1 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
2 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)
3 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 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
4 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
5 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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).
6 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
7 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
8 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
1.5 Project Location Maps
Figure 1: Project Area Location: Lucy Creek Station and Jervois Station, Plenty Highway, Northern Territory
9 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Figure 2: Project Area and ILUA Locations
10 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Figure 3: Project Area and Native Title Boundaries
11 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
12 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
13 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
14 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
15 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Figure 4: Land System Mapping
16 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
17 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Figure 5: Outcropping Geology
18 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
19 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
20 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
21 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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 2 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.62
16-Apr-19 3 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 1.83
16-Apr-19 4 Recon Sand plain Mulga woodland 6.28
17-Apr-19 1 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.08
17-Apr-19 2 Assessment Sand plain Open woodland, shrubs,
grasses 5.02
17-Apr-19 3 Recon Sand plain Mulga woodland 3.23
17-Apr-19 4 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 3.86
17-Apr-19 5 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.10
18-Apr-19 1 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 3.98
18-Apr-19 2 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.20
18-Apr-19 3 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 0.72
18-Apr-19 4 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.30
18-Apr-19 5 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 1.76
18-Apr-19 6 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 4.77
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 1 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 0.78
19-Apr-19 2 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 5.36
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 9 Assessment Sand plain Mulga woodland 2.39
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
22 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
23 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
LC02 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
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
LC03 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
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
Minor lithic scatter
Small cluster of grindstones under a gidgee tree.
Flakes, portable grindstone
Chert, Sandstone 3 15 70 100
LC04B Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
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
Minor lithic scatter
Hearth and chert flake at base of small gidgee tree.
Flakes, hearth Chert, Sandstone 9 15 70 75
LC05 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
Small low-density lithic scatter. Flakes, hammerstone, grinding stone fragments
Chert, Chalcedony, Sandstone
2 10 90 120
LC06 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.
Flakes, broken flakes, flake piece, hammerstone
Chert, Sandstone 3 30 80 480
LC07 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
Cluster of artefacts eroded from watercourse.
Flakes, flake piece, single platform core
Chert, Quartz 5 10 90 200
24 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name
Property Easting Northing Site Type Site Description Artefact Types Raw Materials Max
Density
Estimated Total
Artefacts
Ground Visibility
Site Area (m2)
LC08 Lucy Creek Station
Due to cultural sensitivities
associated with some information,
this Section has been removed
Minor lithic scatter
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
LC09 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
Low density lithic scatter exposed in eroded area on western side of gidgee tree line.
Flakes, broken flakes
Chert, Chalcedony 3 10 90 240
LC10 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
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
LC11 Lucy Creek Station
Minor lithic scatter
Very low-density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.
Flakes, single platform core
Chalcedony, Silcrete
1 6 100 100
LC12 Jervois Station
Minor lithic scatter
Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface
Flakes, flake piece, tula slug
Chert, Chalcedony, Silcrete
5 10 90 340
LC13 Jervois Station
Minor lithic scatter
Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface at base of range.
Flakes, flake piece
Chert, Chalcedony, Quartz
2 10 90 360
LC14 Jervois Station
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
LC15 Jervois Station
Minor lithic scatter
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
Minor lithic scatter
Low density scatter on bench above major tributary of Arthur Creek
Flakes, flaked pieces, grindstones
Chert, sandstone 3 50-100 60 1800
25 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Table 8: Isolated artefacts in Project Area
Name Artefact Type Raw Material Retouch Breakage Easting Northing
ISO_LC_001 Flake Chert No No
Due to cultural sensitivities
associated with some information,
this Section has been removed
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_013 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_014 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_015 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_016 Pestle Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_017 Flake Chert 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_021 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_022 Flake Quartzite No No
ISO_LC_023 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_024 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_025 Flake Silcrete No No
ISO_LC_026 Broken flake Quartzite No No
ISO_LC_027 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_028 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_029 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_030 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_031 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_032 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_033 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_034 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_035 Flake Chalcedony No No
ISO_LC_036 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_037 Uni core Chalcedony No No
ISO_LC_038 Flake Chalcedony No No
ISO_LC_039 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_040 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_041 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_042 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_043 Flake Chalcedony No No
ISO_LC_044 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_045 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_046 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_047 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_048 Hammerstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_049 Hammerstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_050 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_51 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_052 Flake Chert No No
26 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Name Artefact Type Raw Material Retouch Breakage Easting Northing
ISO_LC_053 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
Due to cultural sensitivities
associated with some information,
this Section has been removed
ISO_LC_054 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_055 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_056 Portable grindstone Siltstone No No
ISO_LC_057 Anvil Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_058 Portable grindstone Sandstone 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_062 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_063 Anvil Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_064 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_065 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_066 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_067 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_068 Broken flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_069 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_070 Flake Chalcedony 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_074 Flake Chert 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_078 Portable grindstone Sandstone No 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_082 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_083 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_084 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_085 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_086 Portable grindstone Sandstone No No
ISO_LC_087 Flake Chert No Medial
ISO_LC_088 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_089 Flake piece Chert No No
ISO_LC_090 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_091 Flake piece Chert No No
ISO_LC_092 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_093 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_094 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_095 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_096 Flake Silcrete No No
ISO_LC_097 Flake Silcrete No No
ISO_LC_098 Flake Chert No No
ISO_LC_099 Flake Silcrete No No
5.3 Historical Features
There were no historical features recorded in the Lucy Creek Project Area.
