social impact assessment 2008 assessment 2008

PAPUA NEW GUINEA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECT

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2008

Assoc Professor Laurence Goldman January 2009

Social Impact Assessment 2008 Papua New Guinea Liquefied Natural Gas Project

4.5

Portion 152

4.5.1 Introduction The Papua New Guinea (PNG) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project (‘the project’ or ‘PNG LNG Project’) aims to commercialise the gas resources in the Southern Highlands and Western provinces of PNG. The project involves the production of gas and its transportation to an LNG plant at Portion 152 on the coast of the Gulf of Papua near Port Moresby. The gas is to be liquefied at the LNG plant and the LNG product shipped to international markets. The PNG LNG Project will be operated by an ExxonMobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) affiliate, Esso Highlands Limited (Esso). This study has been commissioned by Coffey Natural Systems (CNS), the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) lead consultants for the project. This report documents cultural heritage sites found within and near 1) the proposed Portion 152 LNG Facilities site (referred to throughout this report as the ‘Onshore LNG Facilities component’ of our surveys); and 2) the proposed associated shallow marine area of Caution Bay, including the inter-tidal zone (referred to as the ‘Offshore LNG Facilities component’) (Figure 4.5.1). Combined, these two components are referred to as ‘the Study Area’ (see section 4.5.3.1 for exact location of the Study Area). This report begins with an outline of the proposed LNG Facilities developments in the Study Area in section 4.5.2 (as these have been communicated to us by Coffey Natural Systems), and the objectives of the cultural heritage sites surveys in the ensuing section 4.5.3. Legislative, ethical and best practice issues that guide the cultural heritage surveys presented in this report are outlined in section 4.5.4. This is followed by the methodology employed to document the Study Area’s cultural heritage sites (section 4.5.5). In section 4.5.6 background environmental details are presented, followed in section 4.5.7, section 4.5.8 and section 4.5.9 by cultural, archaeological and historical details relevant to understanding cultural heritage site locations and locational patterns within the Portion 152 area. This is followed by section 4.5.10, where the results of the field surveys are presented. The significance of the Study Area’s cultural heritage sites are then assessed (section 4.5.12), so as to make informed recommendations (section 4.5.14) for their management in light of potential impacts from the proposed developments (section 4.5.13). For this report, cultural heritage sites are defined as places that relate to the cultural history of the study region, as they concern the peoples engaged with them in the past and/or in the present. While this report focuses on specific places, it recognises also that the meaning of what constitutes a cultural heritage site varies widely and can include places of archaeological (scientific), historical (social) and/or traditional (cultural) values. The cultural heritage sites in this report are therefore considered in the wider context of the social landscape setting in which they occur.

B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-451


4.5.2 Project Description The following descriptions of the planned LNG Facilities developments are taken directly from Attachment A of the cultural heritage consultancy agreement of 18 December 2007 between Coffey Natural Systems and Monash University, as supplied by Coffey Natural Systems. The proposed development aims to move compressed hydrocarbon gas from existing gas and oil fields through a submarine pipeline to processing and storage facilities at Portion 152. At Portion 152, the plant will receive the pipeline at inlet facilities. Processing will here involve acid-gas removal and disposal, gas dehydration involving water and mercury removal, gas liquefaction, LNG storage and loading in storage tanks, condensate storage and loading in tanks, and possible future Liquified Petroleum Gas [LPG] storage. To perform these tasks, the Portion 152 processing plant will include a range of utilities including power generation facilities, fuel systems, heating and cooling systems, nitrogen production systems, fresh water and potable water systems, and instrument air systems. The LNG Facilities will require refrigerant storage and make-up system, wet and process flares and liquid blowdown, LNG storage flare, firewater supply wells, reserve storage, distribution systems, and diesel fuel systems. Infrastructure at the LNG Facilities site will include a temporary camp for construction and contract personnel of approximately 7500 people; an operations camp for operating and maintenance personnel (approximately 500 people); waste and effluent collection/treatment systems; administration and maintenance buildings associated with the LNG Facilities; a helipad; a possible project air strip; a loading terminal; and upgrade of the existing road between the Facility and Port Moresby. A conventional piled access trestle offshore and earthen causeway across the salt pan, with a total length of 2 km, is proposed to connect the incoming marine pipeline with the onshore LNG processing and storage Facility. The trestle and causeway will support a range of facilities including the product loading platforms at the end of the trestle in 14-15 m of water depth at lowest astronomical tide (LAT). The loading platform will consist of LNG loading and return vapour arms and LNG berthing facilities. Loading platforms will be sited adjacent to the trestle, and in future possibly adjacent to the LNG or condensate loading platform. A separate materials offloading facility (MOF) is proposed to facilitate the construction of the LNG Facilities. The offloading dock is an approximately 500 m long earthen causeway with a sheet-piled dock in 7 m of water depth at LAT, capable of receiving 5000 tonne barges. LNG tankers are 3 anticipated to have a capacity of 210,000 m and require approximately 15 m water depth at LAT. LPG 3 tankers are anticipated to have a capacity up to 85,000m and require approximately 15 m water depth at LAT. Condensate tankers are anticipated to require approximately 8 m water depth at LAT. The approach and departure manoeuvres of all the carriers are expected to be assisted by 80 tonne tugs. The LNG Facilities site will be fenced with regular security inspections.



Figure 4.5.2 Location of Survey Focus Area (purple), original kidney-shaped area (blue), site security fence area (black), within and near Portion 152 (red) (as supplied by Coffey Natural Systems). The proposed LNG Facilities developments will undoubtedly require the construction of numerous access roads and tracks, laydown areas, cleared buffer zones and other infrastructure in addition to the above described processing facilities. Individually and together, these developments will certainly create considerable disturbance (e.g. through crushing or direct removal) to surface and sub-surface cultural heritage sites, both through direct disturbance (e.g. digging activity) and indirect disturbance (e.g. the passing of heavy machinery over archaeological deposits; foot traffic; access to nearby archaeological sites and the picking up of archaeological objects by personnel; increased runoff which may increase erosion along Ruisasi Creek – as the North Vaihua River is known locally based on preliminary information obtained during fieldwork for this report – and Vaihua River). Potential spillages and longer-term extensions of facilities will also almost certainly cause incremental impacts on cultural sites both within and surrounding the Study Area.



Figure 4.5.3 Proposed offshore LNG Facilities option locations in Caution Bay, showing areas where maritime cultural heritage surveys have been undertaken (within the blue 400 m and green 700 m buffer zones) (as supplied by Coffey Natural Systems). Cultural heritage sites will certainly be impacted by these planned construction, infrastructural and operational developments. In order to document the impacts of the planned developments on cultural heritage sites, a sample of the Study Area was systematically surveyed to allow probabilistic extrapolations to be made for the entire area for purposes of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS). While this report thus documents in detail the cultural heritage sites of the Survey Focus Area (a delimited, gridded area within the proposed LNG Facilities’s site security fence area; see Figure 4.5.2 and section 4.5.3.1 for definition of ‘Survey Focus Area’) and nearby transect areas and associated offshore facilities (Figure 4.5.3), at the time of this study field access to other parts of the proposed LNG Facilities area was restricted due to the unexpected discovery of unexploded ordnances (UXO). Therefore the location of cultural heritage sites outside the field-surveyed areas cannot be directly or systematically addressed in this report, although the results of the surveys can be used to undertake general predictive modeling for the LNG Facilities as a whole. This means that the specific locations of any potential infrastructure locations associated with the proposed LNG Facilities developments, including access roads, laydown areas and the like, are not addressed in this report. Such areas will require cultural heritage investigation and management planning prior to development (see section 4.5.14 for recommendations).

