.5 and

MapInfo 12.5). Land Systems, outcropping geology and hydrological features were added to

this the GIS to indicate areas likely to hold cultural sites/ archaeological materials. The sample

areas and ratios included:

a. All proposed bore sites sampled at 100%.

b. Access for the proposed pipeline route from Bore LC30 to LC26 and Lucy Creek Station

Bore 1 sampled at 100%.

c. All watercourses (except small erosion gullies) along the Lucy Creek Access Road

reserve pipeline route sampled at 100% up to 150m each side of their bank (and 250m

for larger watercourses).

d. Pipeline route areas without water courses sampled at 10%.

2. The proposed survey areas were uploaded to a Trimble Nomad unit using GBM Mobile

software and an Android Tablet using Fulcrum software;

3. The sample areas were transacted at approx. 10-20 metre separation by the field team

consisting of two archaeologists (Ben Keys and Richard Woolfe);

4. All sites, heritage features and isolated artefacts were recorded using a set of standard

recording forms linked to the GIS;

5. The location of all sites was recorded using datum GDA94 and Map Grid MGA94. The Nomad

has been calibrated to 2-3 metre accuracy in open canopy terrain;

6. The tracks of all transects were recorded using the tracking feature on the Nomad; and

7. The sites were photographed during the course of the site recording.

The following characteristics were recorded of each site location:

1. Site environment: basic details of land unit, geomorphology, vegetation etc;

2. Site mapping directly to the Trimble Nomad. The extents of each site were located on the

ground where possible, then a boundary extended on the mapping to include all artefacts and

features;

3. Site contents: basic details of types of artefacts, estimated density (1m2 sample counts), raw

materials etc;

4. Ethnographic origin: Aboriginal, European historical, etc;

5. Disturbance factors, such as animal activity, mining or road works;

6. Site visibility: estimate of how much of the ground surface was visible on site and in the

surrounding area;

7. Estimation of the potential for sub-surface artefacts; and

8. Site and artefact images. Images of artefacts in larger sites are a representative sample.

The results of this survey, along with a map of transects completed are presented in the next section.


5 Survey Results

5.1 Transects

The five-day field survey transected 61.4 km within the Project Area, with two Archaeologists (Richard

Woolfe and Ben Keys) spaced between 10 and 20 metres apart. In terms of terrain types, 89% of the

sample was on sand plain, 10% on creek margins and 1% on lower slopes.

As noted in Section 4 above, the methodology for this survey was aimed at investigating the route of

the proposed water pipeline and associated tracks. Therefore, most of the pedestrian transects

involved walking the likely route and tracks, so nominally a purposive survey at 100% coverage. The

exceptions to this were two 600 metre transects along the margins of existing roads. These were

aimed at completing a 10% random sample in land units considered unlikely to contain archaeological

materials. Table 5 below lists the transects walked, the transect lengths, the terrain type and survey

strategy for each transect. Note that the transect lengths were recorded on one device only, so the

transect walked by the second Archaeologist will be parallel to the recorded track at varying transect

widths depending on terrain and site recording requirements.

Table 5: Transects recorded during field survey. Note total transect length is approx. 61.4 km.

Date Number Survey Type Land Unit Vegetation

Transect

Length

(km)

16-Apr-19 1 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.37



16-Apr-19 4 Recon Sand plain Mulga woodland 6.28


17-Apr-19 2 Assessment Sand plain Open woodland, shrubs,

grasses 5.02

17-Apr-19 3 Recon Sand plain Mulga woodland 3.23









18-Apr-19 7 Random sample 10% Sand plain Buffel grass plain 0.58

18-Apr-19 8 Random sample 10% Lower slope Gidgee woodland 0.58



19-Apr-19 3 Assessment Creek margin Mulga gidgee woodland 1.76

19-Apr-19 4 Assessment Creek margin Mulga gidgee spinifex

woodland 1.24

19-Apr-19 5 Assessment Creek margin Riparian woodland 0.57

19-Apr-19 6 Assessment Creek margin NR 1.35

19-Apr-19 7 Assessment Sand plain NR 0.26

19-Apr-19 8 Assessment Sand plain NR 0.43


19-Apr-19 10 Assessment Creek margin Sparse woodland 0.44

19-Apr-19 11 Assessment Creek margin Sparse woodland 0.60

Totals 28 61.47


5.2 Aboriginal Archaeological Sites

The survey recorded sixteen archaeological sites and 99 isolated artefacts of Aboriginal origin during