27 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
28 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Figure 7: Site Distribution Map, NE Project Area
29 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Figure 8: Site Distribution Map, SE Project Area
30 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
31 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
There were no historical features recorded in the Lucy Creek Project Area.
32 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
scatter 100 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low
LC04A Minor lithic
scatter 15 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low
LC04B Minor lithic
scatter 10 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low
LC04C Minor lithic
scatter 15 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low
LC05 Minor lithic
scatter 10 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low
LC06 Minor lithic
scatter 30 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low
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
Roads, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low
LC13 Minor lithic
scatter 10 Poor
Roads, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low
LC14 Lithic scatter 50 Poor Tracks, Erosion,
Stock Not Tested Low Medium
LC15 Minor lithic
scatter 50 Fair situ
Roads, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low
LC16 Minor lithic
scatter 50-100 Fair Stock, Tracks Not tested Low
33 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
There were no historical features recorded in the Lucy Creek Project Area.
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
34 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
35 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Table 10: Site Specific Recommendations and Relationship to Proposed Works
Site Name Site Type Estimated Total
Artefacts Site Condition
Disturbance Factors
Traditional Owner Significance
Archaeological 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
LC02 Minor lithic scatter
100 Fair situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some
information,
this Section has been removed
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.
LC03 Minor lithic scatter
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
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.
LC04B Minor lithic scatter
10 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC04C Minor lithic scatter
15 Good situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Approx. 25 metres south east of proposed pipeline route
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.
LC05 Minor lithic scatter
10 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low 20 metres south east of proposed pipeline route.
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.
LC06 Minor lithic scatter
30 Good situ Stock Not Tested Low 150 metres north west of proposed pipeline route
Conserve insitu
36 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name Site Type Estimated Total
Artefacts Site Condition
Disturbance Factors
Traditional Owner Significance
Archaeological Significance
Relationship to Proposed Works
Management Recommendations
LC07 Minor lithic scatter
10 Poor Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC08 Minor lithic scatter
100 Fair situ Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC09 Minor lithic scatter
10 Poor Erosion, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC10 Minor lithic scatter
50 Poor Roads, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC11 Minor lithic scatter
6 Fair situ Roads, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC12 Minor lithic scatter
10 Fair situ Roads, Stock Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC13 Minor lithic scatter
10 Poor Roads, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
37 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name Site Type Estimated Total
Artefacts Site Condition
Disturbance Factors
Traditional Owner Significance
Archaeological Significance
Relationship to Proposed Works
Management Recommendations
LC14 Lithic scatter
50 Poor Tracks, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low Northern edge of this site likely to be impacted
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.
LC15 Minor lithic scatter
50 Fair situ Roads, Erosion, Stock
Not Tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
LC16 Minor lithic scatter
50-100 Fair Stock, track Not tested Low Likely to be impacted by proposed pipeline works
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.
38 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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.
39 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Attachment 1: Project Area Authority Certificate C2019/030
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
40 Supplement Report to the Draft EIS Archaeological Assessment: KGL Resources Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
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
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC01
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC01
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC02
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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 100
Ground Surface Visibility: 70
Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors: Floodwaters
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Secondary channel to Arthur Creek or possible paleo channel
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 mixed gidgee and eucalypt woodland on grasses, mainly buffel
Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC02
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC02
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC03
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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 4
Estimated total number of artefacts: 100
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Low sandy rise on floodplain
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Low sandy rise on floodplain
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 insitu
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC03
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC04A
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: Small cluster of grindstones under a gidgee tree.
Area (m2): 100
Artefacts Types: Flakes,portable grindstone
Raw Materials: Chert,Sandstone
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 15
Ground Surface Visibility: 70
Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Open sandy area
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Open sandy area
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 gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC04A, B, C
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC04A
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC04B
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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 10
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors:
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context:
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 gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC04B
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC04C
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: Heartg and chert flake at base of small gidgee tree.
Area (m2): 75
Artefacts Types: Flakes,hearth
Raw Materials: Chert,Sandstone
Maximum Artefact Density: 9
Estimated total number of artefacts: 15
Ground Surface Visibility: 70
Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: On floodplain at base of low rise
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: On floodplain at base of low rise
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 gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC04C
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC05
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: Small low density lithic scatter.