4.5.3 Objectives The aims of this report are to 1) document the location and nature of cultural heritage sites within the Survey Focus Area of the proposed LNG Facilities site (Figure 4.5.2) and the adjacent near-shore area (Figure 4.5.3); 2) identify potential impacts of proposed developments on these cultural heritage sites; 3) identify the significance of these cultural heritage sites; and 4) make recommendations on how to manage the area’s cultural heritage sites based on anticipated impacts and significance assessments.



The brief for the cultural heritage site surveys expects the consultants ‘to liaise with PNG national agencies in a manner that assists capacity building and national database records’, ensuring that the work meets ‘the requirements of PNG legislation and the Equator Principles. In particular the assessment should conform to IFC Performance Standard 8, Cultural Heritage’. It requires performance of the following tasks •

Attend study briefing meeting with Coffey Natural Systems project staff, either in person or via teleconference: – To present an overview of the project scope and components. – To discuss and agree the study scope of work. – To discuss and agree study information requirements. – To discuss study in field travel and survey OHS, logistics and resourcing requirements. – To agree format and timing of study deliverables.

•

Literature review of archaeological work in the relevant project environs to date.

•

Inspect PNG National Museum and Art Gallery register of archaeological sites in the project area.

•

Liaison with Project Social Mapping and Land Identification researchers as required on information to support this study.

•

Provide input to planning of study field logistics and engagement of research assistants as required.

•

Undertake fieldwork to identify and assess the significance of archaeological and cultural heritage sites in the project area, to include: – Foot-surveys of the land component to identify archaeological and cultural heritage sites in the project area. – Informant interviews concerning significant sites (including information on landowner attitudes and expectations regarding the management of the sites). – Marine archaeological survey in near-shore area including a helicopter fly-over (if required), remote sensing survey and underwater archaeological inspection. – Photos and accurate GIS data of identified sites (including marine sites).

•

Liaise with the Contracting Party, project design engineers and the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) consultant Laurence Goldman on the findings of the survey to agree appropriate mitigation measures to manage potential impacts to sites or constraints to route planning. Any such measures recommended by Monash University may be reported or disclosed to third parties, including PNG Government agencies, provided that the Contracting Party (Coffey Natural Systems) provides its consent prior to the disclosure or report (such consent not to be withheld unreasonably).

•

Consultation with and presentation of the findings of the surveys to the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery and the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), as appropriate.

•

Formal presentation to DEC of the findings of the study as part of the EIS process.

•

Produce a report addressing the objectives listed above. The present report fulfils this task.



We describe below under two separate sections – ‘LNG Land’ and ‘LNG Shallow Marine’, representing the two separate geographical and methodological components of this study – specific locational details of the Study Area.

4.5.3.1

Onshore LNG Facilities Component

The Survey Focus Area which forms the focus of this study is located between Papa and Boera villages (see Figure 4.5.2). The location and size of the land area to be covered by the present study changed during the course of the cultural heritage surveys. Initially the Monash University cultural 2 heritage site surveying team was asked to cover an area of land 8.18 km in size. However, the discovery of an UXO early during the cultural heritage surveys (see section 4.5.5.1) resulted, at the request of Coffey Natural Systems, in a cessation of the original surveys and changes to the brief to allow UXO clearance by a technical team of experts prior to continuation of the cultural heritage field surveys. This led Coffey Natural Systems to refine the survey area to what is referred to in this report as the Survey Focus Area throughout, consisting of an area 2.2 km (east-west) x 1.2 km (north-south) in size as shown on Figure 4.5.2, and representing part of the focal area of construction activity for the proposed LNG Plant. No planned access roads, laydown areas or other infrastructure places outside the Survey Focus Area were investigated during our surveys, although some cultural heritage sites outside the Survey Focus Area were opportunistically recorded and are documented in this report.

Figure 4.5.4 The kidney-shaped area (blue line) within and near Portion 152 (red line) for which cultural heritage sites surveys (land component) were originally requested (as supplied by Coffey Natural Systems).



The cultural heritage sites documented for this report are located within and near the PNG Government-owned Portion 152, in Central Province. Portion 152 extends from latitude 09° 19' 26'' in the north (~2 km south of Papa on the 1:50,000 Port Moresby Sheet 8379-III [Edition 1] Series T702 topographic map) to 09° 23' 53'' in the south (~1 km north of Boera). Its western boundary is variously between 400 m and 800 m inland from the high water line as per government regulations. The eastern boundary runs from Kokoro Hill (~8 km east and inland from the coast) south along the foothills of the range to a point ~500 m north of the Boera turn-off, from where it runs basically on an east-west axis between the foothills and the coast. The kidney-shaped area originally marked for archaeological investigation (Figure 4.5.4), and the subsequent Survey Focus Area that superceded it and that largely lies within it (Figure 4.5.2), are located in the northwestern corner of Portion 152. Because of the above fieldwork history, the cultural heritage field surveys were undertaken over two field trips (section 4.5.3.1 for details). The result is 100% surface surveying of the northwestern and western parts of the Survey Focus Area, and transect (probabilistic) sampling for the rest of the Survey Focus Area. An area outside and to the northwest of the Survey Focus Area was also 100% surveyed for cultural heritage sites during the first field trip prior to the discovery of the UXO, when the original Study Area was larger than the Survey Focus Area itself and extended into this locality. The exact locations surveyed, methods employed, and results of the surveys are fully described in section 4.5.3.1, section 4.5.1 and section 4.5.10 respectively.

4.5.3.2

Offshore LNG Facilities Component

Our brief for the Offshore LNG Facilities component of the cultural heritage site surveys was to 2 undertake a maritime archaeological survey of a ~4km area of Option One (with a 400m buffer zone around proposed locations for an LNG Jetty) as a priority, with further investigations of a 700m buffer zone (Option 2) around these same proposed locations if any time remained available during our period of contract. The shallow marine area covered by this report is shown in Figure 4.5.3. Here the area surveyed for cultural heritage sites includes that part of the route which would be directly impacted by the construction of the proposed offshore LNG Jetty near Konekaru beach and the proposed Marine Offshore Facility near Boera Head (as determined by the map supplied to the cultural heritage site surveying team by Coffey Natural Systems immediately prior to fieldwork – see Figure 4.5.3). Documentation of cultural heritage sites in other nearby underwater areas did not form part of the brief, budget, schedule or logistical planning; hence any inspection of such additional areas was opportunistic and restricted. It should be noted that shallow marine areas outside the Study Area addressed in this report will require cultural heritage investigation and management planning prior to development if such areas are to be impacted by the proposed developments.

4.5.4 Law, Ethics and Best Practice Current international best practice standards for extractive industries are laid out in the World Bank/IFC-sponsored Equator Principles (Equator Principles, 2005), and the legislative requirements have been detailed in Section 4.1. However, we reiterate here those sections that are relevant to Portion 152. Current international best practice standards for extractive industries are laid out in the World Bank/International Finance Corporation (IFC)-sponsored Equator Principles (Equator Principles, 2006). The IFC standards required under the Equator Principles incorporate IFC Performance Standard 8 (Cultural Heritage), which is of relevance to development responsibilities towards a variety of archaeological and non-archaeological cultural heritage places documented in this report. IFC Performance Standard 8 adopts the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) definition of ‘cultural property’ which includes: sites having archaeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, cultural, artistic, and religious values, as well as unique natural environmental features that embody cultural values, such as sacred groves. … intangible forms of culture, such as cultural knowledge, innovations and practices of communities



embodying traditional lifestyles, are also included. The requirements of this Performance Standard apply to cultural heritage regardless of whether or not it has been legally protected or previously disturbed.

Natural features of the landscape such as specific hills, clay sources, beaches, sago stands and waterholes, which may be unmodified but nevertheless regarded as significant by local communities, are included under IFC Performance Standard 8. Such places are also of relevance in the sense that it may not be appropriate to only protect an archaeological site (e.g. a particular ancestral village site) while at the same time destroying its immediate surroundings (e.g. its associated waterhole or beach), if these immediate surroundings also form part of a site’s culturally significant matrix.