the five-day survey. Fifteen of these sites were classified as minor lithic scatters assessed as having

less than 200 artefacts each in total. Most of these sites held less than 50 artefacts and have been

rated as of low archaeological significance. One site (LC14) was a larger, low density surface site

located around cattle yards near the Jervois Mine Site. There were a high percentage of large single

platform cores and core tools within this site. While the site was highly disturbed by cattle and tracks,

the artefact types evident may indicate considerable antiquity to the site’s age. The site was therefore

assessed of low-medium archaeological significance and recommendations are made to relocate the

artefacts away from the proposed impact zone.

With the exception of Site LC14, artefact types were generally consistent with those recorded in the

initial 2018 report on the Jervois Mine Site. Portable grindstones, hammerstones and anvils were the

most common tool types making up 38% of total isolated artefacts and appearing in 10 sites (see Table

6). Three hearths were recorded within the sites. Tula slugs were present in two sites and two were

recorded as isolates. A single blade was recorded in Site LC06, likely to be a discarded tula blank. One

bifacial point was recorded as an isolated artefact.

Table 6: Artefact tool types recorded in survey

Sites (n=16) Site % Isolates (n=99) Isolate %

Grindstones, hammerstones,

anvils (some were multipurpose)

10

62

38

38

Tula slugs 2 12.5 2 2

Hearths 3 18.75 0 0

Blades 1 6.25 0 0

Unifacial points 0 0 0 0

Bifacial points 0 0 1 1

Raw material types included cherts, chalcedony, silcretes, quartzites and sandstones. This was found

to be generally consistent with the 2018 Jervois Report findings except for the almost complete

absence of quartz in the Lucy Creek Station artefact assemblages.

Table 7 and Table 8 below, provide the recorded data for sites and isolated artefacts. Figures 9 to 11

below show basic site distribution across the Project Area. Attachment 2 provides detailed site

boundary mapping and attribute data. Section 6 below provides a significance assessment of the 16

recorded sites along with management recommendations to mitigate impacts resulting from the

proposed bore fields and water pipelines.


Table 7: Aboriginal Archaeological Sites Survey Results

Site Name

Property Easting Northing Site Type Site Description Artefact Types Raw Materials Max

Density

Estimated Total

Artefacts

Ground Visibility

Site Area (m2)

LC01 Lucy Creek Station

Due to cultural sensitivities

associated with some information,

this Section has been removed

Minor lithic scatter

Hearth and grindstone on sandy ground surface. Scatter of grindstones around potential hearth feature. Stone appears to have been sourced from Arthur Creek. Site likely inundated during flooding.

Flakes, portable grindstones, grinding stone fragments, hearth

Chert, Chalcedony, Sandstone, Quartzite

3 20 90 635



Low density lithic scatter located on floodplain at western base of small knoll. Scatter of grindstone fragments with some flaked chert material. Grindstones are weathered. Scatter of grindstone fragments and flaked artefacts within exposed sandy surface.

Flakes, portable grindstones, grinding stone fragments, single platform core

Chert, Sandstone 3 100 70 1436



Low density lithic scatter on exposed sandy ground surface. Scatter of flaked artefacts and a small number of grindstones. Site is largely restricted to exposed ground surface.

Flakes, broken flakes, flake piece, uni core, portable grindstone, grinding stone fragment

Chert, Sandstone, Quartzite

4 100 90 1684

LC04A Lucy Creek Station


Small cluster of grindstones under a gidgee tree.

Flakes, portable grindstone


LC04B Lucy Creek Station


Low density lithic scatter comprised of flaked material. Site LC04B appears to be related to LC04A.

Flakes, broken flakes

Chert, Quartzite 3 10 90 210

LC04C Lucy Creek Station


Hearth and chert flake at base of small gidgee tree.