Area (m2): 120
Artefacts Types: Flakes,hammerstone,grinding stone fragments
Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Sandstone
Maximum Artefact Density: 2
Estimated total number of artefacts: 10
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors: Within exposed sandy area
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Within exposed sandy area
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 gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC05
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC05
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC06
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 17 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: Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.
Area (m2): 480
Artefacts Types: Flakes,broken flakes,flake piece,hammerstone
Raw Materials: Chert,Sandstone
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 30
Ground Surface Visibility: 80
Condition: Good situ Disturbance Factors:
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context:
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 scattered 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 insitu
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC06
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC06
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC07
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 18 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: Cluster of artefacts eroded from watercourse
Area (m2): 200
Artefacts Types: Flakes,flake piece,single platform core
Raw Materials: Chert,Quartz
Maximum Artefact Density: 5
Estimated total number of artefacts: 10
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors: Paleo channel
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Paleo channel
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: Gidgee open woodland on buffel grassland sparse
Outcropping Geology: Arrinthrunga Formation: primarily dolostone. Alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC07
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC07
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC08
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 18 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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 5
Estimated total number of artefacts: 100
Ground Surface Visibility: 70
Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors:
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context:
Bioregion: Channel Country
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
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: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC08 and LC09
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC08
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC09
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 18 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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 10
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors:
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context:
Bioregion: Channel Country
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: Open gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: Eroded alluvial sandy sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC09
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC10
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 18 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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 50
Ground Surface Visibility: 60
Condition: Poor Disturbance Factors: Exposed on northern slope of creek bank
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Exposed on northern slope of creek bank
Bioregion: Channel Country
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
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC10
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC10
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC11
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Station Date: 18 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: Very low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface.
Area (m2): 100
Artefacts Types: Flakes,single platform core
Raw Materials: Chalcedony,Silcrete
Maximum Artefact Density: 1
Estimated total number of artefacts: 6
Ground Surface Visibility: 100
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
Bioregion: Channel Country
Land System: Sonder: rugged ranges on quartzite, sandstone and conglomerate; outcrop with shallow, stony sandy soils
Vegetation: MU74: Open gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC11
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC11
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC12
Site Location
Property: Jervois Station Date: 18 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: Low density lithic scatter on exposed ground surface
Area (m2): 340
Artefacts Types: Flakes,flake piece, tula slug
Raw Materials: Chert,Chalcedony,Silcrete
Maximum Artefact Density: 5
Estimated total number of artefacts: 10
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
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
Bioregion: Channel Country
Land System: Singleton: level to undulating sandplains with red sands
Vegetation: MU74: Open woodland
Outcropping Geology: Cenozoiz materials: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC12 and LC13
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC12
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC13
Site Location
Property: Jervois Station Date: 18 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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 2
Estimated total number of artefacts: 10
Ground Surface Visibility: 90
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
Bioregion: Channel Country
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
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC13
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC14
Site Location
Property: Jervois Station Date: 18 April 2019
Easting: Northing: Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information, this Section has been removed
Archaeological Description
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
Estimated total number of artefacts: 50
Ground Surface Visibility: 70
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.
Bioregion: Channel Country
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
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC14
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC14
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC15
Site Location
Property: Jervois Station Date: 18 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: 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
Maximum Artefact Density: 4
Estimated total number of artefacts: 50
Ground Surface Visibility: 80
Condition: Fair situ Disturbance Factors: 20m east of Lucy Creek Station road
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: 20m east of Lucy Creek Station road
Bioregion: Channel Country
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
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC15
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC15
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Name: LC16
Site Location
Property: Lucy Creek Date: 17 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: Low density scatter on bench above major tributary of Arthur Creek
Area (m2): 1800
Artefacts Types: Flakes, flaked pieces, grindstones
Raw Materials: Chert, sandstone
Maximum Artefact Density: 3
Estimated total number of artefacts: 0
Ground Surface Visibility: 60
Condition: Fair Disturbance Factors: Creek margins, bench
Physical Context
Site Environmental Context: Creek margins, bench
Bioregion: Channel Country
Land System: Ilgulla, plains, rises and plateaux on weathered and unweathered Cambrian limestone, dolomite, chalcedony, shale, sandstone and siltstone with associa
Vegetation: MU71: Open gidgee woodland
Outcropping Geology: Cenozoic materials:: Sandy alluvial sediments noted during survey
Significance & Recommendations
Cultural Significance: Not Tested, likely to be low
Archaeological Significance: 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.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site Map: LC16
Due to cultural sensitivities associated with some information,
this Section has been removed.
Supplementary EIS Heritage Study: KGL Jervois Base Metals Project (Earthsea Pty Ltd 2019)
Site images: LC16