4.5.4.1

Historic and Maritime Heritage Legislation

Several pieces of legislation also apply to underwater or maritime (including both pre-Europeancontact period and later) and other European-contact period sites in PNG. All the definitions of cultural property identified under the National Cultural Property (Preservation) Act listed above also and equally apply to contact period and maritime scenarios, particularly as the Act does not define the term ‘ancient’ and is not limited to terrestrial places. In particular, the specific reference to ‘a deposit of … historical remains’ (§20[1][c], which is referred to in §20[3]) indicates that all ‘historic’ and maritime sites are reportable under this Act. These sites include artillery batteries and other associated defence structures, planes and shipwrecks, graves and, similarly, all burial sites (including sites associated with World War II [WWII] conflict and crashes). The PNG National Museum and Art Gallery is empowered under §6 and §7 of the National Cultural Property (Preservation) Act to investigate any destruction or illegal export of, and to compulsorily acquire, any movable objects and immovables (the land where they are located) which have been declared to be National Cultural Property under the Act. Under the terms of the National Museum and Art Gallery Act (1992), the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery is also responsible for administering the War Surplus Material Act (1952). The War Surplus Material Act (1952) and accompanying Regulations (1952) specifically protect all material from World War II and other times of defense for the period between 1939 and 1952, including any plane or shipwreck, vehicle or machinery (such as cars, trucks, tanks and so forth) or their associated parts; unexploded ordinance; building, fitting or other structure (or its associated materials) including those situated in internal waters, territorial seas or underground. All war-related materials are deemed to be the absolute property of the State. There is a mandatory requirement (§9) that the discovery of any material of this type must be reported to the Curator of DoMH, a division of the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery. The Curator is currently Mr Mark Katakumb. The DoMH is responsible for the administration of modern periods, and specifically WWII materials and sites, and maintains a Register of military sites, relics and collections. Of note, the Act restricts any interference with unexploded ordinances (UXO) and other munitions. If UXO materials are discovered, it is a requirement that they be reported initially to the DoMH, who will organise their removal through the PNG Bomb Squad. However, UXOs can be removed by any persons discovering such a site, if the team has an approved UXO disposal expert working with them (Mark Katakumb, personal communication 2008). There are also provisions under the War Cemeteries and Graves Act (1986) for the responsible Minister to declare an area of land a Commonwealth War Cemetery. Once this clause has been enacted, it is an offence to disturb or exhume a body buried in such declared places without Ministerial approval. Many military aircraft and shipwreck sites are commonly regarded as ‘war graves’ around the world (Gibbs, 2005:60), and as such hold strong social and spiritual attachments for relatives. Such sites are often the scene of memorial services (for an apt example, see the recent press reports surrounding the discovery of HMAS Sydney). It is thus possible, and indeed likely, that newly discovered aircraft or shipwreck sites associated with loss of life could be deemed war graves and awarded suitable protection under this Act. International parties may also have an interest in such sites and consider them war graves or places of special significance (see section 4.5.4.3.1, section B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-459


4.5.4.3.2 below). It should also be noted that under the Cemeteries Act (1955), it is an offence to exhume a body from a grave, and a body still entombed in an aircraft or shipwreck might also be considered a grave. This Act is also relevant to those areas with ancient village sites containing burials, and where other kinds of burial sites (e.g. cave ossuaries) are present. The National Cultural Commission Act (1994) also contains clauses for ‘the preservation … of indigenous lifestyle of the peoples of Papua New Guinea as well as their cultural heritage [both tangible and intangible] and values’ through a cultural development programme (§1 of the Act).

4.5.4.2

Non Heritage-Specific Legislation

Other PNG national legislation indirectly applies to the protection of maritime cultural heritage sites. There are a number of clauses under the Merchant Shipping Act (1975) that pertain to shipping incidents, shipwrecks and their associated fittings and cargoes. These include offences and penalties for interfering with, plundering and/or removing a wreck (§263J, §263Q); obligations to report the discovery of a shipwreck (§263K); and transferral of ownership to the State where original ownership cannot be ascertained (§263N). Under §37-43 and §47 of the National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority Act (1997), any overseas vessel or aircraft (and all their associated goods) that has not previously cleared quarantine is still subject to quarantine regulations until such time as it is cleared or given a certificate of pratique. It is an offence (under §63) to remove any material from a vessel or aircraft that has not cleared quarantine. These regulations still apply to planes and ships that were wrecked before they had cleared quarantine (particularly those that had not already docked in PNG or were flying defence sorties directly from Australia). Similarly, under the Customs Act (1951) it is an offence to import any goods that have not cleared customs through a designated port of entry. Goods that have not cleared customs within a designated period are declared forfeit to the State (§25, §25a). This Act further outlines obligations to report the incidence and/or discovery of a ship or plane wreck to a customs officer, and that it is an offence to remove, alter or interfere with any part of a wreck or its associated goods that may be subject to customs duties (§30, §31, §32). This is reinforced under §263B of the Merchant Shipping Act. Examples of these types of cultural property may be present within the project development area. This summary of PNG national legislation is indicative of what the project development area may be subject to in regard to cultural heritage protection under PNG law.

4.5.4.3

International Instruments

4.5.4.3.1 Historic and Maritime Heritage Legislation – Australian Legislation Certain PNG shipwrecks and associated relics in waters adjacent to Australian Commonwealth waters or within/above the outer limit of the continental shelf of Australia may be declared as historic shipwrecks and/or relics under the (Australian) Historic Shipwrecks Act (1976) (§5.5, §5.6). Although one of the applications of this Act appears to be to protect PNG wrecks in Australian waters, it is unclear whether or not this also applies to PNG wrecks that occur on the Australian side of the continental shelf where it is contiguous to the PNG coastline, as the Act stipulates that all wrecks that occur on the Australian continental shelf are also protected. Further work by maritime law specialists is required to determine the implications of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act (1967), Indonesian Border Agreement Act (1973), Petroleum (Gulf of Papua) Agreements Act (1976), National Seas Act (1977), and Offshore Seas Proclamation (1978) in regards to any overlap between Australian and PNG sovereignty boundaries, particularly with regard to the extent of the Australian continental shelf, and the implications of these Acts on the application of the Australian Historic Shipwrecks Act (1976). The Office of Australian War Graves (OAWG) also maintains a Register of War Dead, and has an undertaking to maintain and commemorate war graves in perpetuity (OAWG, 2008). The OAWG B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-460


would show interest and concern for any graves of Australian servicemen found discovered in PNG, including those where crewmen died and were still interred in their vessels or craft.

4.5.4.3.2 Historic and Maritime Heritage Legislation – U.S. Legislation Many countries have enacted legislation to ensure that their wrecks of military craft are protected through perpetual retention of salvage rights (United States Sunken Military Craft Act §1401, §1406). For instance the United States Sunken Military Craft Act (2004) states that all sunken United States (US) military craft remains the property of the US government, and that salvage rights will never be extinguished without express divestiture of title by the United States government. In this context, sunken military craft applies to any US military ship or plane which was wrecked during military service (§1408). Furthermore, should any war aircraft crash or shipwreck site be discovered that contained human remains, it is probable that such sites would be declared war graves by their country of origin, and that protection would be sought from the host nation (in this case, PNG). This was recently the case after the discovery of the Australian Battle Cruiser HMAS Sydney and the German raider HMV Kormoran off the Western Australian coast (e.g. see Blenkin, 2008). It should be noted that the US Defence Department has a co-ordinated programme to locate, record and exhume the remains of former US servicemen for return to their families. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (known as JPAC) runs worldwide operations with dedicated field teams of forensic scientists and archaeologists to achieve this aim. It has in-country detachments in Vietnam, Thailand and Laos. Japan also runs a similar program to recover the bodies of Japanese servicemen. Both of these US and Japanese agencies should be consulted wherever any allied aircraft, shipwrecks or other war grave and crash sites are discovered, and should also be notified of the aircraft wrecks identified in the present report.