Flakes, hearth Chert, Sandstone 9 15 70 75



Small low-density lithic scatter. Flakes, hammerstone, grinding stone fragments

Chert, Chalcedony, Sandstone

2 10 90 120



Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.

Flakes, broken flakes, flake piece, hammerstone




Cluster of artefacts eroded from watercourse.

Flakes, flake piece, single platform core

Chert, Quartz 5 10 90 200


Site Name

Property Easting Northing Site Type Site Description Artefact Types Raw Materials Max

Density

Estimated Total

Artefacts

Ground Visibility

Site Area (m2)






Small cluster of artefacts with a hearth. Flakes, broken flakes, portable grindstone, hammerstone, anvil, hearth, tula slug

Chert, Chalcedony, Quartz, Sandstone, Quartzite

5 100 70 110



Low density lithic scatter exposed in eroded area on western side of gidgee tree line.

Flakes, broken flakes

Chert, Chalcedony 3 10 90 240



Low density lithic scatter exposed in eroded areas on southern high bank of water course.

Flakes, broken flakes, single platform core, grinding stone fragment

Chert, Chalcedony, Sandstone

3 50 60 1200



Very low-density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.

Flakes, single platform core

Chalcedony, Silcrete

1 6 100 100

LC12 Jervois Station


Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface

Flakes, flake piece, tula slug

Chert, Chalcedony, Silcrete

5 10 90 340



Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface at base of range.

Flakes, flake piece

Chert, Chalcedony, Quartz

2 10 90 360


Lithic scatter

Large low-density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface. Relatively high numbers of cores and larger sized artefacts relative to other sites recorded in the area. There is the potential that these artefacts are significantly older than those in other surface sites.

Flakes, broken flakes, blade, multi-platform rotated core

Chalcedony, Silcrete, Quartz

0.05 50 70 7000



Low density lithic scatter on northern creek bank. Site is confined to exposed ground surface.

Flakes, broken flakes, flake piece, single platform core, portable grindstone

Quartz, Sandstone

4 50 80 160

LC16 Lucy Creek


Low density scatter on bench above major tributary of Arthur Creek

Flakes, flaked pieces, grindstones

Chert, sandstone 3 50-100 60 1800


Table 8: Isolated artefacts in Project Area

Name Artefact Type Raw Material Retouch Breakage Easting Northing

ISO_LC_001 Flake Chert No No




ISO_LC_002 Uni core Chert One margin No

ISO_LC_003 Anvil Sandstone No No

ISO_LC_004 Flake, Portable grindstone Quartz, Sandstone No No

ISO_LC_005 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No

ISO_LC_006 Flake, Portable grindstone Chert, Sandstone No No

ISO_LC_007 Flake Chalcedony No No

ISO_LC_008 Tula slug Chert Two margins No

ISO_LC_009 Grinding Stone Fragment Sandstone No Split

ISO_LC_010 Flake Chert No Distal

ISO_LC_011 Portable grindstone Sandstone No Yes

ISO_LC_012 Portable grindstone, top

stone Sandstone No Yes




ISO_LC_016 Pestle Sandstone No No


ISO_LC_018 Flake Quartzite No No

ISO_LC_019 Portable grindstone Chert No No

ISO_LC_020 Flake piece Chalcedony No No


ISO_LC_022 Flake Quartzite No No



ISO_LC_025 Flake Silcrete No No

ISO_LC_026 Broken flake Quartzite No No











ISO_LC_037 Uni core Chalcedony No No











ISO_LC_048 Hammerstone Sandstone No No

ISO_LC_049 Hammerstone Sandstone No No





Name Artefact Type Raw Material Retouch Breakage Easting Northing







ISO_LC_056 Portable grindstone Siltstone No No



ISO_LC_059 Rotated core Chert No No

ISO_LC_060 Uni core Quartz No No

ISO_LC_061 Flake piece Quartz No No







ISO_LC_068 Broken flake Chert No No



ISO_LC_071 Flake piece Chert No No

ISO_LC_072 Bifacial point Chert No No

ISO_LC_073 Uni core Silcrete No No


ISO_LC_075 Flake Quartz No No

ISO_LC_076 Rotated core Chert No No

ISO_LC_077 Tula slug Chert Distal No


ISO_LC_079 Manuport Not identified No No

ISO_LC_080 Flake Chert No Split

ISO_LC_081 Flake Not identified No No






ISO_LC_087 Flake Chert No Medial













5.3 Historical Features

There were no historical features recorded in the Lucy Creek Project Area.


5.4 Site Distribution Mapping

Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,

this Section has been removed.

Figure 6: Site Distribution Map, NW Project Area




Figure 7: Site Distribution Map, NE Project Area




Figure 8: Site Distribution Map, SE Project Area


6 Cultural and Archaeological Significance

Cultural heritage sites can be significant in a number of ways:

1. Significant to a group or many groups of people due to their connection to the past;

2. Significant to a specific group of people because they have religious or spiritual significance to

those people (Sacred Sites, Dreaming Sites or Story Places for example);

3. Significant because of their research potential: their importance of the site in answering

questions about past human behaviours;

4. Significant due to their representativeness or uniqueness: sites or places that are rare or

unique and are therefore conserved as a representative sample.

It follows from this that the significance of sites is assessed using methodologies appropriate to the

type of significance concerned:

1. The significance of Aboriginal heritage places and materials should be assessed by the relevant

Aboriginal custodians or owners. This principle is enacted into the Commonwealth Aboriginal

Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1991, the NT

Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 and the NT Heritage Act 20114.

2. The significance of historic sites is decided by the wider community through the mechanism

of a Heritage Council or other community represented group. These councils often draft

regulations on significance criteria and benchmarking to answer the question ‘is it significant

enough?’5;

3. Sites that may be of scientific significance are assessed by the same process, however often

after considering specialist recommendations.

Following the assessment of significance, the future conservation of a historic heritage place is decided

by weighing up the level of assigned significance against the practicality of conserving the place. To

assess the practicality of conserving a heritage site, regulatory mechanisms are usually used to assess

the condition of the place (whether it will survive for much longer) and the economic implications of

deciding to apply permanent heritage protection. In most States and Territories, these decisions are

made by a Heritage Council or the Minister.

6.1 Significance Assessment of Aboriginal Archaeological Sites Recorded

As noted in Sections 1.1 above, the Aboriginal Cultural Significance of the archaeological sites recorded

in this survey has not been tested in the field6. In terms of scientific archaeological significance, the

Consultants assign archaeological significance ratings of low for all sites with the exception of Site

LC14, which was assessed as low-medium (See Table 9).

4 The NT Heritage Act requires that any application to modify or salvage an Aboriginal archaeological site should be

approved only after consultations with the applicable Traditional Owners or Site Custodians, who can provide a significance for a particular site. This process usually takes place through the Aboriginal representative body for the area i.e. the Central Land Council or the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. 5 See the Burra Charter Article 1 for a definition of cultural significance. Most Australian heritage acts use the Burra

Charter as the guiding principles for their heritage assessment criteria (Marquis-Kyle et.al 2002:103) 6 This process may occur through the Central Land Council at a later date.


All isolated finds were also considered of low significance due to their abundance in the landscape and

understanding that minimal scientific information would be lost if they were salvaged from their

current in-situ locations. Comparable to much of regional Australia, some substantial impacts to the

significance of the sites was evident due to high bioturbation levels from a long history of cattle

grazing, pastoral and civil infrastructure development across the region. Secondly, the erodible nature

of the sandy sediments adjacent to some smaller watercourses have also had some impact to the

retained archaeological significance of several sites.

Although bioturbation and natural impacts were commonly observed, it was noted that discrete

napping and artefact reduction areas were visible within some site complexes. This suggests that some

lateral and vertical integrity also remains in parts of the archaeological record.

Site LC14 was assessed as having Low-Moderate levels of significance due to its rarity and potential

ability to provide valuable information on the past human occupation of the area. It is also possible

that the significance rating of this site could change to a lower or higher rating following additional

investigations such as more comprehensive archaeological excavations, and detailed recording of the

whole site complex outside the pipeline route or wider regional studies.