4.5.4.3.3 International Conventions: Cultural Heritage as a Human Right With regard to ‘historic’ and underwater/maritime sites specifically, the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001) has outlined several statements and conditions which are rapidly being accepted as global standards for the protection of submerged cultural heritage. The convention defines underwater cultural heritage as ‘all traces of human existence having cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally underwater, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years’, such as: •

Sites, structures, buildings, artefacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context.

•

Vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or part thereof, their cargo or contents, together with their archaeological and natural context.

•

Objects of prehistoric character.

Pipelines and cables on the seabed are not considered as underwater cultural heritage (Article 1). The convention recommends and encourages: •

In situ conservation and conformity of protection, documentation and legislation regarding underwater cultural heritage, and discourages commercial exploitation of the same (Article 2).

•

That any salvaging (where authorised) should conform with the protection standards of the Convention (Article 4).

•

The reduction of any adverse affects on underwater cultural heritage (Article 5).



•

Co-operative State party and internal agreements to preserve underwater cultural heritage (Articles 6, 7 and 8).

•

Development of reporting procedures which ensure that the discoveries of international cultural heritage sites are made known to the international community and the site’s country of origin, to enable co-operative management/protection of those sites (Articles 9, 10, 11 and 12).

•

That although military and government vessels/aircraft have immunity from these conditions, they should endeavour to abide by them where possible (Article 13);

•

State parties should endeavour to terminate and control the illicit trade in underwater cultural heritage relics, and impose sanctions and seizure of the same where possible (Articles 14-18).

•

State parties should promote co-operation and information sharing through public awareness and training in underwater archaeology and through the establishment of competent authorities, cooperative meetings and mediation arrangements (Articles 19-22).

•

That the Convention applies equally to inland and maritime waters (Article 28).

The Convention outlines rules regarding activities directed at underwater cultural heritage sites. These rules include: •

In situ preservation, protection and documentation.

•

The restriction of sale or trade of underwater cultural heritage as commercial items.

•

Minimisation of the affects of activities on the underwater site.

•

Use of non-destructive investigative/survey techniques in preference to excavation/recovery.

•

Avoidance of all activities causing unnecessary disturbance to human remains or venerated sites.

•

Regulation of activities to ensure proper recording of cultural, historical and archaeological information.

•

Promotion of public access to sites.

•

Encouraging international co-operation to improve codes of conduct and skill-sharing.

•

Improved planning and research design to facilitate significance assessments, adequate funding and timetabling, expertise and onsite conservation, reporting, curation, archiving and dissemination.

•

Greater consideration of environmental impacts of research/investigation.

Although PNG is not currently a signatory to UNESCO’s Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, these standards should be adopted as best practice in any operation dealing with underwater/maritime archaeological sites. The UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) equally applies to the trade in relics from land and underwater sites, including ship and plane wrecks. Drowned landscapes, where former terrestrial areas have been inundated, may potentially hold evidence of prehistoric occupation (e.g., as is likely to be the case shortly to the east of the Kopi Bypass corridor at the ancient village site of Areviti [site KG41]). Many previous studies (e.g. Dortch et al., 1990; Fischer, 1995) have demonstrated the diversity and remarkable state of preservation of stone and organic artefacts that might be found in inundated landscapes. While a previously terrestrial site may now be under water as a result of shifting river courses or rising sea levels, a drowned site B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-462


should be investigated to determine whether or not it still retains cultural materials worthy of future management. English Heritage, the premier heritage organisation in the United Kingdom (UK), has set out guidelines for detecting prehistoric artefacts using seabed dredging operations; such guidelines have been adopted by commercial dredging operators (British Marine Aggregate Producers Association and English Heritage, 2003). These standards include using a suitable screen to sample dredge spoil at regular intervals to determine the presence of prehistoric artefacts.

4.5.5 Methods Following the brief for this study, and in accordance with the various legal instruments (including both domestic legislation and international covenants), and ethical and professional best practice expectations outlined in Section 4.1, the cultural heritage site survey team has employed the following methodology in carrying out the cultural heritage sites impact study presented in this report. The methodologies employed in the Onshore and Offshore LNG Facilities components are presented separately in section 4.5.5.1 and section 4.5.5.2 respectively. Knowledge of cultural practices and historical trends and events for the study region is based on five kinds of sources: •

Oral traditions. What living people can tell us about their past and present cultural practices, cultural events and cultural sites.

•

Historical records. These include early colonial (generally European) and later observations of local peoples, as recorded in written texts, historic maps and charts, photographs and audio-visual recordings (explorers’ reports, missionary accounts, government patrol reports and so forth). However, in a maritime context these also include historical documentation of past sailing routes and port facilities (such as pilots’ records and/or sailing directions; notices to mariners; governmental public works records; Customs Department records of shipping incidents). WWII sites are documented through numerous avenues, including defence department and other administrative records of WWII air and shipping losses; civilian registers of aircraft crashes; regional maps and plans.

•

Anthropological and linguistic writings. What anthropologists and linguistics have to say about cultural heritage matters and cultural sites, based on professional participant observations and linguistic analyses.

•

Museum and other portable objects. Artefacts which came from particular locations on the land or in water and which help give those places distinctive cultural significance.

•

Archaeological evidence. Material remains (artefacts) of past human activity obtained through archaeological investigation.

Throughout this report, unless otherwise indicated all locations are given in the WGS84 (Zone 55) coordinate system.

4.5.5.1

Onshore LNG Facilities Component

The archaeological team undertaking the LNG152 Land component fieldwork consisted of Dr Bruno David – Project Co-ordinator, archaeologist (Monash University, Australia), Dr Matthew Leavesley – Field Survey Co-ordinator, archaeologist (University of PNG, Port Moresby), Nick Araho – Archaeologist (PNG National Museum and Art Gallery, Port Moresby), Jeremy Ash – Archaeologist (Monash University, Australia), John Dop – Cultural heritage officer (PNG National Museum and Art Gallery, Port Moresby), Dr Brad Duncan – Archaeologist (Monash University, Australia), Dr Alexandra Gartrell – Cultural geographer (Monash University, Australia), Alois Kuaso – Archaeologist (PNG National Museum and Art Gallery, Port Moresby), Herman Mandui – Archaeologist (PNG National Museum and Art Gallery, Port Moresby), Moi Dobi – Community representative (Boera village), Gau B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-463


Ario – Community representative (Papa village), Renagi Koiari – Community representative (Papa village). th

th

The fieldwork for this report began on 17 January and ended on 11 May 2008. It was undertaken th st during two phases, the first from 17 January to 21 February when surveys began at the northwest 2 st th corner of a 8.18 km kidney-shaped area within Portion 152; and the second from 21 April to 11 May 2 of a smaller, 2.64 km area (from here-on the ‘Survey Focus Area’) largely but not exactly contained within the original kidney-shaped area. As noted in section 4.5.3.1, the reason for these two phases is th that an UXO was found by the field crew during the first period of fieldwork, on 20 January. Upon st reporting this discovery to Coffey Natural Systems on 21 January, the cultural heritage site survey team was instructed for safety reasons to cease all Onshore LNG Facilities component fieldwork until further notice. This arrived during a series of communications from Coffey Natural Systems between nd th th 2 and 30 April (especially 25 April), when the brief was changed and the Monash University cultural heritage team was requested to survey only along 3 m-wide transect lines pre-cleared by MilSearch personnel within the area of the Survey Focus Area (because the rest of the Survey Focus Area had not been cleared of UXO by MilSearch in time for 100% archaeological surveys to proceed). 2 2 As a result, the western 39% (0.89 km ) of the total 2.28 km of the Survey Focus Area inside the site security fence area was entirely (100% ground coverage) field surveyed during the first phase of fieldwork, but the rest of the Survey Focus Area was only sampled along the transect corridors (Figure 4.5.5).