Broadly, all sites were assessed as having varying levels of potential attributes to provide information

on a combination of the following key research areas:

1. Settlement patterns of Aboriginal people across the Plenty region. a. Why were certain locations selected or favoured?

a. Were there economies associated with certain resources in certain areas? b. Were certain locations significant due to environmental subsistence needs or other

pressures? c. Were there different technological or raw material requirements of different

settlement areas? 2. The connectedness of individual sites and/or land systems. 3. Are the contents of sites part of a complex or related sites or land systems? 4. Provenance of stone raw materials used in artefact manufacture.

a. Was any stone raw material traded outward and were any artefacts present made from raw materials that do not naturally occur in the region?

5. Lithic technologies. a. Were the same lithic technologies used throughout the region, as it was noted that

some intersite variability was present? 6. Temporality of human occupation and palaeoenvironmental conditions (primarily relevant

to Site LC14). a. Does any part of Site LC14 have stratified sedimentary deposits?

i. What is the temporality of human occupation in the region? ii. Were certain areas used more or less through time?

iii. What were the palaeoenvironmental conditions through time?

6.2 Significance Assessment of Historical Features Recorded



Table 9: Scientific significance of Aboriginal Sites recorded in field survey

Site Name

Site Type Estimated

Total Artefacts

Site Condition

Disturbance Factors Traditional

Owner Significance

Archaeological Significance

LC01 Minor lithic

scatter 20 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low

LC02 Minor lithic

scatter 100 Fair situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low

LC03 Minor lithic


LC04A Minor lithic

scatter 15 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low

LC04B Minor lithic


LC04C Minor lithic


LC05 Minor lithic


LC06 Minor lithic


LC07 Minor lithic

scatter 10 Poor Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low

LC08 Minor lithic

scatter 100 Fair situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low

LC09 Minor lithic

scatter 10 Poor Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low

LC10 Minor lithic

scatter 50 Poor

Roads, Erosion, Stock

Not Tested Low

LC11 Minor lithic

scatter 6 Fair situ Roads, Stock Not Tested Low

LC12 Minor lithic

scatter 10 Fair situ


Not Tested Low

LC13 Minor lithic

scatter 10 Poor


Not Tested Low

LC14 Lithic scatter 50 Poor Tracks, Erosion,

Stock Not Tested Low Medium

LC15 Minor lithic

scatter 50 Fair situ


Not Tested Low

LC16 Minor lithic

scatter 50-100 Fair Stock, Tracks Not tested Low


7 Project Risks, Recommendations and Heritage Management Planning

The following section outlines the potential impacts on archaeological sites and heritage features

resulting from the establishment of the proposed borefield and associated pipeline to the Jervois Mine

Site. Recommendations are then presented that will assist in the protection and management of

archaeological sites and historical features. Note that Sacred Sites are also protected under the NT

Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989.

7.1 Impacts on Recorded Aboriginal Archaeological Sites (LC01 to LC016)

This study finds that Aboriginal archaeological Sites LC01 to LC16 are of low to low-medium

archaeological significance. It is likely that the Aboriginal cultural heritage significance of the sites is

also low, although this has not yet been tested. In the development stage of the Project all sites, with

the exception of Sites LC01, LC03 and LC06, maybe impacted upon by the proposed works (see Table

10 below). Accordingly, it is recommended that a Permit to Carry Out Work on Heritage Places or

Objects under section 72 of the Heritage Act be sought from NT Heritage Branch.

Note that these sites are protected under the Act until a Permit is issued.

7.2 Potential for Previously Undetected Aboriginal Archaeological Sites

The Consultants consider that there is a low to medium risk of locating previously undetected

Aboriginal archaeological sites in the Project Footprint. However, it is probable that some

archaeological materials remain in areas obscured by vegetation or sediment at the time of survey

and in unsurveyed land units. Based on the results of this survey and predictive model, undetected

surface features, should they occur, would be largely restricted to additional isolated finds or small

low-density concentrations of stone artefacts adjacent to drainage lines or outcrops of rock suitable

for artefact raw material.

In addition, there is a high potential for undetected buried archaeological features adjacent to major

watercourses (i.e. Unca Creek and Arthur Creek) given the exposure of artefacts in associated

erosional areas, coupled with the incidences of archaeological features on their surfaces.

Conversely, in areas away from watercourses it is very unlikely that significant archaeological material

would be present based.

7.3 Impacts on Recorded Historical Features


7.4 General Recommendations and Heritage Management

• The NT Heritage Act requires that all discoveries of Aboriginal or Macassan archaeological

places or objects should be reported to the Director, NT Heritage Branch, Department of

Tourism and Culture as soon as practicable after discovery. In practice, this means forwarding

this report and a GIS data file containing site information to the Department as soon as

possible.

• KGL Ltd should keep a GIS file recording the location of any Aboriginal Archaeological Sites

protected under the NT Heritage Act and any historical feature that has been identified for


conservation in situ. The location of these sites and features should be consulted during the

planning for any further land disturbance or development.

• New employees and contractors coming on site should be briefed on the existence of

Aboriginal Sacred Sites, protected Aboriginal Archaeological Sites and historical features

identified for conservation in situ as part of their induction process. The induction process

should include an Aboriginal cultural component and historical background to raise awareness

of the past in the Project Area.

7.5 Site Specific Recommendations and Heritage Management

Site specific recommendations are presented in Table 10 below.


Table 10: Site Specific Recommendations and Relationship to Proposed Works

Site Name Site Type Estimated Total

Artefacts Site Condition

Disturbance Factors

Traditional Owner Significance


Relationship to Proposed Works

Management Recommendations

LC01 Minor lithic scatter

20 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low 300m north of proposed pipeline route

Conserve in situ


100 Fair situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low

Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some

information,


Apply to Carry Out Work on Heritage Place or Object under Section 75 of the Heritage Act. Relocate artefacts to safe area outside impact zone out.


100 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Approx. 50 metres north west of proposed pipeline route

Conserve insitu

LC04A Minor lithic scatter

15 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works


LC04B Minor lithic scatter

10 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works


LC04C Minor lithic scatter

15 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Approx. 25 metres south east of proposed pipeline route



10 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low 20 metres south east of proposed pipeline route.



30 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low 150 metres north west of proposed pipeline route

Conserve insitu




Disturbance Factors






10 Poor Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



100 Fair situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



10 Poor Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



50 Poor Roads, Erosion, Stock

Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



6 Fair situ Roads, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



10 Fair situ Roads, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



10 Poor Roads, Erosion, Stock






Disturbance Factors





LC14 Lithic scatter

50 Poor Tracks, Erosion, Stock

Not Tested Low Northern edge of this site likely to be impacted



50 Fair situ Roads, Erosion, Stock




50-100 Fair Stock, track Not tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works



8 References

Duguid, A., Barnetson, J., Clifford, B., Pavey, C,. Albrecht, D., Risler, J and McNellie, M. 2005. Wetlands

in the Arid Northern Territory (Volume 1). A report to the Australian Government Department

of the Environment and Heritage on the inventory and significance of wetlands in the arid NT.

Northern Territory Government Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.

Alice Springs.


Attachment 1: Project Area Authority Certificate C2019/030




Attachment 2: Aboriginal Site Descriptions, Sites LC01 to LC016

Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)

Site Name: LC01

Site Location

Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 16 April 2019

Easting: Northing: Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information, this Section has been removed

Archaeological Description

Site Type: Minor lithic scatter

Site Description: Hearth and grindstone on sandy ground surface. Scatter of grindstones around potential hearth feature. Stone appears to have been sourced from Arthur Creek. Site likely inundated during flooding.

Area (m2): 635

Artefacts Types: Flakes,portable grindstone,grinding stone fragment,hearth

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Sandstone,Quartzite

Maximum Artefact Density: 3

Estimated total number of artefacts: 20

Ground Surface Visibility: 90

Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Creek margins and bench

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Creek margins and bench

Bioregion: Channel Country

Land System: Ilgulla: plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associated sand sheets; sandy and earth soils

Vegetation: MU71: Open grassland within open woodland eucalyptus sp.

Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey

Significance & Recommendations

Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low.