Figure 4.5.5 Areas surveyed in January (100% surveys) and April-May 2008 (sample transects) within and near the site perimieter fence and Survey Focus Area. 2

Additionally, an area of 0.75 km to the immediate northwest of the Survey Focus Area was entirely (100%) surveyed, because the original kidney-shaped area prior to the discovery of the UXO included an area extending outside the subsequent Survey Focus Area. In June, Nick Araho undertook an extra day of fieldwork to record two ancestral village sites outside th the development area, Aemakara and Dirora. On 19 June, five days before this report was due for B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-464


submission, the cultural heritage team was given a map showing the final proposed development footprint (the area inside the ‘site security fence area’, being the security fence at the outermost boundary of the LNG Plant site) by Coffey Natural Systems. The area inside the site security fence 2 area covers 7.93 km , 29% of which is covered by the Survey Focus Area (Figure 4.5.2). In this report (see section 4.5.11 in particular), cultural heritage site distributions are presented for the area inside the site security fence area, based on field surveys undertaken in the Study Area. Impacts of the proposed developments on cultural heritage sites within the site security fence area are presented in section 4.5.13.1, and recommendations in section 4.5.14.2.1. Interviews and site visits were undertaken with local Koita and Motu community members at a series th of public meetings held at Porebada, Boera, Papa and Lea Lea villages on 25 January 2008, and th th each day from 6 to 10 May 2008. Additionally, field participants nominated by village representative bodies participated in the archaeological fieldwork during both the January and April-May surveys (see the above bullet-point list for the names of each representative; see section 4.5.4.1 for specific details). The following people participated at these community discussions in public meeting places and/or as individual discussions at Porebada, Boera, Papa and Lea Lea: Aia Avata, Daro Avei, Rakatani Henri, Diari, Siosa, Lohia Gabe, Tara Gau, Mea Gudia, Billy Heni, Iru Kari, Robert Kauga, Maba Lohia, Oveai Maino, Igo Meauri, Lohia Miria, Mea Miria, Nadani Morea, Reverend Vagi Naime, Heni Totona, plus another approximately 30 people who attended these meetings but whose names were not recorded. During the second phase of fieldwork, Jessica Wiltshire and Robert Bone of Coffey Natural Systems joined the Monash University cultural heritage team as observers.

4.5.5.1.1 Historical Sources Investigated A number of documentary sources were investigated for background information on cultural heritage and cultural heritage sites in and surrounding the Study Area. These include the site register and reports files of the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery, a limited investigation of cultural items held by the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery, and a detailed review of the published literature on the archaeology of the southern PNG lowlands, focusing on the Port Moresby area.

4.5.5.1.2 Fieldwork and Site Recording Methods All cultural heritage sites identified during the fieldwork within the Study Area were recorded on recording forms specifically designed for this cultural heritage consultancy (the original recording forms were slightly modified after the January fieldwork and used in the April-May fieldwork; see Annexure 4.5.1). All sites were recorded in consultation with representatives from Papa and/or Boera villages. Cultural heritage sites were deemed any place showing evidence of cultural heritage, be it a large village, a sacred place or an isolated stone artefact. Evidence for the presence of cultural heritage sites followed two principles: •

Archaeological sites were by definition identified through the presence of material remains relating to past cultural activities (e.g. stone artefacts, pottery sherds or shells). Neighbouring archaeological sites were differentiated when artefact concentrations were separated by areas devoid of surface culture materials more than 5 m apart.

•

Oral tradition sites are any cultural heritage site known from oral traditions.

In principle, an oral tradition site could be a sacred site lacking material evidence of past human presence (i.e. a cultural heritage site that is not also an archaeological site), or it could also be an archaeological site (i.e. it may have an anthropogenic material signature), but in practice we found that all of the oral tradition cultural heritage sites communicated to the cultural heritage site survey team by community representatives were outside the Survey Focus Area. That is, all cultural heritage sites within the Survey Focus Area are archaeological sites.



The survey was undertaken in two stages. Due to the complexities resulting from the discovery of the UXO during the January survey, the methodologies for each survey were markedly different and therefore are described separately below. th

th

January Survey. The survey was undertaken on 17 to 20 January 2008. The participants for this survey included Matthew Leavesley, Herman Mandui, Nick Araho, Alois Kuaso and Moi Dobi in Team 1; and Brad Duncan, Jeremy Ash, Jon Dop and Gau Ario in Team 2. The January survey strategy was designed to identify every archaeological object on the landscape in the Priority Area including isolated (individual) midden shells and stone artefacts. In January 2008, prior to the discovery of the first UXO, we undertook archaeological field surveys in the following way: 1. Prior to commencement of fieldwork, a meeting was convened with Herman Mandui (Chief Archaeologist, PNG National Museum and Art Gallery), Nick Araho and Alois Kuaso of the Prehistory Department at the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery (which administers the National Cultural Property [Preservation] Act). Alois Kuaso undertook to gather documents from all known archaeological surveys previously undertaken within the study region for photocopying. The locations of existing archaeological sites were plotted on 1:50,000 topographic maps, and individual site records were photocopied from the Museum files. th

2. On the first day (Thursday 17 January), with the assistance of Esso Highlands Ltd. Community Affairs officer Agi Hoire, we travelled to Boera and Papa to liaise with the community leaders so as to meet with the community representatives from the respective villages to assist with the cultural heritage surveys. We then identified the geographical parameters of Portion 152 and the proposed archaeological survey area within it. This included a cursory driving tour of parts of Portion 152 and a visit to Konekaru beach. The information obtained allowed us to formulate an efficient survey plan th th th for the remainder of the survey. On the 18 , 19 and 20 January we divided into two teams (Matthew Leavesley, Herman Mandui, Nick Araho, Alois Kuaso and Moi Dobi in Team 1; Brad Duncan, Jeremy Ash, John Dop and Gau Ario in Team 2). th

On Friday 18 January we operated as two co-ordinated teams. Team 1 began an intensive survey while Team 2 recorded the large site complex (and associated nearby sites) identified the previous day. Team 1 began on the junction of the northern boundary of Portion 152 and the Boera-Papa Road. The team formed a line with each individual spaced 10-15 m apart and simultaneously walked west to the coast. When a site was identified the team stopped to identify its respective parameters and record the site. Upon completion of the recording process the line was reformed and the team continued to walk across the landscape. Once the team reached the western boundary of Portion 152, it reformed south of the southern-most surveyor and return back (east) across the landscape to the road. This procedure altered slightly at the junction of the Boera-Papa Road and Ruisasi Creek. Rather than crossing the creek with every sweep, the team remained on its western side. This process was continued for the remainder of the survey. th