Archaeological Significance: Low

Management Recommendation: Conserve in situ


Site Map: LC01




Site images: LC01


Site Name: LC02

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter located on floodplain at western base of small knoll. Scatter of grindstone fragragmemts with some flaked chert material. Grindstones are weathered. Scatter of grindstone fragments and flaked artefacts within exposed sandy ground surface

Area (m2): 1436

Artefacts Types: Flakes,portable grindstones, grinding stone fragments, single platform core

Raw Materials: Chert,Sandstone




Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors: Floodwaters

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Secondary channel to Arthur Creek or possible paleo channel



Vegetation: MU71: Open mixed gidgee and eucalypt woodland on grasses, mainly buffel

Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey


Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low


Management Recommendation: Apply to Carry Out Work on Heritage Place or Object under section 72 of the Heritage Act. Relocate artefacts to safe area outside impact zone out.


Site Map: LC02




Site images: LC02


Site Name: LC03

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter on exposed sandy ground surface. Scatter of flaked artefacts and a small number of grindstones. Site is largely restricted to exposed ground surface

Area (m2): 1684

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,flake piece,uni core,portable grindstone,grinding Stone Fragment

Raw Materials: Chert,Sandstone,Quartzite




Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Low sandy rise on floodplain

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Low sandy rise on floodplain



Vegetation: MU71: Open grassland within open woodland (eucalyptus sp).





Management Recommendation: Conserve insitu


Site images: LC03


Site Name: LC04A

Site Location





Site Description: Small cluster of grindstones under a gidgee tree.

Area (m2): 100

Artefacts Types: Flakes,portable grindstone





Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Open sandy area

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Open sandy area



Vegetation: MU71: Open gidgee woodland







Site Map: LC04A, B, C




Site images: LC04A


Site Name: LC04B

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter comprised of flaked material. Site LC04B appears to be related to LC04A

Area (m2): 210

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes

Raw Materials: Chert,Quartzite




Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors:

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context:










Site images: LC04B


Site Name: LC04C

Site Location





Site Description: Heartg and chert flake at base of small gidgee tree.

Area (m2): 75

Artefacts Types: Flakes,hearth





Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: On floodplain at base of low rise

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: On floodplain at base of low rise










Site images: LC04C


Site Name: LC05

Site Location





Site Description: Small low density lithic scatter.

Area (m2): 120

Artefacts Types: Flakes,hammerstone,grinding stone fragments

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Sandstone




Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Within exposed sandy area

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Within exposed sandy area










Site Map: LC05




Site images: LC05


Site Name: LC06

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.

Area (m2): 480

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,flake piece,hammerstone





Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors:

Physical Context




Vegetation: MU71: Open grassland within scattered eucalyptus sp.





Management Recommendation: Conserve insitu


Site Map: LC06




Site images: LC06


Site Name: LC07

Site Location





Site Description: Cluster of artefacts eroded from watercourse

Area (m2): 200

Artefacts Types: Flakes,flake piece,single platform core

Raw Materials: Chert,Quartz




Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors: Paleo channel

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Paleo channel



Vegetation: MU71: Gidgee open woodland on buffel grassland sparse







Site Map: LC07




Site images: LC07


Site Name: LC08

Site Location





Site Description: Small scatter of artefacts with a hearth and portable grindstones

Area (m2): 110

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,portable grindstone,hammerstone,anvil,hearth, tula slug

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Quartz,Sandstone,Quartzite




Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors:

Physical Context



Land System: Lucy: plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associated sand sheets; sandy and earth soils

Vegetation: MU95: Gidgee open woodland on buffel grassland





Management Recommendation: Avoid if Possible. Otherwise Apply to Carry Out Work on Heritage Place or Object under section 72 of the Heritage Act. Relocate artefacts to safe area outside impact zone out.


Site Map: LC08 and LC09




Site images: LC08


Site Name: LC09

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter exposed in eroded area on western side of gidgee treeline.

Area (m2): 240

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony




Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors:

Physical Context



Land System: Lucy: plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associated sand sheets; sandy and earth soils


Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: Eroded alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey






Site images: LC09


Site Name: LC10

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter exposed in eroded areas on southern high bank of water course.