From the outset, Team 2 followed a slightly different strategy. It began Friday 18 by returning directly to the large site complex at Konekaru beach and recorded all of the sites within the vicinity. Upon completion of this task the team moved to the dry ground north of the confluence of Ruisasi Creek and Vahui River. Team members recorded all the known sites in the locality and then formed their own line of surveyors spaced 10-15 m apart and began to survey on an east-west axis moving to the north, back towards Team 1. 3. Although ground visibility was in the main between 0-25 % due to long grass on the field and thick mangrove cover on the coastal margin, conventional ground-walking archaeological surveys were employed for this study. Significantly, the one old village location identified as Konekaru and lying along the beach where the pipeline was at one stage proposed to come onshore was identified by B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-466


village representatives during our field surveys, without us ever having to ask local people about the locations of individual villages – that is, the village was memorialised in local clan oral histories, and was communicated to us during the ground surveys. The villagers who showed us cultural heritage sites during this phase of the project are the following: Moi Dobi (from Boera) and Gau Ario (from Papa). 4. While travelling to and from cultural heritage sites shown to us by clan representatives, walking tracks, creek banks, mudflats, uprooted tree hollows, and the sediment matrix trapped in tree roots were examined for archaeological remains, and all sites thus found were recorded. 5. Whenever we came across a site, whether taken there by local community representatives, or by being told of nearby sites presently inaccessible due to thick vegetation cover, or by finding isolated stone artefacts along tracks/tree roots/creek banks while walking to other sites, an individual Site Recording Form was completed (4.5 Annexure). GPS locations were recorded for each site we went to, and estimated using compass bearings for more distant sites we could not directly access; locations at these latter sites were identified from the 1:50,000 topographic map following informant interviews conducted in proximal locales. 6. At the completion of the January survey, the team had all but completed an intensive survey of the region bounded on the north by the boundary of Portion 152, the east by the Papa-Boera Road and Ruisasi Creek, and the south and west by the mangroves. 2

2

Using these methods, a total area of 1.64 km covering the western 11% (0.89 km ) of the Survey 2 Focus Area plus an area of 0.75 km immediately outside but contiguous with the Survey Focus Area (to the northwest) were 100% surveyed in January 2008. The total contiguous area systematically 100% surveyed within and adjacent to the site security fence area is equivalent in size to 21% of the site security fence area. st

th

April-May Survey. This survey was undertaken between 21 April and 8 May 2008, and was conducted very differently to the January survey. Under the directions of Coffey Natural Systems and Esso, the survey was restricted to the areas previously cleared of UXOs by MilSearch. Site identifications proceeded in the following way: st

1. Prior to commencement of fieldwork on Monday 21 April, we liaised with Esso Highlands in order to participate in a site induction conducted primarily by MilSearch. 2. Upon arrival at Portion 152 we liaised with MilSearch and the local village representatives and immediately divided into two surveying teams and remained so for the duration of the survey. Team 1 consisted of Matthew Leavesley, Herman Mandui, Nick Araho, Jessica Wiltshire (Coffey Natural Systems) and Moi Dobi. Robert Bone (Coffey Natural Systems) also briefly joined Team 1. Team 2 consisted of Jeremy Ash, John Dop and Renagi Koiari. Each team was also accompanied by a MilSearch representative. 3. The survey was limited to narrow transects and areas of high ground visibility that had previously been cleared by MilSearch. This included the transects, mudflats and other areas clear of long grass. In the latter case, the MilSearch representatives cleared the area before we ventured into it. All but one small section of the transects were 3 m wide. The only exception to the use of the transects occurred when either a MillSearch representative cleared a path in front of us, or on open ground (such as the mudflats) where the MilSearch representative could clearly see the ground ahead of us. The spatial distribution of the transects was designed to ensure that all of the major topographic features on the landscape were encountered at least once. They were also spaced in such a way that large archaeological sites would not be missed. The transects were divided between the two teams and were intensively surveyed. These factors seriously limited the scope of the survey (i.e., the eastern part of the Priority Area has not been 100 % surveyed). B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-467


4. Although ground visibility was low, conventional ground-walking archaeological survey was employed for this study. The two teams intensively surveyed the ground, within the requisite areas delineated by MilSearch, for archaeological material. Whenever we came across a site, an individual Site Recording Form was completed (4.5 Annexure). GPS locations were recorded for each site we went to, and estimated using compass bearings for more distant sites we could not directly access; locations at these latter sites were identified from the 1:50,000 topographic map following informant interviews conducted in proximal locales. The cultural heritage site recordings were not aimed at mapping present-day land-use patterns, but historical sites that may potentially take a number of culturally meaningful expressions in the landscape. This might include the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) farm that was set up early last century (post-1906). Thus, the kinds of sites recorded are those sites that allow people to trace the present with the past. Such sites may include conventionally defined archaeological sites – that is, sites that have physical and potentially datable evidence of past activities, such as stone tools, pottery or wooden structural remains – or they may be ancestral or ‘origin’ sites for local village members or sacred sites which allow local people to spiritually connect with ancestral homelands (as per oral traditions). Thus present-day gardens, villages or bush camps have not been mapped in this cultural heritage study unless these are also said to have been historically significant places by clan members, or showed evidence of archaeological significance during the course of the surveys. Public and individual discussions and interviews were also held at Porebada, Boera, Papa and Lea Lea villages to ensure that cultural heritage sites within the Study Area known by local villagers were documented. During these interviews, various issues and concerns were raised by Koita and Motu individuals and representatives. Additionally, village representatives took members of the cultural heritage team to cultural places outside, but close to, the Survey Focus Area for field recording. These sites and issues are documented in various parts of this report, in particular section 4.5.10 and section 4.5.14 (survey results and recommendations, respectively).

4.5.5.2

Offshore LNG Facilities Component

It is important to note that this is the first time that formal maritime archaeological research has been undertaken in mainland PNG for EIS purposes. Therefore, there are no previous compilations that could be used as foundation documents, as this study entailed locating and exploring information sources previously not considered or consulted. The location, extent, availability and accessibility of these data sources varied greatly. In this way, the shallow marine investigations carried out during this consultancy set a benchmark for future consultancies. The archaeological team undertaking the Offshore LNG Facilities component fieldwork consisted of Dr Brad Duncan – Co-ordinating archaeologist and commercial diver (Monash University, Australia), Lyall Mills – Commercial diver, commercial dive supervisor and avocational archaeologist (Monash University, Australia), Scott Allen – Remote sensing specialist, commercial diver and avocational archaeologist (Monash University, Australia), Liz Kilpatrick – Archaeologist and commercial diver (Monash University, Australia), Gau Ario – Community representative (Papa village), Auda Delena – Community representative (Lea Lea village), and Moi Dobi – Community representative (Boera village)

4.5.5.2.1 Historical Sources Investigated Given an absence of pre-existing synthesized information or bibliographies for the Study Area, several local knowledgeable institutions were approached by which to establish a background history for the Caution Bay area. The archival collections of the following institutions were investigated for this purpose: •

PNG National Museum and Art Gallery (Department of Prehistory), Port Moresby.

•

PNG National Museum and Art Gallery (Department of Modern History), Port Moresby. B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-468


•

History Department of the University of PNG, Port Moresby.

•

Archaeology Department of the University of PNG, Port Moresby.

•

Ports PNG, Port Moresby.

•

PNG National Archives, Port Moresby.

•

National Research Institute, Port Moresby.

PNG National Museum and Art Gallery (Department of Prehistory). The Prehistory Archaeological Database was searched with the assistance of Curators Herman Mandui and Nick Araho. There were no known records of indigenous archaeological sites in the underwater section of the Study Area. PNG National Museum and Art Gallery (Department of Modern History). The Department of Modern History (DoMH) maintains a database of aircraft and other military wrecks and relics from WWII. DoMH also houses an extensive collection of military and civic maps, plans and charts, books, and databases of missing WWII aircraft. The entire map collection, missing aircraft database, and selected archival documents and publications were investigated with the assistance of the Curator Mark Katakumbe and Technician John Lelai. Archival research was concentrated in this facility to begin with, as the most likely anticipated maritime sites in the Study Area were historical shipwrecks, aircraft wrecks, defence sites and other historic infrastructure. Archaeology and History Departments, University of PNG. Interviews were conducted with Dr Matt Levingsley (Archaeology) and Professor Biama Kanasa (History) to ascertain the extent of previous research in the Caution Bay area. Biama Kanasa has undertaken historical research in this area (with particular reference to oral history documentation), and during the course of the archival research for the present Consultancy discussed his findings and previous publications with Brad Duncan. However, no previous maritime or post-European contact period archaeological investigation had been undertaken in the region. Ports PNG. Ports PNG control the movement of shipping in and out of all ports, and provide sea pilots to navigate large vessels. Although the organisation did not retain an archive of Notices to Mariners (as was anticipated), local sea pilots did have a detailed knowledge of the coastal waters and provided Brad Duncan with information not otherwise available, particularly regarding maritime defence facilities and the absence of shipwreck sites in the Caution Bay area. National Archives/National Library. Unfortunately, the National Archives and the PNG National Library were both closed during the period allocated for historical research. The latter was closed indefinitely for major refurbishment. Although one day’s research of the air crashes and airstrips folders (SN54) was subsequently undertaken on our behalf by a local contractor when the National Archives re-opened, results were negligible. Further research in the archives may reveal historical data pertinent to the Study Area. Areas recommended for further research include the following Series: •

Aerodromes and Air Services (GSS360) – includes air crashes and airstrips.

•

Air Services (SN19).

•

Airfields and Airline Services (SN54) – includes reports of air crashes.

•

Allied Geographical Studies (SN94) – includes aerial photography of military forces activities in WWII.

•

Armed Services (SN55).

•

Bomb Disposal (SN55). B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-469


•

Cemeteries (SN45) – includes Commonwealth war graves and Japanese graves.

•

Cemeteries (GSS365) – includes graves of National and Australian servicemen; Customs and Trade (GSS370).

•

Defence (GSS400).

•

District and Departmental Annual Reports (SN100).

•

Folding Maps - British New Guinea (SN664).

•

Lands, Surveys and Mines (SN70).

•

Patrol Reports (SN659) – includes social, economic and political reports 1900-1980.

•

Public Services (GSS395) – includes wharves and jetties.

•

Scrap Metal Disposal (SN24).

National Research Institute. The National Research Institute holds an extensive collection of PNG literature and historical records in their library. A brief search of this collection for primary shipping records and WWII defence records did not reveal any relevant sources, although more detailed research in the institution’s library may hold hitherto unknown details. PNG Department of Defence. Planned research with the PNG Department of Defence did not take place, due to difficulties in arranging meetings with senior Defence Department personnel. The PNG Defence Forces may hold an archive including information applicable to this study. However, given the Australian administration of PNG until 1975, it is likely that most documentation relating to military activities during WWII is held at the Australian War Memorial Archives (see below). Other PNG Sources. Other potential PNG avenues of enquiry identified but not explored due to time constraints included divers and seamen associated with The Underwater Explorers Club of PNG (Port Moresby Branch), and the Port Moresby Yacht Club. Australian War Memorial. The Australian War Memorial (Canberra, Australia) holds extensive records regarding Australian and Allied wartime activities. Selected pictorial collections have been searched on-line (see http://www.awm.gov.au/database/cas.asp), although further investigation of these sources is recommended. Details of files relevant to PNG military activities are outlined in Kanasa (1996). National Archives of Australia. Previous research by Mr Peter Taylor of the Maritime Archaeological Association of Victoria (Australia) of the National Archives of Australia (Victorian Branch) had identified files regarding WWII war wrecks in PNG. However, no information regarding ship or plane wrecks in the Caution Bay area was contained in these files.

4.5.5.2.2 Fieldwork and Site Recording Methods The cultural heritage sites documented in this report occur within the area known as Caution Bay, which extends from Redscar Head in the north, to Idihi Island in the south and all the areas east to Boera Head. Sites were deemed to be any place showing physical evidence of cultural heritage, regardless of size or antiquity. Site identification proceeded in the following way: Oral Histories. Oral histories form a significant resource for identifying archaeological and traditional sites, and can often be utilised to definitively locate previously undocumented maritime sites (see Duncan, 2007:44). Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, oral histories were collected from the three villages located close to the Study Area. Starting from the north proceeding southwards, these villages were Lea Lea, Papa and Boera. Interviews were undertaken with fishermen and other local people who had a demonstrated knowledge of the offshore regions. Dr James Weiner (personal B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-470


communication 2008), who had been undertaking a concurrent social anthropological survey of these villages, had observed that the people of Boera and Lea Lea made greater economic use of the ocean than those at Papa do, as the former villages had predominantly fishing-based economies, whereas the latter was more terrestrially based. Hence, the collecting of fishermen’s oral histories for purposes of this report was concentrated at Boera and Lea Lea, with a greater emphasis on terrestrial areas and mangroves undertaken at Papa. Fishermen in all three villages demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the underwater landscape in the areas utilised for their fishing activities. Most of the fishing in this region is today undertaken by freediving from small outrigger canoes to spear fish and crayfish, and to collect molluscs (giant clams and sea urchins) and bêche-de-mer (sea cucumbers). Consequently, local fishermen possess an intimate knowledge of the submerged topography and reefs, along with archaeological sites found in those locations. It should be noted that as underwater wreck sites frequently provide an attractive habitat for fish, it was highly probable that local fishermen would know the location of any wrecks in the region. Three community representatives (one from each village: Auda Delena at Lea Lea, Gau Ario at Papa and Moi Dobi at Boera) accompanied the fieldwork crew on a boat-visit to the Study Area to locate archaeological sites. Later, after consultation with village elders and other fishermen/villagers, the representatives produced a map of Caution Bay showing the location of known archaeological and traditional sites, along with the names of local reefs used and associated with traditional fishing rights (Figure 4.5.6). Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, a number of researchers and government officers who had detailed knowledge of the Study Area and now resident in Port Moresby were interviewed to collect oral histories of any activities they had undertaken in and around the Study Area, as well as their knowledge of potential sites. These people included: •

Environmental consultant (John Douglas).

•

Local avocational archaeologists and divers (Neil Whiting, John Miller).

•

World War II veteran from Papa (Ben Moidé).

•

Members of the PNG bomb squad (Lt Tui Gaileko, Petty Officer Steven Yamun, Leading Seaman Ausa Tau and Sub-lieutenant Allan Mitmit).

•

Ports PNG pilot (Captain Charles Kabilu).



Figure 4.5.6 Map of traditional places and known archaeological sites produced by representatives of Boera, Papa and Lea Lea. From map drawn by Auda Delena, Gau Ario and Moi Dobi. Red areas are locations of locally known ship or plane wrecks. All informants were asked to indicate the position of sites that they knew of on copies of Aus Chart 379. Informants were also requested (where possible) to accompany the survey team to locate and document sites, and GPS co-ordinates were taken for such sites. Where the site has not been visited in this current study, or the location could not be confirmed by survey, the approximate location as indicated by the informant has been provided. Remote Sensing Fieldwork: Magnetometer. The fieldwork used two kinds of remote sensing equipment, magnetometre and Side-scan Sonar. Here we give some basic details of how these instruments work, for it is the first time that they have been used in EIS consultancies in PNG, and understanding their potentials and limitations is important for the interpretation of results. A proton magnetometer is used to detect magnetic anomalies on or immediately below the seabed. A proton precession magnetometer works through its utilisation of the precession of spinning protons or nuclei of hydrogen atoms within a sample of hydrocarbon fluid to measure total magnetic intensity. The spinning protons are contained inside a sealed unit (usually referred to as the ‘fish’) towed behind B. David, B. Duncan, M. Leavesley 4-472


a vessel. These spinning protons inside the fish behave as small magnetic dipoles, which are temporarily aligned to a uniform magnetic field generated through the application of a current through a coil inside the unit. When the current is removed, the spin of the protons causes them to precess (i.e. slowly spin) about the direction of the ambient or earth’s magnetic field, in the same way that a spinning top moves around the earth’s gravity field. A small signal is then generated by the precessing protons in the coil, proportional to the total magnetic field intensity for the area at that moment (Breiner, n.d.:3). A simplified explanation of this process is as follows: when the induced magnetism from the current is switched off, the free floating protons inside the ‘fish’ align themselves in the direction of the magnetic polar alignment of any anomalies encountered beneath it. As the unit passes over an anomaly, there will be a sharp increase in magnetic readings in one direction as it passes over the magnetic extremity (or pole) of the object. The direction will return to the centre as the ‘fish’ passes the object’s middle, and then move to another sharp peak in the opposite direction as it passes the corresponding magnetic pole. These fluctuations give indications of the strength of magnetic anomalies, which are proportional to the distance from, size and/or metal content of the object encountered (Figure 4.5.7). Figure 4.5.8 is a nomogram used to determine the size of search lanes based on the possible target size. Note that 1 pound of iron 10 m away from the magnetometer will give the same reading as 1 ton of iron that is 38 m away. Therefore, although a magnetometer can detect the presence of an anomaly, it cannot independently determine the size of the object or its distance away from the unit. Consequently it is imperative to record the depth of the area being investigated in order to be able to interpret the output data.



Figure 4.5.7 Demonstration of magnetometer readout as the unit passes over a site. Note: high readings as the unit passes over each of the object’s magnetic polar regions.

Figure 4.5.8 Nomogram showing the relationship between signal strength (nano teslas) and distance from the magnetometer head (from Breiner, no date:43).



Magnetometers can detect magnetism and anomalies not associated with cultural heritage sites, such as those created by the surface and subsurface geology (especially igneous formations), as well as by outliers or sediments derived from these. Because the magnetometer reads anomalies relative to the background magnetic field intensity, the nature of the geology and geomorphology of a Study Area may reduce or effectively mask any anomalies resulting from cultural features. It is thus important to interpret signals in relation to those of the background geology. During fieldwork, a Wreckhunter Mk5 proton magnetometer was towed approximately 50 m behind the boat. This unit has a range of up to 100 m on either side of the magnetometer head dependent on distance from the target (usually related to water depth). A paper-trace readout recorded the geographical extent of each anomaly and was continually monitored in real time during the survey in conjunction with the side-scan sonar survey results (see below). Remote Sensing Fieldwork: Side-scan Sonar. Side-scan sonars will detect any structures and objects which protrude above the seabed. The side-scan unit works by projecting a sonic beam from a transducer at an angle towards the seabed. When an object protruding above the seabed is encountered, the beam reflects back to the fish head (see Figure 4.5.9). However, subsequent sonic beam pulses (from the ‘fish’) will continue beyond the raised object until they hit the seabed, where a similar return signal will be reflected back to the ‘fish’ head. Analysis of the returned beam signals produces a sharp solid reading for the raised object itself (usually a bright white readout) with a dark ‘shadow’ behind the object. The height of the anomaly can be calculated by an equation which measures the distance from the unit to the object proportional to the distance of the shadow (see Fish and Carr, 1990:84).

Figure 4.5.9 Demonstration of side-scan sonar principles of use (from Fish and Carr, 1990:84). The simplest way to visualise this concept is to compare the side-scan to the effects of shining a torch on an object. The front of the object will be brightly illuminated by the beam, while a dark shadow whose length will correspond to the distance away from and angle of the beam and the size of the object will be produced behind it. Examples of the expected types of sites that might be found in the Study Area (and which were recorded elsewhere by us using the same equipment used in this fieldwork) are shown below (Figure 4.5.10). The side-scan unit was tested in Melbourne prior to fieldwork to calibrate the unit signals against known underwater site types. These include aircraft crash sites, along with intact shipwrecks and wreckage. As can be seen, these are very distinctive signatures which can be easily distinguished against other potential features such as reefs.



Figure 4.5.10 Left: Aeroplane wreck, Port Phillip Bay, Victoria (Australia). Note the shadow in the middle of the white area (fuselage) caused by an upright wing stump. Middle: Ship wreckage site, Port Phillip Bay. Right: Intact shipwreck in Yarra River, Melbourne. In the Offshore LNG Facilities component of the field surveys, a Burton M1 side-scan sonar ‘fish’ (Plate 4.5.1, left) was trailed approximately 15 m behind the boat at a depth of 1-2 m below the surface. This model of side-scan only reads to the port side of the ‘fish’ head (single beam only) and, hence, lane spacing was adjusted accordingly to ensure complete coverage of each area. The equipment was set to read up to 65 m from the ‘fish’ head, which affords a seabed coverage of up to 63.25 m in 13 m-deep water. Side-scan sonar readings were linked to an internal GPS unit to determine the exact location of the ‘fish’ head. Screen readout was constantly monitored during survey runs to detect any anomalies (Plate 4.5.1, right). Later interpretation of these results were undertaken using Lowrance side-scan sonar (version 1.2.2) interpretation software, which provided clearer images of anomalies than the Burton M1 unit monitor. These images were used to determine the location of each anomaly from the output data. The location of each anomaly was calculated by extracting the ‘fish’ location from the sonar readout, plotting the depth from GIS chart coverage, and then calculating the position of the anomaly on the seabed based on depth and diagonal distance from the sonar. The results were plotted using GIS software and subsequently physically investigated by divers.

Plate 4.5.1

Left: Side-scan sonar ‘fish’ rigged for shallow water in the dinghy. Right: Sidescan sonar monitor.

Limitations of Remote Sensing Surveys. As noted in section 4.5.6.7 below, in highly dynamic areas with a hard substrate (in this case coral and reef), archaeological sites such as planes and shipwrecks are likely to be flattened and scattered over the seabed (Riley, 1997). This observation has implications for detection of sites using side-scan sonar, as archaeological sites on high-energy reeftop areas may not be distinguishable from the surrounding coral structure. In tropical areas where coral growth is often accelerated, archaeological sites can be completely subsumed by coral in relatively short timeframes, often masking their presence completely.



Although archaeological sites may survive relatively intact in cases of a softer seabed matrix (such as sand, silt or mud), they may not be visible or detectable above the seabed if they are covered completely. Furthermore, long-shore drift, currents and extreme weather events (storms and the like) can also periodically strip and/or cover large areas of seabed. Brad Duncan has observed numerous cases where shipwreck and maritime infrastructure sites have been suddenly revealed after large storms, only to be buried again within the space of a few days (e.g. the Port Albert Unidentified Wreck, documented in Duncan, 1995). In these cases, although sites may not be evident with a side-scan sonar, it may still be possible to detect associated magnetic items (if any exist) which lie either on or below the seabed surface. However, it should be noted that if there are no magnetic anomalies associated with a buried archaeological site (e.g. a timber shipwreck with no iron fittings onboard), it may prove impossible to detect it without other more localised and intensive remote sensing techniques (e.g. metal detector/sub-bottom profiling), or invasive techniques such as excavation. To further complicate the situation, even if anomalies are detected via remote sensing, water turbidity and low visibility may still affect the ability of divers to adequately locate, identify or record associated archaeological sites. It should therefore be noted that even though an area may have been surveyed using side-scan sonar, magnetometer or visual inspections, the possibility always exists that undetected archaeological sites may exist below the seabed. It is usually not possible to locate low-density pottery scatters with a magnetometer or side-scan sonar as they do not exhibit high profiles (visible to side-scan sonar) and do not produce magnetic signatures (detectable by a magnetometer). However, high-density pottery scatters can be detected by magnetometer surveys, as was recently the case near Epemeavo village in the Gulf Province (Ian Moffat, personal communication 2008). Remote Sensing Surveys: Survey Lanes Methodology. In deeper water (between 5 -13 m) the sidescan sonar and magnetometer units were towed behind the mother-ship (MV Lauta Marata), with enough spacing between them to ensure that the side-scan unit was not influencing the magnetometer readings. The side-scan was trailed 10 m with the magnetometer at 50 m behind the vessel. When in shallower water (