Area (m2): 1200

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,uni core,grinding stone fragment

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Sandstone




Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors: Exposed on northern slope of creek bank

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Exposed on northern slope of creek bank


Land System: Woodduck: alluvial floodplains, swamps, drainage depressions and alluvial fans; sandy, silty and clay soils on Quaternary alluvium

Vegetation: MU63: Open gidgee and eucalyptus sp woodland.

Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey






Site Map: LC10




Site images: LC10


Site Name: LC11

Site Location





Site Description: Very low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.

Area (m2): 100

Artefacts Types: Flakes,single platform core

Raw Materials: Chalcedony,Silcrete




Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors: 10 east of existing Lucy Creek Station road

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: 10 east of existing Lucy Creek Station road


Land System: Sonder: rugged ranges on quartzite, sandstone and conglomerate; outcrop with shallow, stony sandy soils


Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey






Site Map: LC11




Site images: LC11


Site Name: LC12

Site Location

Property: Jervois Station Date: 18 April 2019




Site Description: Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface

Area (m2): 340

Artefacts Types: Flakes,flake piece, tula slug

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Silcrete




Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors: 15 east of existing Lucy Creek Station road

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: 15 east of existing Lucy Creek Station road


Land System: Singleton: level to undulating sandplains with red sands

Vegetation: MU74: Open woodland

Outcropping Geology: Cenozoiz materials: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey






Site Map: LC12 and LC13




Site images: LC12


Site Name: LC13

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface at base of range.

Area (m2): 360

Artefacts Types: Flakes,flake piece

Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Quartz




Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors: Lower slope of range, 20m east of existing Lucy Creek Station road

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Lower slope of range, 20m east of existing Lucy Creek Station road


Land System: Singleton: level to undulating sandplains with red sands

Vegetation: MU74: Open grassland with scattered shrubs and eucalyptus sp

Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: sand and quartz. Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey






Site images: LC13


Site Name: LC14

Site Location




Site Type: Lithic scatter

Site Description: Large low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface. Relatively high numbers of cores and larger sized artefacts relative to other sites recorded in the area. There is the potential that these artefacts are significantly older than other surface

Area (m2): 7000

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,blade,multi-platform rotated core

Raw Materials: Chalcedony,Silcrete,Quartz

Maximum Artefact Density: 5.0000000000000003E-2



Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors: On southern side of cattle yards on level Paleo river bank.

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: On southern side of cattle yards on level Paleo river bank.


Land System: Burt Plain: low hills and hills mostly on granite, gneiss, rhyolite and some schist; common rock outcrop and surface stone with shallow gritty or stony soils

Vegetation: MU71: Open grassland

Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: soil. Alluvial sandy sediments with some depth to the deposit. Lag deposits of stone to the south of the site



Archaeological Significance: Low Medium

Management Recommendation: Apply to Carry Out Work on Heritage Place or Object under section 72 of the Heritage Act. Relocate artefacts from northern boundary of site out of impact zone.


Site Map: LC14




Site images: LC14


Site Name: LC15

Site Location





Site Description: Low density lithic scatter on northern creek bank. Site is confined to exposed ground surface.

Area (m2): 160

Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,flake piece,single platform core,portable grindstone

Raw Materials: Quartz,Sandstone




Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors: 20m east of Lucy Creek Station road

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: 20m east of Lucy Creek Station road


Land System: Burt Plain: low hills and hills mostly on granite, gneiss, rhyolite and some schist; common rock outcrop and surface stone with shallow gritty or stony soils

Vegetation: MU71: Scattered trees and open grassland

Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials:: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey






Site Map: LC15




Site images: LC15


Site Name: LC16

Site Location

Property: Lucy Creek Date: 17 April 2019




Site Description: Low density scatter on bench above major tributary of Arthur Creek

Area (m2): 1800

Artefacts Types: Flakes, flaked pieces, grindstones

Raw Materials: Chert, sandstone




Condition: Fair Disturbance Factors: Creek margins, bench

Physical Context

Site Environmental Context: Creek margins, bench


Land System: Ilgulla, plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associa


Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials:: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey






Site Map: LC16




Site images: LC16

Documents

Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological ... · 6 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd