trustpower palmer wind farm development …...sa guidelines based on background noise monitoring...

Trustpower Palmer Wind Farm

Development Application Report Volume 4

Noise Impact Assessment Report

Sonus Pty Ltd 17 Ruthven Avenue

ADELAIDE SA 5000 Phone: 08 8231 2100

Facsimile: 08 8231 2122 www.sonus.com.au

ABN: 67 882 843 130 Contact: Jason Turner

M: 0410 920 122 E: [email protected]

PALMER WIND FARM

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT

Prepared For

Trustpower Truman Road

Te Maunga, Mt Maunganui

S4171C12 August 2014

GLOSSARY

Sonus Pty Ltd 17 Ruthven Avenue Adelaide SA 5000

Phone: +61 8 8231 2100 www.sonus.com.au

http://www.sonus.com.au/

Palmer Wind Farm Environmental Noise Assessment S4171C12 August 2014

Page 1

A-weighting Frequency adjustment applied to measured noise levels to replicate the frequency response of the human ear.

Ambient noise level The noise level of all existing noise sources in the environment (in the absence of the wind farm).

Background noise level The ambient noise level which excludes intermittent noise sources.

CONCAWE The oil companies’ international study group for conservation of clean air and water - Europe, The propagation of noise from petrochemical complexes to neighbouring communities (May 1981).

Day The period between 7am and 10pm.

dB(A) A-weighted noise or sound power level in decibels.

EPA Environment Protection Authority

Equivalent noise level Energy averaged noise level.

LA90,10 A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of a 10 minute time period. Represents the background noise level.

LAeq,10 A-weighted equivalent noise of a 10 minute time period.

Night The period between 10pm and 7am.

SA Guidelines Wind Farms Environmental Noise Guidelines 2009

Sound power level A measure of the sound energy emitted from a source of noise.

Weather category 6 Weather category which is most conducive for the propagation of noise, resulting in the highest predicted noise levels when using CONCAWE.

WHO World Health Organisation

WHO Guidelines WHO Guidelines for Community Noise

Worst-case Conditions resulting in the highest noise level at residences.

WTG Wind turbine generator


Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................ 0

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Project Site............................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Proposed Wind Farm ............................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Predictions ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Assessment Method ............................................................................................................. 5

2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................. 6

3 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Development Plan ................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Wind Farms Environmental Noise Guidelines 2009 .......................................................... 8

3.3 WHO Guidelines .................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 10

4 BACKGROUND NOISE MONITORING AND RESULTANT CRITERIA ..................................... 11

4.1 Monitoring Location ............................................................................................................ 11

4.2 Equipment ............................................................................................................................ 12

4.3 Collected Data ..................................................................................................................... 13

4.4 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 14

4.5 Resultant Noise Criteria ..................................................................................................... 16

5 NOISE PREDICTIONS AND ASSESSMENT............................................................................... 17

5.1 Noise Sources and Sound Power Levels ......................................................................... 17

5.2 Noise Propagation Model ................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Predicted Noise Levels and Comparison against the Relevant Noise Criteria ............ 20

5.4 Future Assessment ............................................................................................................. 23

6 OTHER NOISE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 24

6.1 Audible Noise ...................................................................................................................... 24

6.2 Impacts on Animals ............................................................................................................ 24

6.3 Infrasound ............................................................................................................................ 25

6.4 Experience ........................................................................................................................... 26

6.5 Atmospheric Stability ......................................................................................................... 28

6.6 Accuracy of Noise Propagation Model ............................................................................. 28

6.7 Background Noise Monitoring Location ........................................................................... 29

6.8 Noise from Breeding Poultry ............................................................................................. 29

6.9 Low Frequency Noise ......................................................................................................... 31


Page 3

6.10 Complaint response ............................................................................................................ 32

6.11 Construction and blasing impacts .................................................................................... 32

7 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 33

APPENDIX A: PROPOSED WIND FARM LAYOUT AND NOISE SOURCES ................................... 34

APPENDIX B: CLOSEST RESIDENCES TO THE PROPOSED WIND FARM .................................. 36

APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS OF EQUIPMENT AT MONITORING LOCATIONS ........................ 39

APPENDIX D: CORRELATIONS AND REGRESSION ANALYSES .................................................. 76

APPENDIX E: NOISE CRITERIA AT EACH RESIDENCE .................................................................. 85

APPENDIX F: PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL CONTOUR ..................................................................... 88


Page 4

1 INTRODUCTION

Sonus Pty Ltd has been engaged by Trustpower to conduct an environmental noise

assessment of the proposed Palmer Wind Farm.

The assessment has been made in accordance with the 2009 South Australian Wind farms

environmental noise guidelines (SA Guidelines). The SA Guidelines were established to

ensure a wind farm project does not unreasonably interfere with the acoustic amenity of the

surrounding community and therefore provides an objective assessment method for the

purposes of comparison with the relevant Development Plan provisions.

1.1 Project Site

The proposed Palmer Wind Farm is located approximately 50km east of Adelaide, near

Palmer and Tungkillo, in South Australia. The project site is approximately 30km long

(generally located on ridgelines) comprising an area of approximately 10,000 hectares. The

project is within the Mid Murray Council area.

1.2 Proposed Wind Farm

The proposed wind farm will comprise up to 114 wind turbine generators (WTGs), with a

height (to blade tip) of up to 165 m, an approximate installed capacity of up to 375 MW and a

substation with two transformers each rated at approximately 200 MVA.

Appendix A provides the layout of the proposed wind farm.


Page 5

1.3 Predictions

Noise predictions were conducted using the CONCAWE1 noise propagation model under

worst-case meteorological conditions. For the purposes of the assessment and to show that

the proposed layout can achieve the SA Guidelines, the predictions were based on the

Vestas V117-3.3MW WTG, having a hub height of 91.5 m and blade length of 57.15m to

provide a contemporary WTG selection with a tower height and blade length combination

within the 165m height and a noise level within the upper end of the range. The predictions

were conducted for each integer wind speed ranging from the cut-in wind speed (3 m/s) to

the rated power wind speed (14 m/s).

The noise from the wind farm was predicted to residences located in the vicinity of the wind

farm (refer Appendix B).

1.4 Assessment Method

Environmental noise criteria at the residences were established in accordance with the

SA Guidelines based on background noise monitoring conducted at 18 locations in the

vicinity of the project site.

Predicted noise levels at the residences and at vacant land within rural living zones were

compared against the relevant noise criteria.

The WTG layout has been modified through the planning design process to ensure

compliance with the criteria.

The assessment of operational noise from the proposed Palmer Wind Farm will be repeated

during the procurement stage to demonstrate that the final turbine selection and final layout

will achieve compliance with the project criteria prior to construction.

1 CONCAWE - The oil companies’ international study group for conservation of clean air and water – Europe, ‘The propagation of noise from petrochemical complexes to neighbouring communities’, May 1981.


Page 6

2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The subject land is located within a Rural Zone of the Mid Murray Council Development

Plan2. The Development Plan has been reviewed and particular regard has been given to

the following provisions:

Council Wide Provisions

OBJECTIVES Interface Between Land Uses Objective 25: Development located and designed to prevent adverse impact and conflict between

land uses. Objective 26: Protect community health and amenity and support the operation of all desired land

uses. Renewable Energy Objective 98: Location, siting, design and operation of renewable energy facilities to avoid or

minimise adverse impacts on the natural environment and other land uses. PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL Interface Between Land Uses 87. Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable

interference through any of the following: ... (b) noise; ...

88. Development should be designed and sited to minimise negative impact on existing and potential future land uses considered appropriate in the locality.

2 Consolidated 24th October 2013.


Page 7

Noise 92. Development should be designed, constructed and sited to minimise negative impacts of noise

and to avoid unreasonable interference.

93. Development should be consistent with the relevant provisions in the current Environment Protection (Noise) Policy.

Rural Zone Provisions

Noise Pollution OBJECTIVE

Objective 16: Protection of sensitive uses from external noise. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 12. Development designed to minimise adverse acoustic impacts on adjoining uses which would be

sensitive to acoustic interference.

The residences considered in this assessment are predominantly located within a Rural

Zone of the Mid Murray Council Development Plan. Residences and vacant land within the

vicinity of the wind farm are also located within a Rural Living (Sanderston) Zone, Rural

Living (Palmer) Zone, and Service Centre (Palmer) Zone. Appendix B provides the

coordinates and the zoning of the residences in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm, which

have been considered in the assessment.


Page 8

3 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Development Plan

Council Wide Principle of Development Control 93 makes reference to the “current”

Environment Protection (Noise) Policy (EPP). The current EPP is the Environment

Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

The South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has produced ‘Guidelines’

specifically for the assessment of environmental noise from wind farms. The EPP refers to

these Guidelines. Clause 34.(1) of the EPP applies the Guidelines to wind farms, and

clauses 10 and 17 exclude wind farm noise from assessment under the general provisions of

the EPP.

The Guidelines were first published in 2003. Following the release, several draft and interim

versions were considered prior to the current Wind farms environmental noise guidelines

being released in July 2009.

3.2 Wind Farms Environmental Noise Guidelines 2009

The Wind Farms Environmental Noise Guidelines 2009 (the SA Guidelines) provide the most

appropriate noise criteria and approach to assess noise from wind farms in South Australia.

The SA Guidelines state:

The predicted equivalent noise level (LAeq,10), adjusted for tonality in accordance with these guidelines, should not exceed:

35 dB(A) at relevant receivers in localities which are primarily intended for rural living, or

40 dB(A) at relevant receivers in localities in other zones, or

the background noise (LA90,10) by more than 5 dB(A)

whichever is greater, at all relevant receivers for wind speed3 from cut-in to rated power of the WTG and each integer wind speed in between.

3 Where wind speed is referenced in this report, it is taken to be the wind speed measured at the

WTG hub height, in accordance with the SA Guidelines, unless specifically noted otherwise.


Page 9

Where the wind farm noise exhibits a tonal characteristic, a 5 dB(A) penalty is to be applied

to the criteria, in accordance with the SA Guidelines.

In addition, the SA Guidelines note that:

The criteria have been developed to minimise the impact on the amenity of premises that do not have an agreement with the wind farm developers.

3.3 WHO Guidelines

Where landowners form a commercial agreement with the wind farm developer, the noise

criteria at their residences will be different to that at landowners without any such agreement,

as noted above.

Commercial agreements are generally formed with landowners who have a turbine installed

on land with the same title as the dwelling. Commercial agreements have also been formed

with landowners who have a turbine installed on land on a different title. In that

circumstance, the agreement is registered on both titles.

To protect landowners with an agreement from unreasonable interference to amenity,

reference is made to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise

(WHO Guidelines). The WHO Guidelines recommend an indoor level of 30 dB(A) is

achieved to protect against sleep disturbance. The indoor limit of 30 dB(A) equates to an

outdoor noise level of 45 dB(A) with windows open or 52 dB(A) with windows closed.

It is proposed that the WHO Guidelines criterion of 45 dB(A) will be used as the baseline

noise level at residences of landowners with a commercial agreement. Appendix B identifies

these landowners.

In circumstances where the predicted noise level at a landowner’s dwelling with a

commercial agreement is above the SA Guidelines baseline noise level but within the WHO

Guidelines criterion of 45 dB(A), a simulation of a wind farm generating a noise level of

45 dB(A) has been provided. Reference to the simulation will be included in the agreement


Page 10

with the respective landowner. The simulations were provided for landowners of dwellings

designated as R3, R7, R40, R49, R50 and R139.

Table 5.3 of this assessment provides the predicted noise levels at residences and vacant

land in the rural living zone in the vicinity of the wind farm. Table 5.3 indicates that the

predicted noise levels exceed 45 dB(A) at R139. The commercial agreement for that

landowner includes a provision which precludes habitation of the dwelling where the noise

levels from the wind farm exceed 45 dB(A).

3.4 Summary

Table 3.1 summarises the applicable noise criteria.

Table 3.1: Applicable noise requirements. Landowners Zone Noise Criteria

Without commercial agreement

Rural Living (Sanderston) Rural Living (Palmer)

35 dB(A), or background noise (LA90,10) plus 5 dB(A),

whichever is greater.

Rural Service Centre (Palmer)



With commercial agreement Any



It is noted that the rural living zone criteria have also been applied at the boundary of vacant

land (of landowners without a commercial agreement) for this assessment in accordance

with the SA Guidelines.


Page 11

4 BACKGROUND NOISE MONITORING AND RESULTANT CRITERIA

To determine the background noise levels at various wind speeds, background noise

monitoring was conducted at 18 locations in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm between

16 October 2013 and 11 June 2014. The background noise monitoring was conducted in

accordance with the SA Guidelines.

4.1 Monitoring Location

The monitoring locations, summarised in Table 4.1, were selected based on preliminary

predictions of the wind farm noise, unless noted otherwise. Preference was given to

residential locations with the highest predicted noise levels and without commercial

agreements, subject to permission being granted by the landowner to place a noise logger.

Table 4.1: Monitoring locations and periods.

Monitoring Location ID

Coordinates (UTM WGS84 Z54) Monitoring Period

Easting Northing ML3 337735 6157774 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML14 333202 6146876 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML22 328852 6143322 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML24 329779 6142759 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML28 330852 6139690 30/04/2014 – 11/06/2014 ML32 331538 6149927 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML34 332639 6149843 04/11/2013 – 15/01/2014 ML42 329052 6149495 27/11/2013 – 15/01/2014 ML43 328360 6149942 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML45 325844 6145770 06/02/2014 – 21/03/2014 ML51 325224 6138832 27/11/2013 – 15/01/2014 ML55 327214 6136522 04/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML90 329320 6150333 16/10/2013 – 27/11/2013 ML91 329811 6149808 16/10/2013 – 27/11/2013 ML94 332133 6150275 04/11/2013 – 15/01/2014 ML100 337371 6156935 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML116 331672 6142729 16/10/2013 – 27/11/2013 ML119 331971 6149790 27/11/2013 – 15/01/2014

Notes: 1. Background noise monitoring was conducted at ML3 to provide an indication of the typical background noise levels at the nearby vacant rural living allotments. The monitoring location designated as ML3 is adjacent VL7.

2. Extended monitoring was required at ML34 and ML94 to record 6 weeks of data. 3. Background noise monitoring at ML28 and ML45 was conducted after the main

regime at the request of the landowners.


Page 12

The noise monitoring equipment was located such that the measured background noise

levels are representative of the background noise environment experienced at the dwellings.

Specifically, the noise monitoring equipment was placed within 30 m of the dwellings (at

least 5 m away from any reflecting surface), on the side facing the wind farm. The equipment

was positioned at an equivalent distance from the facade of the dwelling as any tall trees

and fixed noise sources (such as air conditioning units, water pumps, electrical transformers

and generators).

Photographs of the monitoring equipment at each location are provided in Appendix C.

4.2 Equipment

The background noise was measured using Rion NL-21 (Type 2), NL-31 (Type 1) and NL-52

(Type 1) sound level meters, all of which have a noise floor less than 20 dB(A). The sound

level meters were calibrated at the beginning and end of the measurement period with a

Rion NC74 Calibrator. All microphones were fitted with weather proof windshields, with the

microphone positioned approximately 1.5 m above ground level.

Local weather loggers were also deployed which measured rainfall and wind speed at

approximately the microphone height. The rainfall and wind speed data were collected to

determine the periods when weather directly on the microphone may have influenced the

measured background noise levels in the vicinity. Table 4.2 summarises the location and

monitoring period of the local weather loggers.

Table 4.2: Weather logger details. Monitoring Location ID Monitoring Period

ML28 30/04/2014 – 11/06/2014 ML43 01/11/2013 – 17/12/2013 ML45 06/02/2014 – 21/03/2014 ML91 16/10/2013 – 27/11/2013

ML119 27/11/2013 – 15/01/2014


Page 13

4.3 Collected Data

The background noise level (LA90,10) was measured continuously, in 10 minute intervals, at

each monitoring location over the respective monitoring periods.

During the background noise monitoring period, Trustpower measured the average wind

speed and direction at a wind mast located at the wind farm site. The wind data were

measured in 10 minute intervals, at various measurement heights. Table 4.3 provides details

of the wind mast.

Table 4.3: Wind mast details.

Mast ID Coordinates

(UTM WGS84 z54) Measurement Heights (m)

Easting Northing SAN01 329067 6146261 71, 70, 60, 51.5, 29

The SA Guidelines specify that the background noise should be correlated with wind speeds

at the WTG hub height. The wind speeds at hub height are calculated from the data

collected at multiple measurement heights using the power law wind profile model:

(

)

where, U is the wind speed at height h;

U0 is the reference wind speed at reference height ho;

is the shear coefficient.

The shear coefficient is estimated for each set of 10 minute average wind speeds using

measurements at the different anemometer heights on mast SAN01. In the first instance,

measurements at 71 m and 60 m are considered. If a negative shear coefficient is

calculated, measurements at 71 m and 51.5 m are then considered. If a negative shear

coefficient is still calculated, the shear coefficient is set to zero.


Page 14

The wind speed at hub height (i.e., 91.5 m above ground level) can then be determined for

each 10 minute data point using the formula above, adapted as follows:

(

)

where, U91.5 is the hub height wind speed;

U71 is the wind speed measured at the highest point on the wind mast, at 71 m above ground level;

is the time-dependent shear coefficient profile determined for that particular data point.

4.4 Data Analysis

Prior to correlation and regression analysis, the following data were removed:

data points corresponding to any periods of measured rainfall (including the

10 minute periods before and after the recorded period) and/or measured wind speed

exceeding 5 m/s at the microphone height for more than 90% of the measurement

period;

data points corresponding to wind speeds below the cut-in (3 m/s) and above the

rated power (14 m/s) wind speeds4; and,

data points clearly influenced by extraneous noise sources.

Table 4.4 summarises the number of data points at each monitoring location and the number

of downwind data points, following data removal.

4 The cut-in and rated power wind speeds for the Vestas V117-3.3MW model.


Page 15

Table 4.4: Useable data points.


Number of Data Points Total Downwind [Direction]

ML3 5239 1520 [254 ± 45] ML14 5235 516 [352 ± 45]

ML22 5227 2249 [235 ± 45] 614 [321 ± 45]

ML24 5231 695 [42 ± 45] ML28 4868 974 [204 ± 45] ML32 5240 2778 [181 ± 45] ML34 5407 1155 [121 ± 45] ML42 6182 3063 [208 ± 45] ML43 4927 2124 [233 ± 45] ML45 5452 720 [91 ± 45] ML51 6180 764 [19 ± 45] ML55 4850 589 [86 ± 45] ML90 5335 2088 [239 ± 45] ML91 5339 3238 [182 ± 45] ML94 6325 3485 [197 ± 45]

ML100 5240 1188 [285 ± 45] ML116 5340 626 [329 ± 45] ML119 6189 2972 [195 ± 45]

Note: ML22 is located between two clusters of WTGs, with similar order of distance to the closest WTG at each cluster. Therefore, the downwind direction for each cluster is considered.

The resultant background noise data for each monitoring location were correlated with the

wind speed data measured at wind mast SAN01. A least squares regression analysis of the

data was undertaken to determine the line of best fit for the correlations in accordance with

the SA Guidelines. The data and the regression curves5 are shown in Appendix D. Based

on the regression analysis, the background noise level (LA90,10) at integer wind speeds for the

range between cut-in and rated power wind speeds is provided in Table 4.5.

5 The correlation coefficient for each regression curve indicates the relationship between the

background noise at the dwelling and the wind speed at the wind farm site. A low correlation coefficient indicates a limited relationship, as will naturally occur in many circumstances including locations that are shielded from the winds across the wind farm site, rather than indicating any deficiency in the data or its analysis.


Page 16

Table 4.5: Background noise levels (dB(A)).


Background Noise Level (dB(A)) at Integer Wind Speeds 3 m/s 4 m/s 5 m/s 6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s 11 m/s 12 m/s 13 m/s 14 m/s

ML3 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 28 28 ML14 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 ML22 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 35 36 38 41 44 ML24 25 25 26 27 28 30 31 33 35 38 41 44 ML28 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 28 ML32 27 27 28 28 30 31 33 34 36 37 38 39 ML34 24 23 23 24 26 28 30 33 35 37 39 41 ML42 32 31 31 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 41 43 ML43 24 25 26 28 30 32 34 35 37 38 38 38 ML45 28 28 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 37 38 ML51 27 27 27 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 37 39 ML55 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 32 34 35 37 ML90 29 28 29 30 31 33 35 37 38 39 40 39 ML91 26 25 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 34 ML94 25 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 36

ML100 25 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 33 32 30 ML116 30 29 28 28 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 37 ML119 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 36 38 40 42 44

4.5 Resultant Noise Criteria

The background noise levels in Table 4.5 have been used to establish noise criteria for each

residence and at vacant land in the rural living zones, in accordance with the SA Guidelines

and the WHO recommendations as relevant and as summarised in Table 3.1. The resultant

noise critieria are provided in Appendix E.

Where background noise monitoring has not occurred at a residence, the measured

background levels at the closest monitoring location, on the same side of the wind farm as

the residence, have been used to derive the criteria.

The background noise monitoring results at ML3 have been used in lieu of the results at

ML100 to provide more conservative critieria for residences and vacant land in the vicinity of

these monitoring locations.


Page 17

5 NOISE PREDICTIONS AND ASSESSMENT

5.1 Noise Sources and Sound Power Levels

The proposed wind farm layout comprises 114 WTGs and a substation with two

transformers. The wind farm layout and the coordinates of the WTGs and substation are

provided in Appendix A.

The assessment has been based on the Vestas V117-3.3MW WTGs, having a hub height of

91.5 m. The Vestas V117-3.3MW WTGs have a cut-in wind speed of 3 m/s and rated power

wind speed of 14 m/s. The two transformers at the substation have been based on units

having a maximum rating of approximately 200 MVA each.

The sound power levels for the Vestas V117-3.3MW WTG and the 200 MVA transformers

are provided in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 (respectively), which have been based on the

following:

manufacturer’s sound power level data for the WTG model, which include octave

band data, provided in V117-3.3MW-IEC2A Third Octaves according to General

Specification, Document No. DMS0038-6455-V00, dated 7 June 2013; and,

derived sound power levels for transformers from the Australian/New Zealand

Standard AS/NZS60076.10:2009, Power transformers - Determination of sound

levels (IEC 60076-10, Ed. 1(2001) MOD).

It is noted that the sound power level data provided by the manufacturer corresponds to

integer wind speeds referenced at 10 m above ground level, in accordance with the

international standard (ISO61400-116) under which it is measured. To obtain sound power

levels which reference the integer wind speeds at hub height, linear interpolation was

conducted.

6 International Standard IEC 61400-11:2006 Wind turbine generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic

noise measurements techniques.


Page 18

Table 5.1: Vestas V117-3.3MW sound power levels. Hub Height Wind Speed

(m/s)

SWL (dB(A)) for each Octave Band Centre Frequency Total SWL (dB(A)) 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz

3 (cut-in) 81.8 86.9 88.5 88.0 88.1 84.5 81.2 75.4 94.9 4 81.8 86.9 88.5 88.0 88.1 84.5 81.2 75.4 94.9 5 83.3 88.4 90.0 89.5 89.6 86.0 82.7 76.9 96.4 6 83.1 89.0 92.1 92.9 92.5 88.6 84.5 76.4 98.7 7 85.7 91.6 94.7 95.5 95.2 91.3 87.1 79.0 101.3 8 85.2 92.6 96.5 98.3 97.6 93.9 89.0 78.8 103.5 9 85.3 93.8 97.7 100.1 99.6 96.3 90.9 79.5 105.3 10 86.6 94.9 98.2 101.0 101.1 98.5 92.7 81.0 106.5 11 87.0 95.2 98.6 101.3 101.5 98.8 93.1 81.3 106.9 12 88.5 95.3 97.8 100.7 101.8 100.0 94.2 82.5 107.0 13 90.1 94.8 97.0 99.9 101.9 100.8 95.1 83.5 107.0 14

(rated power) 90.1 94.8 97.0 99.9 101.9 100.8 95.1 83.5 107.0

Table 5.2: Transformer sound power levels.

Transformer Rating

SWL (dB(A)) for each Octave Band Centre Frequency Total SWL (dB(A)) 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz

200 MVA 77.3 85.4 92.9 95.3 87.5 84.7 77.5 73.4 98.2

The assessment has been conducted without a penalty for the presence of tonal

characteristics from the WTGs. Although the 1/3 octave band data for the V117 indicates

that such a penalty would not apply, to provide certainty, it is recommended that a guarantee

is sought from the manufacturer during the procurement process. The general form of the

guarantee should be that the WTG manufacturer measure and confirm the absence of tonal

characteristics at the residences, in accordance with a test procedure outlined in the

project’s Operational Noise Management Plan (prepared to the reasonable satisfaction of

the EPA).

In addition to the above, Vestas advise that tonality testing for the V117-3.3MW WTG will be

complete in late 2014 in accordance with the International Standard IEC 61400-11 (2012).

There are a range of WTGs which provide tonal audibility results in accordance with IEC

61400. The Operational Noise Management Plan provides for a compliance test procedure

based on IEC 61400.


Page 19

5.2 Noise Propagation Model

The CONCAWE noise propagation model has been used to model the noise from the WTGs

and transformers. The CONCAWE model takes into account the influence of geometrical

spreading, topography, ground absorption, air absorption and weather conditions. The

CONCAWE model is endorsed in the SA Guidelines and is widely accepted as an

appropriate noise propagation model. The predictions have been based on the following

input conditions:

weather category 6 (night with no clouds);

atmospheric conditions at 10C and 80% relative humidity;

wind direction from all WTGs to the particular residence under consideration,

even in circumstances where WTGs are located in opposite directions from the

residence; and,

maximum barrier attenuation of 2 dB.

The SA Guidelines provide a default prediction method which incorporates hard ground in

the noise propagation model unless justification is provided for using another input. The

CONCAWE propagation model separates ground attenuation into the categories of hard

ground and ground with finite acoustic impedance. CONCAWE states that hard ground

should be used for surfaces such as concrete or water and all other surfaces including grass

or soil should be considered as finite acoustic impedance. The ground between the WTGs

and residences is not concrete or water, and therefore a finite acoustic impedance

(corresponding to grass or rough pasture within the CONCAWE model) has been used.


Page 20

5.3 Predicted Noise Levels and Comparison against the Relevant Noise Criteria

The noise level at the residences and vacant land in the rural living zone in the vicinity of the

wind farm from the WTGs and transformers has been predicted for integer wind speeds

ranging between the WTG cut-in (3 m/s) and rated power wind speeds (14 m/s). The

predicted noise levels and the corresponding noise criterion at each residence and wind

speed are provided in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Predicted noise level and noise criterion.

Res

iden

ce ID

Noise Level (dB(A)) at Integer Wind Speeds 3 m/s 4 m/s 5 m/s 6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s 11 m/s 12 m/s 13 m/s 14 m/s

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Residences without Commercial Agreement R2 20 35 20 35 22 35 24 35 26 35 28 35 30 35 31 35 31 35 31 35 30 35 30 35 R4 21 40 21 40 22 40 24 40 27 40 29 40 30 40 31 40 31 40 31 40 31 40 31 40 R5 21 35 21 35 23 35 24 35 27 35 29 35 31 35 31 35 32 35 32 35 31 35 31 35 R6 19 35 19 35 20 35 22 35 25 35 27 35 28 35 29 35 30 35 29 35 29 35 29 35 R8 26 40 26 40 27 40 29 40 32 40 34 40 36 40 36 40 37 40 37 40 36 40 36 40 R9 26 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 R10 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 38 40 38 40 39 40 39 40 38 40 38 40 R11 27 40 27 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 R13 29 40 29 40 30 40 32 40 35 40 37 40 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 39 40 39 40 R15 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 R16 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 35 40 35 42 R17 25 40 25 40 26 40 28 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 42 R18 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 35 40 35 42 R19 24 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 31 40 32 40 34 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 42 R20 21 40 21 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 31 40 31 42 R21 21 40 21 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 31 40 31 42 R22 30 40 30 40 31 40 33 40 36 40 38 40 39 40 40 40 41 41 40 43 40 46 40 49 R23 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 38 40 38 43 38 46 38 49 R24 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 38 40 38 40 39 40 39 43 38 46 38 49 R25 24 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 35 40 35 40 35 43 34 46 34 49 R26 25 40 25 40 26 40 28 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 35 40 36 40 35 43 35 46 35 49 R27 24 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 34 40 35 40 35 40 35 43 35 46 35 49 R28 26 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 36 40 36 40 R30 24 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 35 40 35 41 35 42 34 43 34 44 R31 24 40 24 40 25 40 27 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 34 40 35 41 35 42 34 43 34 44 R32 26 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 38 41 37 42 37 43 37 44 R33 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 38 40 39 40 39 40 39 40 38 40 38 41 R34 29 40 29 40 30 40 32 40 35 40 37 40 38 40 39 40 40 40 39 42 39 44 39 46 R36 25 40 25 40 26 40 28 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 35 40 36 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 R37 27 40 27 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 R38 27 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 35 40 37 40 38 40 38 40 38 40 38 40 38 40


Page 21

Res

iden

ce ID


Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

R39 29 40 29 40 30 40 32 40 35 40 37 40 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 39 40 39 40 R42 29 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 36 40 38 40 39 40 40 40 40 42 40 44 40 46 40 48 R43 29 40 29 40 30 40 32 40 35 40 37 40 38 40 39 40 40 42 40 43 39 43 39 43 R44 23 40 23 40 24 40 26 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 33 40 34 40 33 40 33 42 33 43 R45 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 38 40 38 40 38 42 38 43 R52 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 36 42 36 44 R53 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 35 42 35 44 R54 25 40 25 40 26 40 28 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 35 40 36 40 35 40 35 42 35 44 R55 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 39 40 38 40 38 40 38 42 R57 23 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 34 40 34 40 34 40 34 40 34 42 R58 20 40 20 40 21 40 23 40 26 40 28 40 29 40 30 40 31 40 30 40 30 40 30 42 R59 18 40 18 40 20 40 22 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 29 40 29 40 29 40 28 40 28 42 R61 21 40 21 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 31 40 31 42 R62 21 40 21 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 31 40 31 42 R63 22 40 22 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 42 R86 22 40 22 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 41 R88 20 40 20 40 21 40 23 40 26 40 27 40 29 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 29 40 29 42 R89 20 40 20 40 22 40 23 40 26 40 28 40 29 40 30 40 30 40 30 40 30 42 30 43 R90 25 40 25 40 26 40 28 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 35 42 36 43 35 44 35 45 35 45 R91 27 40 27 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 38 40 37 40 37 40 R92 26 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 36 40 36 42 R93 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 38 40 39 40 38 40 38 40 38 40 R94 26 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 37 40 37 41 R96 29 40 29 40 30 40 32 40 35 40 37 40 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 39 40 39 41 R97 19 35 19 35 20 35 22 35 25 35 27 35 28 35 29 35 30 35 29 35 29 35 29 35 R98 19 35 19 35 21 35 23 35 25 35 27 35 29 35 30 35 30 35 30 35 29 35 29 35 R99 21 35 21 35 22 35 24 35 27 35 29 35 30 35 31 35 31 35 31 35 31 35 31 35 R100 26 35 26 35 27 35 29 35 32 35 34 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 37 38 36 38 36 38 R102 26 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 36 40 37 42 37 43 37 44 36 45 36 45 R104 21 40 21 40 22 40 24 40 27 40 28 40 30 40 31 40 31 40 31 40 31 40 31 41 R105 18 40 18 40 20 40 21 40 24 40 26 40 27 40 28 40 29 40 28 40 28 40 28 41 R106 17 40 17 40 19 40 21 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 28 40 28 40 28 40 27 40 27 41 R107 23 40 23 40 24 40 26 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 41 R108 23 40 23 40 24 40 26 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 34 42 34 43 33 43 33 43 R110 20 40 20 40 21 40 23 40 26 40 27 40 29 40 30 40 30 42 30 43 30 43 30 43 R111 23 40 23 40 25 40 26 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 33 40 34 40 34 40 33 40 33 40 R112 22 40 22 40 23 40 25 40 28 40 30 40 31 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 32 42 32 43 R113 22 40 22 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 32 40 32 40 R114 23 40 23 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 34 40 34 40 34 40 34 40 34 42 R115 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 35 42 35 43 R116 24 40 24 40 26 40 27 40 30 40 32 40 34 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 34 40 34 42 R119 28 40 28 40 29 40 31 40 34 40 36 40 37 40 38 41 39 43 38 45 38 47 38 49 R121 23 40 23 40 24 40 26 40 29 40 31 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 42 33 43 R122 24 40 24 40 25 40 27 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 34 42 34 43 34 44 34 45 34 45


Page 22

Res

iden

ce ID


Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

Pred

ictio

n

Crit

erio

n

R123 27 40 27 40 28 40 30 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 37 40 37 43 37 46 37 49 R124 19 35 19 35 20 35 22 35 25 35 27 35 28 35 29 35 29 35 29 35 29 35 29 35 R125 22 40 22 40 23 40 25 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 32 42 32 44 R126 26 40 26 40 27 40 29 40 32 40 34 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 R127 18 40 18 40 19 40 21 40 24 40 26 40 27 40 28 42 28 43 28 44 28 45 28 45 R128 22 40 22 40 23 40 25 40 28 40 30 40 31 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 32 40 32 42 R129 23 40 23 40 24 40 26 40 28 40 30 40 32 40 33 40 33 40 33 40 33 42 33 43 R131 26 40 26 40 27 40 29 40 32 40 34 40 35 40 36 40 37 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 R134 29 40 29 40 30 40 32 40 35 40 37 40 39 40 40 40 40 41 40 43 39 46 39 49 R135 25 40 25 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 36 40 36 40 36 40 36 42 36 43 R138 27 40 27 40 29 40 31 40 33 40 35 40 37 40 38 40 38 40 38 43 37 46 37 49

Residences with Commercial Agreement R1 21 45 21 45 23 45 25 45 27 45 29 45 31 45 32 45 32 45 32 45 32 45 32 45 R3 23 45 23 45 24 45 26 45 29 45 31 45 32 45 33 45 34 45 33 45 33 45 33 45 R7 30 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 36 45 38 45 40 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 R12 27 45 27 45 29 45 31 45 34 45 36 45 37 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 R14 28 45 28 45 29 45 31 45 34 45 36 45 37 45 38 45 39 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 R40 32 45 32 45 33 45 36 45 38 45 40 45 42 45 43 45 43 45 43 45 43 45 43 45 R46 28 45 28 45 29 45 31 45 34 45 36 45 37 45 38 45 39 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 R47 26 45 26 45 28 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 36 45 37 45 37 45 37 45 37 45 37 45 R49 30 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 36 45 38 45 40 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 R50 30 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 36 45 39 45 40 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 41 45 R51 29 45 29 45 31 45 33 45 35 45 37 45 39 45 40 45 40 45 40 45 40 45 40 45 R56 29 45 29 45 31 45 33 45 35 45 37 45 39 45 40 45 40 45 40 45 40 45 40 45 R87 24 45 24 45 26 45 28 45 31 45 33 45 34 45 35 45 35 45 35 45 35 45 35 45 R95 28 45 28 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 36 45 38 45 39 45 39 45 39 45 38 47 38 49 R117 28 45 28 45 29 45 31 45 34 45 36 45 37 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 R118 27 45 27 45 28 45 31 45 33 45 35 45 37 45 38 45 38 45 38 45 37 45 37 45 R136 26 45 26 45 27 45 29 45 32 45 34 45 35 45 36 45 37 45 36 45 36 45 36 45 R139

7 47 45 47 45 49 45 51 45 54 45 56 45 58 45 59 45 59 45 59 45 59 45 59 45

Vacant Land within Rural Living Zones without Commercial Agreement VL1 22 35 22 35 24 35 26 35 28 35 30 35 32 35 33 35 33 35 33 35 33 35 33 35 VL2 23 35 23 35 24 35 26 35 29 35 31 35 33 35 34 35 34 35 34 35 33 35 33 35 VL3 24 35 24 35 25 35 27 35 30 35 32 35 33 35 34 35 35 35 34 35 34 35 34 35 VL4 24 35 24 35 26 35 28 35 30 35 32 35 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL5 24 35 24 35 26 35 28 35 30 35 32 35 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL9 25 35 25 35 27 35 29 35 31 35 33 35 35 36 36 37 36 38 36 38 36 38 36 38 VL10 22 35 22 35 23 35 25 35 28 35 30 35 31 35 32 36 32 37 32 39 32 40 32 42

7 R139 will not be used as a dwelling based on the predicted noise levels being above 45 dB(A), in accordance

with the commercial agreement with the owner.


Page 23

Vacant Land within Rural Living Zones with Commercial Agreement VL6 24 45 24 45 26 45 28 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 35 45 35 45 35 45 34 45 34 45 VL7 26 45 26 45 27 45 29 45 32 45 34 45 35 45 36 45 37 45 36 45 36 45 36 45 VL8 24 45 24 45 26 45 28 45 30 45 32 45 34 45 35 45 35 45 35 45 34 45 34 45

Based on the predictions, the noise from the 114 Vestas V117-3.3MW WTGs and two

200 MVA transformers will comply with the established criteria at all residences, for each

integer wind speed between 3 m/s and 14 m/s.

Appendix F provides the predicted noise level contours at 11 m/s which is the wind speed

associated with the highest predicted noise levels.

5.4 Future Assessment

This assessment has been based on 114 Vestas V117-3.3MW WTGs to show that the

proposed layout can achieve the SA Guidelines.

Subject to the project’s approval, the final WTG will be selected through a detailed tender

procurement process and Trustpower will repeat the assessment at that time to confirm the

final WTG selection will achieve the SA Guidelines. This assessment is likely to be in

accordance with a condition of approval, should such an approval be granted.

A preliminary assessment has been conducted for a scenario where the hub height is

increased to 100 m. This assessment indicates that the SA Guidelines will still be achieved

at all locations. Notwithstanding this preliminary assessment, the final WTG selection, layout

and hub height will be considered against the SA Guidelines at that time.


Page 24

6 OTHER NOISE CONSIDERATIONS

The following noise considerations are not required to be assessed under the SA Guidelines;

however they have been raised during the stakeholder workshop sessions and community

open days.

6.1 Audible Noise

There have been comments which suggest that the criteria of the South Australian

Environmental Noise Wind Farm Guidelines 2009 (the SA Guidelines) are inadequate.

The criteria of the SA Guidelines are established to ensure any audible wind farm noise is

low enough in level such that it does not adversely impact on the health or amenity of the

community.

The SA Guidelines have been tested and accepted in the South Australian Environment,

Resources and Development Court as the appropriate tool for the assessment of wind farm

noise, in order to protect the acoustic amentity of the community.

In addition, the EPA has considered the SA Guidelines through further research and testing

over an extended period of time with the recent finding that the SA Guidelines provide an

appropriate tool for a contemporary wind farm environmental noise assessment without the

need for any change, modification or update.

6.2 Impacts on Animals

The noise levels associated with wind farms, including noise levels directly underneath a

WTG, are well below the noise levels that can be experienced in the natural environment.

For example, the ambient noise logging indicates existing noise levels (LAeq) in the

environment which can regularly be in the order of 55 to 60 dB(A), which is similar to the

noise levels directly under a contemporary WTG. It is not unusual to sight stock in close

proximity to WTGs.

It is expected that the wind farm will not result in greater noise than other existing noise

sources in the area, such as, wind in trees, vehicles on roads and agricultural machinery.


Page 25

6.3 Infrasound

Early WTGs were constructed with blades located downwind of the tower. These WTGs

produced significant levels of infrasound (sound below 20Hz) as a result of the wake caused

by the tower. Modern WTGs are constructed with blades upwind of the tower resulting in

noise levels well below the level of audibility at residential setback distances. International

studies have confirmed that the level and character of noise from modern WTGs is not

different to the noise encountered from other natural and non-natural noise sources.

Sonus has conducted studies into the level of infrasound produced by WTGs. These studies

confirm that the level of infrasound from WTGs is no greater than naturally occurring levels

of infrasound from sources such as waves breaking.

The results of these studies were presented at the fourth International Conference Wind

Turbine Noise 2011 in Rome 8 and appeared as a peer reviewed paper in “Acoustics

Australia”, the journal of the Australian Acoustical Society9.

A recent South Australian Government study by the Environment Protection Authority into

infrasound (Infrasound levels near windfarms and in other environments, January 2013)

provided findings which were consistent with the Sonus studies and a wide range of national

and international peer reviewed studies, including:

the measured levels of infrasound from wind farms are well below the threshold of

perception; and

the measured infrasound levels around wind farms are no higher than levels

measured at other locations where people live, work and sleep; and

the characteristics of noise produced by wind farms are not unique and are common

in everyday life.

8 Turnbull, C & Turner, J 2011, ‘Measurement of Infrasound from Wind Farms and Other Sources’,

Fourth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, 11-14 April 2011. 9 Turnbull, C, Turner, J & Walsh, D 2012, ‘Measurement and level of infrasound from wind farms

and other sources’, Acoustics Australia, vol 40, no. 1, pp. 45-50.


Page 26

6.4 Experience

The Palmer Wind Farm environmental noise assessment was conducted by Chris Turnbull,

Jason Turner, Moharis Kamis and Mathew Ward in various roles.

Chris Turnbull is a Principal and Director of Sonus Pty Ltd and has approximately 20 years

experience as an acoustic engineer. This experience includes the assessment of noise from

more than 30 wind farms.

Chris graduated with an Honours Degree in Mechanical Engineering and completed a

Master of Engineering Science Degree in 1994. Both degrees concentrated on the field of

acoustics and both were obtained from the University of Adelaide.

Chris formed Sonus in March 2002 having worked at Bassett Acoustics for seven years

where he was an Associate and State Manager. This followed 5 years as an Acoustic

Engineer with the Maritime Operations Division of the Defence Science and Technology

Organisation (DSTO).

Chris presented papers to the Wind Turbine Noise Conferences held in Rome in April 2011

and Denver in 2013.

Jason Turner is an Associate of Sonus Pty Ltd and has approximately 15 years experience

as an acoustic engineer. This experience includes the assessment of noise from many wind

farms in both public and private sector roles.

Jason graduated with an Honours Degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1991. The degree

concentrated on the field of acoustics and was obtained from the University of Adelaide.

Prior to joining Sonus in 2006, Jason spent 6 years with the South Australian Environment

Protection Authority (EPA) managing the Atmosphere and Noise Branch as well as acting as

the EPA’s Principal Adviser in the field of Noise and Vehicle Emissions.

Whilst with the EPA, Jason initiated, drafted and implemented the 2003 version of the SA

Guidelines which have been adopted in a number of other states including NSW in the


Page 27

intervening period prior to (the imminent) release of the final version of the NSW Guidelines.

He also represented the National Environment Protection Council on the Australian

Standards Technical Committee EV-016, which is responsible for developing the Australian

Standard relating to wind farm noise assessment and measurement.

Jason managed a comprehensive review of wind farm noise for the Clean Energy Council

and conducted an infrasound assessment at two wind farms for Pacific Hydro.

Jason managed the daily activities associated with the Palmer Wind Farm assessment

including review of all project outputs.

Moharis Kamis joined Sonus in June 2009 after completing his mechanical engineering and

applied mathematics degrees at the University of Adelaide.

Moharis was involved in all aspects of acoustic engineering within Sonus and has previously

modelled and measured environmental noise levels for a range of sources including

compressor stations, LNG facilities, power stations and wind farms such as Stockyard Hill,

Snowtown and Allendale wind farms.

Mathew Ward joined Sonus in January 2008 after completing his mechanical engineering

degree at the University of Adelaide.

Mathew is involved in all aspects of acoustic engineering within Sonus and has previously

modelled and measured environmental noise levels for a range of sources including major

mining, infrastructure and power generation projects such as Taralga, Cullerin and Barn Hill

wind farms.

All outputs for the project were peer reviewed by Chris and Jason.


Page 28

6.5 Atmospheric Stability

The assessment has been made with the actual wind shear conditions at the site taken into

account.

The background noise assessment uses the two highest anemometer positions to take

account of varying atmospheric stability conditions.

The wind shear for each 10 minute measurement period is calculated from two anemometer

heights as outlined in this assessment report.

6.6 Accuracy of Noise Propagation Model

Evans & Cooper 10 conducted a comparison of a range of models and inputs against

measured wind farm noise levels and found that CONCAWE is a conservative (predicts

higher noise than reality) model.

Notwithstanding, the noise model uses conservative inputs including the assumption that all

WTGs are downwind of a particular dwelling, which cannot occur in practice.

The model takes account of the following inputs:

Local topography (using 5m contours to account for topographical influence);

WTG type and size (using the hub height data and sound power level data);

Cumulative effect of multiple WTG clusters (the combined effect of all WTGs is

included in the model and the contribution of each individual WTG at any location is

determined and added into the overall noise level).

10

Evans, T & Cooper, J 2012, ‘Comparison of predicted and measured wind farm noise levels and implications for assessments of new wind farms’, Acoustics Australia, vol 40, no. 1, pp. 28-36.


Page 29

6.7 Background Noise Monitoring Location

Each noise logger was located in accordance with the SA Guidelines, which recommend a

location on the wind farm side of the dwelling, at least 5m away from significant structures

and generally within 30 m of the dwelling.

The purpose of the logging is to determine the background noise environment at the dwelling

and to provide a suitable location for future compliance checking. To this end, the loggers

were located at an equivalent distance from the facade of the dwelling as any tall trees and

fixed noise sources such as air conditioning units.

Photographs of the noise monitoring equipment at each location are provided in this

environmental noise assessment.

6.8 Noise from Breeding Poultry

The potential influence of noise from geese breeding on the measured background noise

levels at ML32 has been considered.

Based on the intermittent nature of noise from geese, it is not expected that the measured

background noise levels would be significantly affected and therefore ML32 was selected as

an appropriate logging location. Notwithstanding, background noise logging was also

conducted at an alternative location, ML32A, at the request of the landowner. ML32A is

located further away from the geese, with the line of sight between the logger and the geese

blocked by the dwelling (refer to the figure in Appendix C).

The background noise data collected at ML32 and ML32A have been analysed and

compared. Figure 6.1 plots the two datasets, with the following observations:

the background noise measured at ML32 does not show any clear indication that the

data were significantly influenced by non-wind related noise sources. Rather the

upward trend of the background noise regression line with an increase in wind speed

indicates that the background noise at the residence is more influenced by wind

related noise (e.g., wind in trees);


Page 30

the background noise measured at ML32A is more influenced by wind related noise

as a steeper upward trend on the background noise regression line is seen; and,

the resultant criteria derived in accordance with SA Guidelines based on background

noise monitoring data at ML32 are more onerous than the resultant criteria for

ML32A.

The observations indicate that the measured background noise levels at ML32 were not

significantly influenced by noise from the geese and the resultant criteria are more onerous

than a location not influenced by geese. Therefore, the background noise data measured at

ML32 have been used in this assessment.

Figure 6.1: Comparison of data collected at ML32 and ML32A.

y = -0.016x3 + 0.4362x2 - 2.3735x + 30.464R² = 0.266

y = -0.0206x3 + 0.6122x2 - 3.133x + 27.948R² = 0.5079

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))

Wind Speed (m/s) at 91.5m Hub Height

Background Noise Level and Wind Speed Correlation - R32 Noise Measurements at ML32 Vs Noise Measurements at ML32A

Background noise level measured at ML32

Background noise level measured at ML32A

Noise criteria - SA Guidelines for ML32

Noise criteria - SA Guidelines for ML32A

Background noise level regression line - ML32

Background noise level regression line - ML32A

5240 Data points measured at ML323772 Data points measured at ML32A


Page 31

6.9 Low Frequency Noise

Noise sources that produce low frequency content (such as a freight train locomotive or

diesel engine) have dominant noise content in the frequency range between 20 and 200 Hz.

Low frequency noise is often described as a “rumble”.

Aerodynamic noise from a WTG is not dominant in the low frequency range. The main

content of aerodynamic noise generated by a WTG is often in the area known generically as

the mid-frequencies, being between 200 and 1000Hz.

Noise reduces over distance due to a range of factors including atmospheric absorption. The

mid and high frequencies are subject to a greater rate of atmospheric absorption compared

to the low frequencies and therefore over large distances, whilst the absolute level of noise

in all frequencies reduces, the relative level of low frequency noise compared to the mid and

high frequency content increases. For example, when standing alongside a road corridor,

the mid and high frequency noise from the tyre and road interaction is dominant, particularly

if the road surface is wet. However, at large distances from a road corridor in a rural

environment, the remaining audible content is the low frequency noise of the engine and

exhaust and the low frequency component of the road interaction.

Low frequency sound produced by wind farms is not unique in overall level or content. Low

frequency sound can be easily measured and heard at a range of locations at levels well in

excess of the level in the vicinity of a wind farm. Compliance with the SA Guidelines will

therefore inherently provide an adequate level of protection of amenity in the surrounding

area from low frequency noise impacts.


Page 32

6.10 Complaint response

The actions which will be taken, should the noise levels from the wind farm exceed the

project noise limits, either as part of the commissioning process or during the ongoing

operation of the wind farm have been considered.

An Operation Noise Management Plan has been prepared which establishes a testing

methodology, an action plan (should the noise levels be exceeded) and a complaint

response plan.

6.11 Construction and blasing impacts

A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan has been prepared which establishes

reasonable and practicable noise and vibration measures for the construction activities to

ensure compliance with legislative requirements. The plan also provides the community

consultation and complaint assessment processes for the construction phase of the project.


Page 33

7 CONCLUSION

An environmental noise assessment of the proposed Palmer Wind Farm has been made.

The assessment considered the proposed wind farm arrangement, comprising 114 WTGs

and a substation.

Noise predictions were made based on the Vestas V117-3.3MW model and two 200 MVA

transformers at the substation to show the proposal can achieve the SA Guidelines.

The SA Guidelines were established to ensure a wind farm does not unreasonably interfere

with the acoustic amenity of the surrounding community and therefore provides an objective

assessment method to determine compliance with the relevant provisions of the Mid Murray

Council Development Plan.

The assessment indicates the predicted noise levels achieve the requirements of the

SA Guidelines at all relevant locations.

Based on above, it is considered that the proposed wind farm will meet the relevant noise

provisions of the Mid Murray Council Development Plan.

Should the proposal gain approval, an assessment of operational noise from the proposed

Palmer Wind Farm will be repeated by Trustpower to demonstrate that the final WTG

selection and final layout will comply with the SA Guidelines.


Page 34

APPENDIX A: PROPOSED WIND FARM LAYOUT AND NOISE SOURCES

Coordinates of Wind Turbine Generators and Substation

WTG ID Coordinates

(UTM WGS84 Z54) Easting Northing

A01 336354 6161693 A02 335995 6161428 A03 336699 6161376 A04 335606 6161392 A05 335638 6160293 A06 336294 6160637 A07 336033 6160346 A08 335793 6159546 A09 335609 6161990 A12 336155 6159431 A14 335797 6158950 A15 335974 6158493 A17 336083 6157324 A18 335687 6158065 A19 336148 6157893 B01 332895 6152380 B02 333326 6152313 B04 330875 6144025 B05 333691 6152073 B06 334443 6151678 B07 333069 6151949 B08 334068 6151876 B09 334658 6149460 B10 328319 6146255 B11 334980 6150427 B12 334239 6150270 B13 329081 6145090 B14 334611 6150275 B15 326856 6149494 B16 330555 6144387 B17 327312 6149155 B18 327428 6144488 B19 334050 6148960 B20 327021 6148834 B21 331232 6144468 B22 330077 6144795 B23 326663 6148717 B24 333808 6148617 B25 328203 6144889 B26 328346 6148166 B27 334081 6148311 B28 331551 6148465 B29 327833 6144553

WTG ID Coordinates


B30 327788 6148122 B31 333022 6148180 B32 329755 6147963 B33 328080 6147864 B34 329351 6147887 B35 331344 6147896 B36 328585 6147662 B37 327563 6147649 B38 328978 6147826 B39 331733 6147930 B40 330275 6147331 B41 329816 6147114 B42 328516 6147088 B43 329413 6146867 B44 328876 6146905 B45 328153 6146907 B46 330075 6146572 B47 329114 6146407 B48 329701 6146419 B49 328701 6146329 B50 327931 6146371 B51 331025 6144980 B52 329452 6145958 B53 330806 6145764 B54 327692 6145850 B55 328568 6145726 B56 329075 6145777 B57 327286 6145752 B58 328192 6145525 B59 330294 6145281 B60 330666 6145173 B61 329489 6145287 B62 329885 6145221 C01 327461 6142333 C02 329530 6136231 C03 327891 6141720 C04 327605 6141295 C05 328230 6140800 C06 327453 6140599 C07 328029 6140249 C08 328423 6140095 C09 324914 6140388 C10 326082 6140111

WTG ID Coordinates


C11 325292 6140242 C12 327401 6139327 C13 326710 6139419 C14 326426 6139849 C15 325686 6140167 C16 327697 6138941 C17 328075 6138775 C18 327055 6139162 C19 328458 6138706 C20 329774 6138153 C21 330967 6135852 C22 329414 6138024 C23 330162 6138014 C24 329237 6137599 C25 330814 6137405 C26 329555 6137299 C27 330320 6137332 C28 329935 6137393 C29 328927 6137194 C30 329243 6136809 C31 328816 6136645 C32 330608 6136097 C33 329109 6136201 C34 329877 6135919 C35 329307 6135640 C38 329468 6135090 C39 330319 6136487 C40 327823 6140833

Substation Coordinates


SUB1 328670 6145603


Page 35

Proposed Wind Farm Layout


Page 36

APPENDIX B: CLOSEST RESIDENCES TO THE PROPOSED WIND FARM

Residence Closest WTG

ID Coordinates Development Plan Zone

Landowner Agreement ID Distance

(m) Bearing from True North () Easting Northing

R1 338653 6161548 Ru Yes A03 1962 265 R2 338810 6161203 RuL(San) No A03 2118 275 R3 338319 6158501 RuL(San) Yes A19 2255 254 R4 338363 6157113 Ru No A17 2290 275 R5 337745 6156232 RuL(San) No A17 1989 303 R6 338025 6155959 RuL(San) No A17 2374 305 R7 335620 6151070 Ru Yes B11 907 225 R8 336231 6151160 Ru No B11 1450 240 R9 336210 6150934 Ru No B11 1330 248 R10 335986 6149487 Ru No B09 1328 269 R11 336075 6149261 Ru No B09 1431 278 R12 335799 6148829 Ru Yes B09 1304 299 R13 332708 6147072 Ru No B31 1152 16 R14 333216 6146876 Ru Yes B31 1318 352 R15 332806 6145843 Ru No B51 1979 244 R16 332950 6144591 Ru No B21 1722 266 R17 332398 6143069 Ru No B04 1798 302 R18 332020 6142933 Ru No B04 1582 314 R19 331943 6142749 Ru No B04 1664 320 R20 331778 6142020 Ru No B04 2199 336 R21 331680 6141995 Ru No B04 2184 338 R22 328842 6143310 Ru No B29 1601 321 R23 329211 6142820 Ru No C03 1718 230 R24 329735 6142769 Ru No B04 1696 42 R25 330274 6141761 Ru No C05 2259 245 R26 330421 6141520 Ru No C05 2306 252 R27 330299 6141522 Ru No C05 2191 251 R28 330897 6139692 Ru No C23 1828 203 R30 331147 6150813 Ru No B07 2233 59 R31 331050 6150529 Ru No B28 2124 166 R32 331565 6149897 Ru No B28 1432 181 R33 332109 6151140 Ru No B07 1255 50 R34 332615 6149830 Ru No B19 1678 121 R36 330281 6150173 Ru No B28 2128 143 R37 330445 6149759 Ru No B28 1702 139 R38 330396 6149641 Ru No B28 1648 136 R39 330499 6149281 Ru No B28 1331 128 R40 331099 6149016 Ru Yes B28 713 141 R42 329064 6149511 Ru No B26 1525 208 R43 328369 6149963 Ru No B17 1330 233


Page 37





R44 324922 6146031 Ru No B57 2380 97 R45 325832 6145788 Ru No B57 1454 91 R46 326056 6144460 Ru Yes B18 1372 89 R47 325991 6143902 Ru Yes B18 1552 68 R49 325558 6141470 Ru Yes C11 1256 192 R50 325834 6141468 Ru Yes C15 1309 186 R51 325226 6138794 Ru Yes C15 1448 19 R52 324433 6138733 Ru No C09 1723 16 R53 324902 6138248 Ru No C11 2032 11 R54 325251 6137959 Ru No C13 2064 45 R55 327201 6136521 Ru No C31 1620 86 R56 331880 6135601 Ru Yes C21 944 285 R57 326579 6136054 Ru No C31 2314 75 R58 325432 6136351 Ru No C18 3246 30 R59 325266 6135720 Ru No C31 3669 75 R61 325983 6135930 Ru No C31 2922 76 R62 325194 6136919 Ru No C18 2915 40 R63 325562 6136942 Ru No C18 2675 34 R86 331296 6153239 Ru No B01 1815 118 R87 336073 6148412 Ru Yes B09 1761 307 R88 333319 6142467 Ru No B21 2891 314 R89 324700 6144877 Ru No B57 2730 71 R90 329319 6150354 Ru No B17 2338 239 R91 329813 6149819 Ru No B32 1857 182 R92 326475 6137155 Ru No C18 2089 16 R93 332368 6146352 Ru No B53 1669 249 R94 332120 6150281 Ru No B28 1903 197 R95 331870 6149730 Ru Yes B28 1305 194 R96 331915 6152644 Ru No B01 1015 105 R97 337543 6155597 RuL(San) No A17 2261 320 R98 337770 6155824 RuL(San) No A17 2257 312 R99 337625 6156003 RuL(San) No A17 2030 311 R100 337395 6156970 RuL(San) No A17 1359 285 R102 329038 6150158 Ru No B17 1996 240 R104 332967 6159899 Ru No A05 2700 82 R105 333079 6157731 Ru No A18 2629 83 R106 333857 6155430 Ru No A17 2923 50 R107 331832 6153808 Ru No B01 1780 143 R108 325566 6150647 Ru No B15 1730 132 R110 324310 6149916 Ru No B15 2581 99 R111 336271 6148237 Ru No B09 2024 307 R112 324549 6147497 Ru No B23 2441 60


Page 38





R113 335607 6147036 Ru No B27 1989 310 R114 332706 6143292 Ru No B21 1886 309 R115 325765 6143008 Ru No C01 1825 112 R116 331672 6142715 Ru No B04 1533 329 R117 325656 6141970 Ru Yes C09 1747 205 R118 332016 6137999 Ru Yes C25 1369 244 R119 331976 6149810 Ru No B28 1411 198 R121 324407 6142427 Ru No C09 2101 166 R122 329331 6150554 Ru No B17 2456 235 R123 330091 6142396 Ru No B04 1808 26 R124 337015 6152768 RuL(San) No B06 2793 247 R125 324811 6137817 Ru No C11 2472 11 R126 330653 6139947 Ru No C23 1992 194 R127 330037 6152920 Ru No B01 2909 101 R128 331744 6141687 SCe(Pa) No B04 2494 340 R129 324424 6142503 Ru No C09 2171 167 R131 329661 6150103 Ru No B32 2142 177 R134 329154 6143196 Ru No B16 1839 50 R135 325703 6142740 Ru No C01 1804 103 R136 325468 6142353 Ru Yes C01 1993 91 R138 330226 6142630 Ru No B04 1539 25 R139 328351 6146204 Ru Yes B10 60 328 VL1 338624 6160690 RuL(San) No A03 2044 290 VL2 338390 6160058 RuL(San) No A03 2144 308 VL3 338334 6159661 RuL(San) No A12 2191 264 VL4 338153 6159244 RuL(San) No A12 2007 275 VL5 338083 6158671 RuL(San) No A12 2072 292 VL6 338061 6158231 RuL(San) Yes A19 1943 260 VL7 337736 6157749 RuL(San) Yes A19 1595 275 VL8 337801 6157266 RuL(San) Yes A17 1719 272 VL9 337257 6156678 RuL(San) No A17 1340 299 VL10 331915 6142023 RuL(Pa) No B04 2256 333

Notes: 1. Easting and northing coordinates are based on UTM WGS84 z54 map datum. 2. Zone abbreveations are:

Ru – Rural RuL(San) – Rural Living (Sanderston) RuL(Pa) – Rural Living (Palmer) SCe(Pa) – Service Centre (Palmer)

3. VL1 to VL10 are prediction points at representative vacant land with the potential for future dwellings.


Page 39

APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS OF EQUIPMENT AT MONITORING LOCATIONS

Noise logging equipment at ML3

Facing west towards wind farm.

Facing east from wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 40

Aerial view of logging equipment position at ML3

Noise logging equipment at ML3.

LEGEND Noise logger Direction of closest WTGs


Page 41


Facing northwest towards wind farm.

Facing southwest towards wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 42





Page 43


Facing southwest from and towards wind farm.

Facing east at the northern side of dwelling.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 44





Page 45


Facing north towards wind farm.

Facing west towards dwelling.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 46





Page 47

Noise and weather logging equipment at ML28

Facing east from wind farm.


Noise logger

Weather logger Noise logger


Page 48


Noise and weather logging equipment at ML28.

LEGEND Noise logger Weather logger Direction of closest WTGs


Page 49


Facing west from wind farm.

Facing south towards wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 50

Noise logging equipment at ML32A

Facing northeast from wind farm.


Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 51

Aerial view of logging equipment position at ML32 and ML32A

Noise logging equipment at ML32 and ML32A.


ML32

ML32A

Geese breading area


Page 52



Facing east towards wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 53





Page 54




Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 55





Page 56



. Facing south towards wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger

Weather logger


Page 57





Page 58


Facing northwest from wind farm.

Facing southwest from wind farm.

Noise logger

Weather logger

Noise logger


Page 59





Page 60


Facing southeast from wind farm.

Facing south from wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 61




Trees have been removed. Refer to photograph above.


Page 62



Facing north towards wind farm.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 63





Page 64


Facing northwest from wind farm.

Facing east at southern side of dwelling.

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 65





Page 66


Facing southeast towards wind farm.

Facing north towards weather logger.

Noise logger

Weather logger


Page 67





Page 68




Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 69





Page 70



Facing north towards dwelling (blocked by shed).

Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 71




Generator


Page 72


Facing southeast from wind farm.


Noise logger

Noise logger


Page 73





Page 74


Facing north from wind farm.


Weather logger

Noise logger

Noise logger

Weather logger


Page 75





Page 76

APPENDIX D: CORRELATIONS AND REGRESSION ANALYSES

y = -0.0077x3 + 0.1446x2 + 0.0469x + 19.631R² = 0.0929

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))


Background Noise Level and Wind Speed Correlation - ML3(01/11/2013 - 17/12/2013)

Measured background noise level, LA90

Noise criteria - SA Guidelines, LAeq

Background noise level regression line

5239 Total data points

1520 Data points during downwind (254 ± 45)

y = 0.0044x3 - 0.0832x2 + 1.3028x + 20.044R² = 0.106

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))









Page 77

y = 0.0128x3 - 0.1879x2 + 1.3561x + 27.095R² = 0.0912

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))







2249 Data points during downwind 1 (235 ± 45)614 Data points during downwind 2 (321 ± 45)

y = 0.0033x3 + 0.0418x2 + 0.2157x + 23.648R² = 0.3123

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))









Page 78

y = 0.0079x3 - 0.2272x2 + 2.2537x + 18.901R² = 0.016

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))



Measured background noise level, LA90 Noise criteria - SA Guidelines, LAeq

Predicted noise level, LAeq Background noise level regression line



y = -0.016x3 + 0.4362x2 - 2.3735x + 30.464R² = 0.266

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))









Page 79

y = -0.0265x3 + 0.7782x2 - 5.1794x + 33.235R² = 0.3737

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))


Background Noise Level and Wind Speed Correlation - ML34(04/11/2013 - 17/11/2013, 25/11/2013 - 26/11/2013, 17/12/2013 - 14/01/2014)






y = -0.0092x3 + 0.3845x2 - 3.2874x + 39.025R² = 0.1398

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))









Page 80

y = -0.02x3 + 0.4527x2 - 1.4559x + 24.766R² = 0.381

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))








y = -0.0053x3 + 0.239x2 - 1.8038x + 31.353R² = 0.0978

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))









Page 81

y = -0.0028x3 + 0.1789x2 - 1.1945x + 28.611R² = 0.1209

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Leve

l (d

B(A

))








y = 0.0111x3 - 0.2462x2 + 2.5518x + 19.211R² = 0.0977

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))









Page 82

y = -0.034x3 + 0.8641x2 - 5.3783x + 38.272R² = 0.2832

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel

(dB

(A))








y = -0.0215x3 + 0.5814x2 - 3.8475x + 32.507R² = 0.1921

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))









Page 83

y = -0.0054x3 + 0.2211x2 - 1.3955x + 27.302R² = 0.1286

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ba

ckgr

ou

nd

Noi

se L

evel

, LA

90

(dB

(A))


Background Noise Level and Wind Speed Correlation - ML94(04/11/2013 - 03/12/2013, 17/11/2013 - 09/01/2014)

Measured background noise level

Noise criteria - 2009 SA Guidelines




y = -0.0296x3 + 0.6568x2 - 3.3501x + 29.541R² = 0.1407

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))









Page 84

y = -0.0068x3 + 0.3124x2 - 2.966x + 36.016R² = 0.0951

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))








y = -0.0084x3 + 0.2937x2 - 1.3784x + 29.218R² = 0.372

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No

ise

Le

vel (

dB

(A))









Page 85

APPENDIX E: NOISE CRITERIA AT EACH RESIDENCE

Residence ID

Representative Monitoring Location

Noise Criterion (dB(A)) at Integer Wind Speeds 3 m/s 4 m/s 5 m/s 6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s 11 m/s 12 m/s 13 m/s 14 m/s

Residences without Commercial Agreement R2 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R4 ML3 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R5 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R6 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R8 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R9 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R10 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R11 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R13 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R15 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R16 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R17 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R18 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R19 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R20 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R21 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R22 ML22 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 43 46 49 R23 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49 R24 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49 R25 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49 R26 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49 R27 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49 R28 ML28 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R30 ML32 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 42 43 44 R31 ML32 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 42 43 44 R32 ML32 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 42 43 44 R33 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R34 ML34 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 44 46 R36 ML91 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R37 ML91 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R38 ML91 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R39 ML91 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R42 ML42 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 44 46 48 R43 ML43 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 43 43 R44 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R45 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R52 ML51 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 44 R53 ML51 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 44 R54 ML51 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 44 R55 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R57 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R58 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R59 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R61 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R62 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R63 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42


Page 86

Residence ID


Noise Criterion (dB(A)) at Integer Wind Speeds

3 m/s 4 m/s 5 m/s 6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s 11 m/s 12 m/s 13 m/s 14 m/s

R86 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R88 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R89 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R90 ML90 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 44 45 45 R91 ML91 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R92 ML55 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R93 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R94 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R96 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R97 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R98 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R99 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R100 ML100 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 38 38 38 38 R102 ML90 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 44 45 45 R104 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R105 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R106 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R107 ML94 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 R108 ML43 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 43 43 R110 ML43 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 43 43 R111 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R112 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R113 ML14 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R114 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R115 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R116 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R119 ML119 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 43 45 47 49 R121 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R122 ML90 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 44 45 45 R123 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49 R124 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 R125 ML51 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 44 R126 ML28 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R127 ML90 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 44 45 45 R128 ML116 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 R129 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R131 ML91 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 R134 ML22 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 43 46 49 R135 ML45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 43 R138 ML24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 43 46 49

Residences with Commercial Agreement R1 ML3 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R3 ML3 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

R7 ML14 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R12 ML14 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R14 ML14 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R40 ML32 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R46 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45


Page 87

Residence ID


Noise Criterion (dB(A)) at Integer Wind Speeds

3 m/s 4 m/s 5 m/s 6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s 11 m/s 12 m/s 13 m/s 14 m/s

R47 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R49 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R50 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R51 ML51 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R56 ML28 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R87 ML14 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R95 ML119 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 47 49 R117 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R118 ML28 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R136 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R139 ML45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

Vacant Land within Rural Living Zones without Commercial Agreement VL1 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL2 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL3 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL4 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL5 ML3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 VL9 ML100 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 38 38 38 38

VL10 ML116 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 39 40 42 Vacant Land within Rural Living Zones with Commercial Agreement

VL6 ML3 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 VL7 ML3 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 VL8 ML3 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45


Page 88

APPENDIX F: PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL CONTOUR

Trustpower Palmer Wind Farm

Development Application Report Volume 4

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Trustpower Palmer Wind

Farm Cultural Heritage

Assessment Study

Results of a heritage survey and desktop

study

By: M. Field, D. Thomas, A. Donald, C. Keating and J. Marshallsay

Date: February 2014

Client Name: Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

Client Contact: Rontheo van Zyl

Address: Postal address: GPO Box 1512, Adelaide, South

Australia, 5001

Office address: 26 Greenhill Road, Wayville, South

Australia

Phone: +61 (0)8 8172 7203

Email: [email protected]

Trustpower Palmer Wind Farm Cultural Heritage Assessment Study

Page | ii TRU07

Trustpower Palmer Wind

Farm Cultural Heritage

Assessment Study

Results of a heritage survey and desktop

study

By: M. Field, D. Thomas, A. Donald, C. Keating and J. Marshallsay

Date: February 2014

Client Name: Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

Client Contact: Rontheo van Zyl

Address: Postal address: GPO Box 1512, Adelaide, South

Australia, 5001

Office address: 26 Greenhill Road, Wayville, South

Australia

Phone: +61 (0)8 8172 7203

Email: [email protected]


Page | iii TRU07

Document Control Information Document information

Client: Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd Client Contact: Rontheo van Zyl Title: Trustpower Palmer Wind Farm Cultural Heritage Assessment Study Subtitle: Results of a heritage survey and desktop study Our Ref: TRU07 Date: February 2014

Version Date Details

1.0 21 February 2014 Report

Recipient Name Organisation Hardcopy Electronic Transmission

Method Purpose Date

Rontheo van Zyl Ryan Piddington Ken McNiff

Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd

N Y Email Report 21 February 2014

Author, Reviewer and Approver details

Prepared by: M. Field Date: 21 February 2014

Reviewed by: N. Butler Date: 21 February 2014

Approved by: N. Butler Date: 21 February 2014

Ownership and Disclaimer Ownership of the intellectual property rights of ethnographic information provided by Aboriginal people remains the property of those named persons.

Ownership of the primary materials created in the course of the research remains the property of Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd.

This document remains the property of Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd. This document may not be used, copied, sold, published, reproduced or distributed wholly or in part without the prior written consent of Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the brief provided by Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd and has relied upon information provided by the client, or collected during the completion of the document and under the conditions specified in the document. All findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the document are based on the aforementioned circumstances. The document is for the use of Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd in addressing their brief and no responsibility is taken for the documents use by other parties.

The professional advice and opinions contained in this document are those of the consultants, Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, and do not represent the opinions and policies of any third party.

The professional advice and opinions contained in this document do not constitute legal advice.

Spatial Data Spatial data captured by Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd in this document for any newly recorded sites has been obtained by using hand held or differential GPS units using the GDA94 co-ordinate system.


Page | iv TRU07

Abbreviations Term Meaning

AARD Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division

ACHM Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd

AHA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA)

ATSIHP Act Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cwth)

CSLF Culturally Sensitive Landscape Feature

DA Development Application

DCMB District Council of Mount Barker

DSW Dry Stone Wall

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003) (Cwth)

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

MACAI Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Incorporated

NTA Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth)

SAM South Australia Museum

WTG Wind Turbine Generator

Acknowledgements ACHM would like to acknowledge and thank the MACAI survey participants for their involvement in the heritage works and report writing process.

Aiden Holland (archaeological surveys)

Anita Hunter (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Cynthia Hutchinson (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Dion Holland (archaeological surveys)

Grant Rigney (anthropological survey)

Isobelle Campbell (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Ivy Campbell (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Lynne Rigney (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Mavis Campbell (archaeological surveys)

Phillip Campbell (archaeological surveys)

Samantha Campbell (archaeological surveys)

Samuel Stewart (archaeological surveys)

Steven Rigney (archaeological surveys)

Rebecca Hunter (archaeological surveys)

Talia Rigney (archaeological surveys)


Page | v TRU07

Executive Summary Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd (ACHM) has been engaged by Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustpower) to undertake a cultural heritage survey of the proposed development footprint of the Palmer Wind Farm infrastructure between Mount Pleasant and Palmer, South Australia (see Map 1-1 to Map 1-4). Trustpower's Development Application is for up to 114 Wind Turbine Generators and associated infrastructure. The site is approximately 30 km long, comprising an area of approximately 12,000 hectares. The survey includes both anthropological and archaeological components.

The purpose of this report is to provide general heritage advice, to inform Trustpower of the presence of any newly recorded non-Aboriginal historical (historical) cultural heritage within the Project Area, to summarise the work conducted and methodology used, to outline the obligations Trustpower has under current heritage protection legislation, to inform Trustpower of potential risks with regard to conducting work that could impact upon the historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Project Area, and to put forward recommendations to help Trustpower to minimise impact to cultural heritage and meet its legal obligations.

Given the sensitive nature of many of the recorded Aboriginal sites, and the public nature of this report being part of Trustpower's Development Application, the Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Incorporated (MACAI) has requested that the details of specific Aboriginal site types and locations be held confidential. As such, specific information regarding newly located Aboriginal sites are not included within this report. These details have, at the request of MACAI, been provided to Trustpower so that these sites can be avoided during the proposed wind farm construction. The information provided within this report includes general desktop assessment and advice.

At the time of writing this report, heritage surveys have not been completed within the Project Area. As a way of showing due diligence in protecting heritage, it is understood that Trustpower has highlighted the importance of finishing heritage surveys within the Project Area prior to ground disturbance works commencing as the only true way of identifying (and avoiding where possible) heritage places and objects.

Aboriginal and Historical Heritage Site Registers

There are 88 recorded sites of Aboriginal or historical heritage within close proximity of the Trustpower Palmer Wind Farm Project Area. It is the opinion of ACHM that there is moderate to high potential for the Project Area to contain Aboriginal heritage sites and a low potential for it to contain historical heritage sites. The absence of identified heritage sites places Trustpower under no legal obligation to conduct a heritage survey, although Trustpower is legally obliged to ensure that any works do not disturb previously unidentified and unrecorded heritage sites. ACHM also advises that there are records of Aboriginal sites on similar geographic features and landforms to those within the project areas, that the Mount Lofty Ranges in general are of anthropological significance to Aboriginal groups, and that many archaeological sites have been recorded in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Statutory Requirements in relation to Aboriginal and Historical Heritage Sites

Work by Trustpower at the Palmer Wind Farm locations is to be undertaken in accordance with relevant heritage protection legislation, in particular the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (AHA). This requires that all Aboriginal sites, objects and remains are not disturbed without ministerial approval, regardless of whether or not they have been recorded or registered with the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division.

The primary legislation relating to historical heritage is the Heritage Places Act 1993. Only registered sites of historical heritage significance are protected under this act.

New Aboriginal Sites

At the time of writing this report, a large number of newly recorded Aboriginal archaeological cultural heritage sites were identified within the Project Area. Under the AHA, no Aboriginal sites, objects or remains may be disturbed without ministerial approval, regardless of whether or not they have been recorded or registered with the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division. As information regarding Aboriginal heritage has not been released by MACAI at the time of writing, this is not included within the report.

New Historic Sites

There are 12 newly recorded historical cultural heritage sites within the Project Area. Upon assessment, it is unlikely that many of these places meet the criteria to be placed on the State Heritage Register. Although there is no legal requirement to protect unregistered historical heritage, it is advised that Trustpower seeks to minimise its impact on these places wherever practical. The primary piece of legislation regarding local heritage places is the Development Act 1993 (SA).


Page | vi TRU07

Aboriginal Participation

The Palmer Wind Farm location is within the traditional lands of the Peramangk Aboriginal group. The Peramangk Aboriginal group does not have a native title claim lodged over its asserted traditional land and is represented for heritage matters by MACAI. MACAI representatives were involved in both the anthropological and archaeological surveys and contributed to the construction of this report.

Recommendations

A series of recommendations regarding Aboriginal heritage are currently being formulated under the direction of MACAI. As these recommendations are still being formulated, they are not included within this report. Recommendations have been provided regarding historical heritage and general high level desktop advice.

ACHM makes the following recommendations:

1. Waterways are of high cultural significance to Aboriginal people. Where possible all turbine infrastructure should avoid waterways and gullies and other culturally sensitive landscapes (not limited to those within this report). Where avoidance is not possible initial ground disturbance works should be monitored by representatives provided by MACAI.

2. Trustpower should, wherever possible, utilise existing access tracks. New access tracks should, wherever possible, keep to the crest or upper slopes of the hills within the project area. Where it is deemed necessary for access tracks to traverse gullies or creeks, these should create minimal impact, and initial ground disturbance works should be monitored by representatives provided by MACAI.

3. Areas that have not been surveyed as seen within Map 9-1 to Map 9-4 are Not Cleared. Heritage surveys are currently being conducted in these areas to determine whether or not there are any Aboriginal or historical sites located within. It is recommended that all areas within the Project Area are subject to heritage surveys prior to all initial ground disturbance works as a way of showing due diligence and the only way of determining whether or not Aboriginal and historic sites are located within.

4. All previously recorded and newly recorded Aboriginal sites should be treated in accordance with the requirements of the AHA. Section 23 of the AHA states that it is an offence to 'damage, disturb or interfere' with any Aboriginal site or object without Ministerial approval.

5. The Aboriginal site discovery procedure in Appendix 1 should be followed if Aboriginal sites, objects or remains are discovered during works in the Project Area.

6. Prior to work commencing, construction workers on the project should be given appropriate cultural heritage awareness training. MACAI representatives, supported by an ACHM heritage consultant, can provide these services. This should also include historical heritage training.

7. All on site workers should remain within the project footprint at all times and avoid going into nearby gullies and rocky outcrops as these are likely to contain Aboriginal heritage sites.


Page | vii TRU07

Table of contents

Ownership and Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................ iii

Spatial Data ............................................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iv

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1

2 Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.4 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 7

2.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 7

3 Heritage Protection Legislation .......................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA) ........................................................................................... 8

3.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cwth) ............................ 8

3.3 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003) (Cwth) .... 8

3.4 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 ..................................................................................... 9

3.5 Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth) .................................................................................................... 9

3.6 Heritage Places Act 1993 (SA) .................................................................................................. 9

3.7 Development Act 1993 (SA) ...................................................................................................... 9

3.8 Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994 .................................................................................... 9

3.9 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 9

4 Key Aboriginal Stakeholder Groups .................................................................................................. 11

5 Heritage Register Searches ............................................................................................................... 12

5.1 AARD Central Archive ............................................................................................................. 12

5.2 South Australian Museum Database ...................................................................................... 14

5.3 South Australian Heritage Places Database ........................................................................... 15

5.4 Australian Heritage Database ................................................................................................ 16

6 Previous Research ............................................................................................................................. 17

6.1 A History of Peramangk Occupation of the Project Area and Wider Region ......................... 17

6.1.1 Geographical Area and Tribal Boundaries ................................................................... 17

6.1.2 Land Use and Daily Life around the Project Area ........................................................ 18

6.1.3 Rock Art near the Project Area .................................................................................... 18

6.1.4 Myths and Creation Stories ......................................................................................... 19


Page | viii TRU07

6.1.5 The Effects of European Settlement on the Peramangk ............................................. 19

6.2 European Heritage Research .................................................................................................. 20

6.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 20

6.4 ACHM Corporate Archive ....................................................................................................... 20

6.4.1 Draper et al. (2006) ..................................................................................................... 20

6.4.2 Mullen, Sivak and Draper (2009) ................................................................................. 21

6.4.3 Gorman, Howard and Sivak (2012) ............................................................................. 21

6.4.4 Gara (2012) .................................................................................................................. 21

6.4.5 Sivak, Field and Thomas (2013) ................................................................................... 21

6.4.6 Hobbs, Field and Parker (2013) ................................................................................... 21

6.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 21

7 Constraints Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 22

7.1 General Principles of Association: Aboriginal Sites and Environmental Features ................. 22

7.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 23

7.3 Aboriginal Site Types Prevalent in the General Region .......................................................... 23

7.3.1 Campsites .................................................................................................................... 23

7.3.2 Aboriginal burials ......................................................................................................... 23

7.3.3 Culturally modified trees ............................................................................................. 23

7.3.4 Rock shelters ............................................................................................................... 23

7.3.5 Water Courses ............................................................................................................. 24

8 Survey Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 25

8.1 Participation ........................................................................................................................... 25

8.2 Anthropological Survey Methodology ................................................................................... 25

8.3 Archaeological Survey Methodology ..................................................................................... 26

8.3.1 Recording Archaeological Sites ................................................................................... 26

8.4 Cultural Heritage Reporting ................................................................................................... 27

9 Survey Results ................................................................................................................................... 28

9.1 Anthropological Survey Results .............................................................................................. 28

9.2 Archaeological Survey Results ................................................................................................ 28

9.3 Area A ..................................................................................................................................... 28

9.3.1 Area A Heritage Results ............................................................................................... 29

9.3.2 Areas Not Surveyed ..................................................................................................... 29

9.3.3 Further comments ....................................................................................................... 29

9.4 Area B ..................................................................................................................................... 31

9.4.1 Area B Heritage Results ............................................................................................... 32

Borthwick-Brae Road ............................................................................................................. 32



9.5 Area C ..................................................................................................................................... 36

9.5.1 Area C Heritage Results ............................................................................................... 36


Page | ix TRU07

Camel Hump Road .................................................................................................................. 36



10 Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 39

10.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 39

11 References ........................................................................................................................................ 40

12 Appendices........................................................................................................................................ 42

12.1 Appendix 1: Site Discovery Procedure ................................................................................... 42

List of figures Figure 9-1: Area A facing south prior to the 2014 fires ......................................................................... 28

Figure 9-2: Area A facing north ............................................................................................................. 29

Figure 9-3: Area B facing south ............................................................................................................. 31

Figure 9-4: Area B facing east ............................................................................................................... 31

Figure 9-5: Area C facing west ............................................................................................................... 36

List of maps Map 1-1: Project Area A ....................................................................................................................... 3

Map 1-2: Project Area B (1) .................................................................................................................. 4

Map 1-3: Project Area B (2) .................................................................................................................. 5

Map 1-4: Project Area C ....................................................................................................................... 6

Map 6-1: Tribal boundaries as recorded by Tindale (1974: 217) ....................................................... 17

Map 9-1: Surveyed areas - Area A ...................................................................................................... 30

Map 9-2: Surveyed areas - Area B (1) ................................................................................................. 34

Map 9-3: Surveyed areas - Area B (2) ................................................................................................. 35

Map 9-4: Surveyed areas - Area C (1) ................................................................................................. 38

List of tables Table 1-1: Project Description ............................................................................................................... 2

Table 5-1: Aboriginal sites on the AARD Central Archive within 5 km of the project area .................. 12

Table 5-2: Results of the SAM database search for the proposed project area with available descriptions ......................................................................................................................... 14

Table 5-3: Results of the SA Heritage Places Database within 1 km of the project area ..................... 15

Table 5-4: Results of now inactive Register of the National Estate within 1 km of the project area .. 16


Page | 1 TRU07

1 Introduction Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd (ACHM) has been engaged by Trustpower Australia (Trustpower) to undertake a cultural heritage survey of the proposed development footprint of the Palmer Wind Farm infrastructure between Mount Pleasant and Palmer, South Australia (see Map 1-1 to Map 1-4). Trustpower's Development Application (DA) is for up to 114 Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) and associated infrastructure. The site is approximately 30 km long, comprising an area of approximately 10,000 hectares. The survey includes both anthropological and archaeological components.

The purpose of this report is to provide general heritage advice, to inform Trustpower of the presence of any newly recorded non-Aboriginal historical (historical) cultural heritage within the Project Area, to summarise the work conducted and methodology used, to outline the obligations Trustpower has under current heritage protection legislation, to inform Trustpower of potential risks with regard to conducting work that could impact upon the historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Project Area, and to put forward recommendations to help Trustpower to minimise impact to cultural heritage and meet its legal obligations.

ACHM also provides within this report, general desktop advice regarding Aboriginal heritage.

ACHM has previously provided Trustpower with a desktop cultural heritage assessment report (Field, Thomas & Marshallsay 2013) for the Palmer Wind Farm project area. The purpose of the Field, Thomas & Marshallsay (2013) report was to inform Trustpower of the presence of any previously identified and/or recorded Aboriginal and historical cultural heritage within the Project Area, to indicate the likelihood of the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits (including human remains), to outline the obligations Trustpower has under current heritage protection legislation, and to inform Trustpower of other potential risks with regard to conducting work that could impact upon the historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage in the project area.

Field, Thomas & Marshallsay (2013) deals with the following: the project brief and proposed project area, basic environmental data, relevant heritage protection legislation, relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and their legal representatives, previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites on the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (AARD) Central Archive database, previously recorded Aboriginal cultural material and skeletal remains listed on the South Australian Museum (SAM) database, previous Aboriginal cultural heritage surveys undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed project area, history and background of the Aboriginal occupation of the general area, previously recorded historical heritage sites, a constraints analysis of geographic features likely to contain heritage sites, recommendations and an assessment of the potential risk of conducting work that could impact upon historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage. This information will also be included within this report.

This current report documents the anthropological and archaeological surveys undertaken between November 2013 and February 2014. This report deals with the following: a brief overview of the project background and project area, the survey participants, methodology and results. A summary and recommendations section addresses the management of areas of Aboriginal heritage identified during the anthropological survey.

1.1 Project Description

Trustpower's DA is for up to 114 WTGs and associated infrastructure as shown in Maps 1-1 to 1-4 (Layout 7.0). The site is approximately 30 km long (generally located on ridgelines), comprising an area of approximately 12,000 hectares.

Approval is sought for the WTGs and associated infrastructure to be generally in accordance with the indicative locations within the WTG corridors as seen in see Map 1-1 to Map 1-4. Before the development starts, final development plans showing exact locations of all infrastructure within the surveyed corridors will be prepared to the satisfaction of the Mid Murray Council with supporting material to demonstrate that the alteration or modification will not give rise to an adverse change to assessed landscape, vegetation, cultural heritage, visual amenity, shadow flicker, noise, electromagnetic interference, fire risk or aviation impacts. This report will only discuss matters regarding Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage.

Table 1-1 provides the approximate dimensions and impact areas for the wind farm infrastructure.


Page | 2 TRU07

Table 1-1: Project Description

Component Description

Project Layout Up to 114 WTGs and associated infrastructure across three areas as described above.

Wind Turbines Maximum height (to blade tip) – 165 m. Blade Length – approximately 65 m. Tower Height – approximately 100 m. Foundations (depending on final design may be 21-22 m for a mass concrete design or 8-12 m for a rock anchor type, typically 3 m deep).

WTG laydown & Hardstand area

An average area of approximately 50 x 30 m around each turbine for foundation and laydown areas and an additional 20 x 20 m adjacent to the turbine foundations for crane hardstand

External Electrical Transformers

A pad mounted enclosed transformer (kiosk) located at the base of each turbine. Approximate dimensions (4 m long x 2 m wide x 2 m high).

Site Access On-site access tracks up to 10 m wide to accommodate for construction activities and cranes.

Underground 33kV and fibre optic cabling

Approximate total length 72 km. Trench width approximately 500 mm per circuit and depth – approximately 1.2 m (minimum of 900 mm coverage over top of cable). Trench impact area of 5 m width for a single cable alignment + 1 m for each additional cable.

Overhead 33kV transmission lines

Within 100 m of the approximate alignment (total length 30 km). The impact area will be 4 m wide. Comprise up to 2 circuits (6 conductors) on a single pole line with steel poles of up to 25 m in height and spaced approximately 250 – 300 m apart. There will be an underground/overhead terminal station at the poles where the underground 33 kV cables terminate to be converted to the overhead line.

Overhead 275kV transmission

Approximate length 10 km along the route shown in Maps 1-1 to 1-4. Comprise either lattice towers up to 46 m high (similar to existing high voltage towers in the area) or steel or spun concrete monopoles up to 32 m high and spaced approximately 275 – 375 m apart. The impact areas will be up to 10 x 10 m for the lattice towers and 5 x 5 m for the monopole locations.

Substation and Operations and Maintenance Facilities

One permanent 33 kV/275 kV substation with approximate dimensions of 150 x 150 m co-located with a permanent Operations and Maintenance Facility of approximately 100 x 100 m The Operations and Maintenance Facility will include: Building (including office, control room, staff facilities etc.) Car park area for staff and visitors Workshop

Meteorological masts

Two existing masts An additional five to be installed These will be approximately 100 m in height and at the same height as the constructed WTG hub height.


Page | 3 TRU07

Map 1-1: Project Area A


Page | 4 TRU07

Map 1-2: Project Area B (1)


Page | 5 TRU07

Map 1-3: Project Area B (2)


Page | 6 TRU07

Map 1-4: Project Area C


Page | 7 TRU07

2 Environment This section of the report provides a brief overview of the relevant details regarding environment, natural history and land use of the project area. It is understood that an environmental report has already been prepared for Trustpower by EBS Services. This section will provide a brief overview of the area.

2.1 Topography

The project site lies within the Mt Lofty Block (Province 3), as defined by Laut et al (1977). Specifically, the study area is part of the Peninsula Uplands (Environmental region 3.2), characterised by an undulating to hilly upland with steeper marginal ranges and hills (Laut et al 1977: 56).

2.2 Geology

The Mt Lofty Ranges are generally considered to be an intra-plate region uplifted since the early Tertiary (see Laut et al 1977: 54; Coles and Hunter 2010: 116), with inherited tectonic fabrics from the Delamerian structure. However a recent study has proposed a new model incorporating neotectonic movements independent of ancient tectonic fabrics and sea-level change as factors governing landscape evolution of the Mt Lofty Ranges (Tokarev and Gostin 2003: 1).

Coles and Hunter (2010: 116) write that regional metamorphism occurred in sandy and clay sediments during the Palaeozoic age to produce the Kanmantoo group of rocks, which have formed rock shelters in which rock art has been found within Peramangk country. They write that the rocks in Peramangk country can be divided into three main groups – calcerous, siliceous and coarse-grained gneiss – and that the latter formed the shelters used for habitation and art sites in districts including those near the project site, such as Angaston, Eden Valley and Springton (Coles and Hunter 2010: 116). Granites and gneisses to the east and north of Mount Lofty are associated with rich mineral deposits, quartz veins and outcrops (Coles and Hunter 2010: 116).

2.3 Vegetation

Pre‐European vegetation in the project area has been categorised as open woodland transiting to an open scrub (Boomsa and Lewis 1980). The open woodland contained Eucalyptus spp. in association with Acacia spp., Callitris spp. and other native species as the dominant trees. The open scrub was dominated by multi‐stemmed Eucalyptus spp. with various understoreys (Boomsa and Lewis 1980). Cereal cropping and clearing for grazing since European settlement has drastically altered the environment, with remnant native vegetation only existing in discrete parcels (Laut et al 1977).

2.4 Land Use

Aside from agriculture and pastoral uses, little development has occurred within the project site other than the construction of a few dry-stone walls (DSWs), unpaved tracks, dams, three dwellings, a 275 kV high voltage transmission line and an underground gas main.

2.5 Discussion

The project site lies within the Mt Lofty Block (Province 3) and is characterised by undulating to hilly upland, with some steeper hills. The geology of the area is such that over the years, rock shelters have been formed that were favourable for use as habitation and rock art sites by the Peramangk people; several such shelters have been identified near the project site.

The soil condition of the project site has made it favourable for agricultural land use, which in turn has resulted in the clearing of the majority of native vegetation in the area.


Page | 8 TRU07

3 Heritage Protection Legislation This section outlines information on the relevant Aboriginal and historical heritage protection legislation.

3.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA)

The AHA is administered by AARD. Any Aboriginal site, object or remains, whether previously recorded or not, is covered under the blanket protection of the AHA. The AHA provides the following definition of an Aboriginal site in section 3.

“Aboriginal Site” means an area of land

(a) That is of significance according to Aboriginal tradition; or

(b) That is of significance according to Aboriginal archaeology, anthropology or history.

It is an offence under section 23 of the AHA to damage, disturb or interfere with an Aboriginal site, object or remains unless written authorisation from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation has been obtained. Penalties for an offence under this section are up to $10,000 or six months' imprisonment in the case of an individual, or $50,000 in the case of a corporate body.

It should also be noted that it is an offence under section 35 of the AHA to divulge information relating to an Aboriginal site, object, remains or Aboriginal tradition without authorisation from the relevant Aboriginal group or groups. Penalties for an offence against this section are up to $10,000 or six months' imprisonment.

The AHA is highly relevant given the potential to encounter Aboriginal sites in the project area. The AHA provides no legal requirement to do an Aboriginal heritage survey. However, an Aboriginal heritage survey is often undertaken during the planning stage of a project as a risk minimising and due diligence strategy to reduce the prospect of delays during construction, and to avoid an inadvertent breach of the AHA.

3.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cwth)

The Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cwth) (ATSIHP Act) provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to make declarations regarding the protection of an Aboriginal area when the Minister is satisfied that, under State or Territory law, there is ineffective protection of the area from a threat of injury or desecration. Declarations made under this Act may involve restricting activities and/or access to an Aboriginal site.

Under section 22 of the ATSIHP Act, it is an offence to conduct behaviour or partake in an action that contravenes a declaration made by the Minister. Where this relates to an Aboriginal place, the penalties applicable under this section are $10,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both, for an individual, and $50,000 for a corporate body. Where an Aboriginal object is concerned, the penalties are $5000 or imprisonment for two years, or both, for an individual, and $25,000 for a corporate body.

If the requirements of the AHA are adhered to, the ATSIHP Act will likely have no relevance for Aboriginal sites found to exist within the project area.

3.3 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003) (Cwth)

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003) (Cwth) (EPBC Act) fulfils Australia's obligations as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention 1972 by protecting World Heritage properties in Australia. In addition, the EPBC Act protects places of national cultural and environmental significance from damage and interference by establishing a National Heritage List (for places outside of Commonwealth land) and a Commonwealth Heritage List (for places within Commonwealth land).

Under the EPBC Act any action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a place of national cultural and/or environmental significance must be referred to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for approval. The EPBC Act sets out a procedure for obtaining approval, which may include the need to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action (an action is defined in section 523 of the Act to include a project, a development, an undertaking, or an activity or series of activities).

The EPBC Act is only relevant in relation to an Aboriginal site if the site is (1) within the boundaries of a World Heritage-listed property, or (2) entered onto the National or Commonwealth Heritage Lists. There is currently no requirement for referral to the Commonwealth Department for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities under the EPBC Act if the site is not entered onto one of these lists.


Page | 9 TRU07

3.4 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013

The Burra Charter defines cultural significance as relating to the 'aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations'. Of particular reference to archaeology, it defines scientific value as depending on 'the importance of the data involved, on its rarity, quality or representativeness, and on the degree to which the place may contribute further substantial information' (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013).

3.5 Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth)

The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) is part of the Commonwealth’s response to the High Court’s decision in Mabo v Queensland (No.2) and adopts the common law definition of native title, defined as the rights and interests that are possessed under the traditional laws and customs of Aboriginal people in land and waters, and that are recognised by the common law. These rights may exist over Crown Land but do not exist over land held as freehold title.

The NTA recognises the existence of an Indigenous land ownership tradition where connections to country have been maintained and where acts of government have not extinguished this connection.

3.6 Heritage Places Act 1993 (SA)

The South Australian Heritage Places Act 1993 is the paramount historical heritage protection legislation in South Australia. This Act includes the SA Heritage Register (Part 3 of the Act), which consists of a list of ‘State Heritage Places’ and ‘State Heritage Areas’. This list has been searched as part of the desktop research for this report. Section 16 of this Act establishes a set of criteria to be used to assess whether a place qualifies for listing on the SA Heritage Register. Buried cultural material relating to the non-Aboriginal settlement or exploration of Australia (i.e. archaeological artefacts) has relevance under this Act as a component of a listed ‘State Heritage Place’ or ‘State Heritage Area’, and it is also a requirement under section 27(2) that the discovery of any non-Aboriginal ‘archaeological artefact’ of ‘heritage significance’ is reported to the South Australian Heritage Council. Under section 36 of this Act, it an offence to damage a heritage place entered onto the SA Heritage Register.

3.7 Development Act 1993 (SA)

The South Australian Development Act 1993 provides the legislative framework within which State-wide planning and development work must comply. Often used alongside the associated Development Regulations, the Development Act 1993 (SA) regulates the use and management of land and buildings as well as the design and construction of buildings, and makes provisions for the maintenance and conservation of land and buildings, where appropriate.

3.8 Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994

As stated above, the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 is part of the Commonwealth's response to the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) and adopts the common law definition of native title defined as the rights and interests that are possessed under the traditional laws and customs of Aboriginal people in land and waters, and that are recognised by the common law. Provisions within the Commonwealth NTA allow for the States to develop their own native title legislation, provided the State legislation does not conflict with the Commonwealth Act.

South Australia has enacted an alternative State right to negotiate scheme as authorised by the Commonwealth under section 43 of the NTA. This scheme is operative and to date comprises the Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994; Land Acquisition (Native Title) Amendment Act 1994; Mining (Native Title) Amendment Act 1994; Opal Mining Act 1995 and the Environment, Resources and Development Court (Native Title) Amendment Act 1995. Regulations are in force for all these Acts together with Rules of Court for the Environment, Resources and Development Court.

3.9 Discussion

The central legislation to Aboriginal heritage in the project area is the AHA, as the project area may contain Aboriginal sites, objects or remains covered by this Act. There is no legal requirement under the AHA to undertake an Aboriginal cultural heritage survey, however surveys are often undertaken as a risk management/due diligence strategy to ensure that no project delays are encountered during the construction phase. The auxiliary application of the Commonwealth NTA provides a process for identifying the native title claimant group and any consultation that may need to occur with that group.


Page | 10 TRU07

Historical heritage is not afforded the same blanket protection and, as such, Trustpower has no statutory obligation to manage unlisted non-Aboriginal heritage. Any potential impact of the project on State or Local listed heritage places would require approval under the South Australian Development Act 1993. There are two State heritage places located within a kilometre of the proposed project area.

Should the project affect any State heritage places listed in the vicinity of the project area, the South Australian Heritage Places Act 1993 would be the applicable legislation. Additionally, in accordance with the Heritage Places Act 1993, any site of heritage significance uncovered during the course of development must be reported. Trustpower has sought community opinion regarding the impacts of the project on non-Aboriginal heritage places and the aesthetic values of these places.


Page | 11 TRU07

4 Key Aboriginal Stakeholder Groups Based on ACHM's previous experience and information available from AARD and the South Australian Native Title Services, the Aboriginal community stakeholder group for the project area is identified as the Peramangk Aboriginal Group. It is relevant to document the Aboriginal heritage committee with heritage interests in the project area so that while the cultural heritage survey is being undertaken, the appropriate Aboriginal Traditional Owner groups to consult are clearly identified.

The Peramangk Aboriginal group does not have a native title claim lodged over its asserted traditional land and is represented for heritage matters by a heritage committee. As an incorporated body, the Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Incorporated (MACAI) represents the heritage interests of the Peramangk people.

ACHM understands that MACAI would expect monitoring of any earthworks conducted adjacent to any identified Aboriginal archaeological sites, or at areas where there is the potential for buried sediments to contain Aboriginal archaeological sites.


Page | 12 TRU07

5 Heritage Register Searches The AARD Central Archive, SAM collections database, South Australian Heritage Places Database and the Australian Heritage Database were searched in order to determine the presence of previously registered and/or known Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage sites in and adjacent to the proposed project area.

5.1 AARD Central Archive

The Central Archive is maintained by AARD and includes the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects. The archive documents previously recorded Aboriginal sites in South Australia. It is a mechanism whereby Aboriginal heritage sites can be identified on a parcel of land prior to the commencement of development activities or ground disturbance work.

A search of the Central Archive revealed 61 previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites within 5 km of the proposed project area. Please note that AARD does not provide the specific locations of sites on the register without the consent of the relevant Aboriginal group/s. More precise locations of these sites will be provided (with Traditional Owner group approval) in the confidential report provided to Trustpower.

Table 5-1: Aboriginal sites on the AARD Central Archive within 5 km of the project area

AARD Site Number

AARD Site Type

110 Painting

112 Painting

115 Painting

116 Painting

117 Painting

122 Painting

138 Quarry

140 Painting

148 Archaeological

207 Scarred Tree

210 Painting

221 Painting

318 Archaeological

627 Painting

946 Painting

1171 Scarred Tree

1172 Scarred Tree

1173 Archaeological

1174 Archaeological

1175 Scarred Tree

1204 Painting

1219 Archaeological

1220 Archaeological

1221 Archaeological

1222 Scarred Tree


Page | 13 TRU07

AARD Site Number

AARD Site Type

1223 Archaeological

1377 Engraving / Painting

1612 Archaeological

1965 Archaeological

1968 Painting

1985 Burial

2558 Archaeological

2559 Quarry

2560 Archaeological

2604 Painting

2606 Archaeological

2755 Scarred Tree

2756 Scarred Tree

2757 Scarred Tree

2758 Scarred Tree

2759 Scarred Tree

2762 Arrangement

2985 Painting

3672 Engraving

3674 Scarred Tree

3757 Painting

3765 Scarred Tree

3766 Archaeological

3772 Archaeological

3773 Archaeological

3774 Archaeological

3775 Archaeological

3777 Archaeological

3892 Painting

3909 Scarred Tree

3910 Scarred Tree

4369 Historic/Myth/Ceremonial

4792 Painting

4807 Painting

5111 Archaeological

7089 Burial


Page | 14 TRU07

The Central Archive is not a comprehensive record of all Aboriginal sites and objects in a designated area; unrecorded Aboriginal sites and/or objects may be present. Aboriginal sites and objects in South Australia are granted protection under the AHA whether or not they have been registered with AARD.

5.2 South Australian Museum Database

The SAM Database contains information about Aboriginal cultural material and human remains held by the museum. The database documents material items and remains the museum holds and usually records how and when these were acquired. It does not, however, provide exact geographical locations, only identification of the region in which the material was found.

To ascertain if any culturally sensitive material had been located in the vicinity of the proposed project area, the SAM database was searched using keywords: Tungkillo, Mount Pleasant, Palmer, Sanderston, Springton, Taunton, and Milendella.

The database contains seven skeletal entries, seven rock shelter paintings, two stone artefacts and five entries without description (see Table 5-2).

The SAM Database holds information relating only to cultural material and human remains held by the museum. Additional information regarding natural, historic and Aboriginal places within the vicinity of the project area was sought through a search of the Australian Heritage Database (see section 5.4).

Table 5-2: Results of the SAM database search for the proposed project area with available descriptions

SAM Registry Number Location Description

A38226 s.406 Hundred of Tungkillo Aboriginal remains



NR19 11 km east of Springton Aboriginal remains

A658 Mount Pleasant Aboriginal remains

A26746 Tungkillo Rock shelter painting







A38673 1.5 km east of Tungkillo Aboriginal remains

A38674 1.5 km east of Tungkillo Aboriginal remains

A26458 Mount Pleasant -

A26466 Mount Pleasant -

A40594 s.328 northern boundary, Hundred of Tungkillo

Slate scraper

A43706 Tungkillo, Deep Creek, Sugarloaf

-

A50534 Tungkillo, Deep Creek, Sugarloaf

Slate scraper

A57242 Rockleigh-Tungkillo -

A43941 Tungkillo -


Page | 15 TRU07

5.3 South Australian Heritage Places Database

The South Australian Heritage Places Database, maintained by the South Australian Government Department of Planning and Local Government, is a tool to assist people in locating heritage places and associated information within specified areas in South Australia. Like the SAM database it does not provide exact geographical positioning of places.

The SA Heritage Places Database is a comprehensive listing of:

State Heritage Places from the SA Heritage Register

Local Heritage Places from SA Development Plans

Contributory Items from SA Development Plans

Wherever applicable, the SA Heritage Places Database also provides details of heritage places listed on the World Heritage List, the National Heritage List and the Register of the National Estate, but this is chiefly the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government's Australian Heritage Database maintained by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. It is important to note however that the Register of the National Estate is no longer active and is used as an archival record only. Entries that are on the Register of the National Estate do not automatically qualify to be state or national heritage listed.

A search of the SA Heritage Places Database revealed eight places on the State Heritage List located near the proposed project area, as detailed below in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3: Results of the SA Heritage Places Database within 1 km of the project area

SA State Heritage Places Database search for the Project Area

Heritage ID Place Description Locality Significance

14484 Shearing Shed old Terlinga Station

Tungkillo SA Local Heritage Register

10835 Kitticoola Mine Palmer SA Local Heritage Register




13197 Granite Boulders Area Geological Site

Palmer SA Local Heritage Register

14604 Milendella Creek Railway Bridge [Concrete Girder]

Milendella via Palmer

SA Local Heritage Register

14603 Reedy Creek Railway Bridge [Concrete Arch]

Palmer SA Local Heritage Register


Page | 16 TRU07

5.4 Australian Heritage Database

The Australian Heritage Database contains information about more than 20,000 natural, historic and Indigenous places. It is maintained by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

The database includes:

places in the World Heritage List

places in the National Heritage List

places in the Commonwealth Heritage list

places in the Register of the National Estate

places in the List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia

places under consideration, or that may have been considered for, any one of these lists

To ascertain if any historic places had been located in the vicinity of the project area, the Australian Heritage Database was searched for any sites within 1 km of the proposed survey area. Four places were noted as being within 2 km of the project area on the now defunct Register of the National Estate (see Table 6-4). No other heritage listed places were found within this range.

Table 5-4 shows four places listed around the survey area found on the now inactive Register of the National Estate. Please note that the Register of the National Estate does not provide GIS data showing specific locations of sites.

Table 5-4: Results of now inactive Register of the National Estate within 1 km of the project area

Heritage Places on the Register of the National Estate (now inactive)

Heritage ID Place Name Locality

7593 Talbot - Harrison Creek Confluence 2 km south southwest of Palmer

7588 Palmer Granite Boulders Area Palmer-Tungkillo Road, Palmer

7931 Indigenous Place Restricted

7903 Saunders Gorge Sanderston


Page | 17 TRU07

6 Previous Research This section documents the results of background research into the cultural heritage of the project area and surrounding lands. This research indicates that the project area falls exclusively within the traditional lands of the Peramangk people, represented by MACAI. This section also provides a review of relevant anthropological and archaeological literature, a discussion of site types prevalent in the Mt Lofty Ranges, and research into the historical heritage of the area.

6.1 A History of Peramangk Occupation of the Project Area and Wider Region

6.1.1 Geographical Area and Tribal Boundaries

Anthropologist Norman Tindale recorded the traditional lands of the Peramangk people as being in the Mt Lofty Ranges, extending as far south as Myponga and as far north as Gawler and Angaston, east to Wright Hill, Strathalbyn and Kanmantoo, and along the eastern scarp of the range to near Towitta (Tindale 1974: 217; Coles and Draper 1988: 5; Coles and Hunter 2010: 13). Accounts from early European settlers record that the Peramangk people could have numbered several thousand inhabitants living in large camps near the Mount Barker summit, Mount Crawford, Eden Valley and Springton (Coles and Hunter 2010: 13), and radiocarbon dating of charcoal from campsites in the area shows that people have lived in the Ranges for around 2400 years (Coles and Hunter 2010: 13). Map 6-1 shows the tribal boundaries as recorded by Tindale (1974: 217).

Map 6-1: Tribal boundaries as recorded by Tindale (1974: 217)

This was an area well-endowed with resources, including food, water, firewood, raw materials such as stone, timber and resins for manufacturing tools, bark for huts, shields and canoes, pigments for painting and animals for food and fur (Coles and Draper 1988: 11). As such, while some neighbouring groups such as the Ngarkat to the east had to live a relatively nomadic lifestyle in order to exploit the available resources, the Peramangk did not need to venture far in order to survive. They lived for much of the year in the vicinity of Mount Barker, and along the strip of Red Gum country running north to the Angaston district. With abundant water and plenty of animals and plant life to exploit, the Peramangk had little need to visit the plains. During winter, they stayed below an altitude of around 360 m, and winter shelters constructed of branches, bark, grass and leaves, often around hollow gum trees, have been recorded around the Eden Valley and Angaston districts in the northern part of Peramangk country, (Hossfeld 1926; Coles and Draper 1988: 11).

Boundaries between the tribes maintained themselves for a number of reasons. To begin with, the boundary of circumcision includes the Peramangk, with groups to the east of the Ranges not engaging in that practice of initiation (Coles and Draper 1988: 6; Tindale 1974). As such, those living to the east of the Mount Lofty Ranges were afraid of the Peramangk due to their practice of circumcision, while the Murray River peoples were also said to have a strong dislike of closed-in forests and hills, preferring to be able to see the horizon (Tindale 1974; Coles and Hunter 2010: 16). Meanwhile, to the west, the Kaurna feared the Peramangk for their reputed powers of evil


Page | 18 TRU07

magic (Tindale 1974; Coles and Hunter 2010: 16). With groups on either side fearing them and having no desire to venture into the hills, boundaries maintained themselves without any need for the use of force.

However, it is also noted in the diaries of early settler and teacher W.A. Cawthorne that a close relationship probably existed between the Peramangk and the Kaurna. He suggests that the name Peramangk may in fact be Kaurna in origin, being the combination of the words peroo (flesh) and maingker (red colour), which may be a reference to impressions of initiated Peramangk men painted in red ochre (Cawthorne 1844: 46).

6.1.2 Land Use and Daily Life around the Project Area

As stated above, the Peramangk occupied an area abundant with food, water and other exploitable resources such as stone, timber, resins, pigments and furs (Coles and Draper 1988: 3). Coles and Hunter (2010: 34-55) list the numerous plant, animal and other resources they were able to make use of in the area. Women generally gathered the native roots and bulbs for food, roasting them in baskets in earthen ovens (Coles and Hunter 2010: 34).

The Peramangk also had particular ways of hunting animals such as kangaroos and emus, including the use of ‘hunting hides’ which allowed the hunter to lie concealed in wait for the prey (Coles and Hunter 2010: 31). A number of these hides have been recorded within the Mount Lofty Ranges, consisting of low walls of stone, usually in a ‘U’ shape (Coles and Hunter 2010: 31; Gara and Turner 1982).

For hunting ducks meanwhile, the Peramangk would construct long, string nets from plant fibre and set them in the creeks and rivers. A returning-hovering boomerang was used to fool the duck into thinking a hawk was hovering above it, and the hunter would make an artificial hawk cry, causing the duck to swoop into the net at the right moment (Tindale 1974: 107; Coles and Hunter 2010: 33).

Water courses such as the Marne River were important trade routes for several groups. Among other groups, the Peramangk traded with the Kaurna, and with the Ngangaruku, who visited the eastern hills near Springton seasonally, travelling upstream along Saunders Creek and the Marne River (Hossfeld 1926). Important trade items for the Peramangk included the bark from Manna gum, and stringybark and iron pyrites used to light fires (Schmidt 1983: 66). Items brought into Peramangk country included chert pieces from the lower South East, and from further north along the Murray River, possum skins used to make fur cloaks and River Red Gum bark used for bowls, shields and canoes (Hunter and Coles 2010: 68). The people of the Murray River and plains are known to have brought mallee wood branches to trade, ideal for manufacturing spears (Tindale 1974; Coles and Draper 1988: 6). Other items traded included milky quartz and crystals for the manufacture of spear barbs and blades used in skin cutting ceremonies and sorcery practices. Ochre used for body-coating and rock art, slate scrapers and umbilical cords of new-born babies to be used in the practice of sorcery were also traded. Edge-ground axes were also brought all the way from Victoria, beginning their journey as blanks, and arriving in South Australia ground and polished. Some of these were used to cut wood, and others were regarded as status symbols for senior tribal members (Coles and Hunter 2010: 68).

Important gatherings and corroborees also occurred along these trade routes. The network of painting sites and semi-permanent campsites near the project area suggests that this was a major cultural exchange centre, where groups would not only trade, but also settle grievances, perform ceremonies, organise marriages and instruct young group members in the law (Coles and Hunter 2010: 156; see also Blair 1997). The Peramangk would have had clear views of the trading groups’ campfires from their shelters, and would have been able to prepare in advance for their arrival and for the large ceremonies that would follow (Coles and Hunter 2010: 156).

The ceremonies would probably have taken place on the upper banks of Saunders Creek and the Marne River, near Springton and Eden Valley (Hossfeld 1926). According to Cawthorne’s diaries, each tribe sat separately, although close, in a horse-shoe shape, with each tribe dancing and singing in turn for an hour or two (Cawthorne 1844). Coles and Hunter (2010: 55) write that ‘[t]he corroborees were a means of connecting the participants and audience with the land.’

6.1.3 Rock Art near the Project Area

Many rock art sites have been recorded within the Mt Lofty Ranges and attributed to the Peramangk people (Coles and Draper 1988: 34; Coles and Hunter 2010). Several of these are in proximity to the project area, in shelters or on granite columns and boulders along the River Marne. Most sites are found within 1 km of a water source (Coles and Hunter 2010: 116).

In the mid-1920s Hossfeld (1926) wrote of three rock art sites in shelters near Eden Valley on the River Marne. In 1963, a fourth site was documented around 100 m from one of the previously recorded sites by Roger Teusner (1963). A painted and engraved site was recorded on the River Marne in 1986 by Gara and Turner (1986), and five further sites were recorded by Robin Coles near the River Marne in 1993 (Coles 1993).

Many of the paintings in the region were done using red, yellow and white ochre, and depict dancing figures and warriors holding boomerangs, spears and shields (Coles and Hunter 2010: 141). The most commonly occurring


Page | 19 TRU07

motifs are human figures (Coles and Draper 1988: 34). However, depictions of lizards, a snake-neck tortoise, a serpent humanoid, bird tracks and reptiles have also been identified (Coles and Hunter 2010: 141, 156). An unusual use of white dots not seen at any other painting sites in the Mount Lofty Ranges has been noted in two of the painting sites, and it is believed that the same artist may be responsible for both works (Coles and Hunter 2010: 156).

A more recent art style of finely scratched figures superimposed over the older red and white ochre figures, as found in a large shelter at the headwaters of Saunders Creek, 2 km southeast of Eden Valley, is thought to record the number of people attending a ceremony, or to depict groups of people in dance formation (Coles and Hunter 2010: 156).

Charcoal from a hearth site near Saunders Creek has been dated to 800 (± 80) years before present (Coles 1993). This site includes two ceremonial stone circles with nearby burial sites, and it seems likely that it is the same extensive semi-permanent Saunders Creek campsite described earlier by Hossfeld (1926). There are at least 200 other exposed hearths above this level in the region, indicating that cultural activity continued to occur in the area long after this time.

6.1.4 Myths and Creation Stories

Several myths or creation stories have been recorded which make mention of Peramangk country (see Coles and Hunter 2010: 89-98). These stories are often shared between neighbouring tribes, each of which holds slightly different versions of the story.

One well known story is that of Tjilbruki (or Tjibruki), specifically the versions recorded by Tindale (1987). Although this story is often considered to be chiefly of importance among the Kaurna people of the Adelaide plains, Tjilbruki travels through Peramangk country as part of his journey. A Peramangk account of the story was provided to Tindale by Robert Mason of the Mannum area (Tindale 1987; see also Coles and Hunter 2010: 89). In tracking an emu, he is thought to have followed it through Myponga, near the southern boundary of Peramangk country (Coles and Hunter 2010: 90).

A second Kaurna story which relates to Peramangk country is that of Juredla (also Yura), an ancestral giant who came from the east to attack the people of the plains. Sometimes recorded as the rainbow serpent, Tindale (1974: 64) recorded the name in Kaurna as meaning, 'the body of an ancestral man'. The giant was slain, and his fallen body forms the Mount Lofty Ranges, stretching approximately 60 km from Mount Lofty to Nuriootpa. The twin peaks of Mount Lofty and Mount Bonython are his two ears (Coles and Hunter 2010: 93; Tindale 1974: 64). The town of Uraidla is said to have been named after this giant by the South Australian Premier, Sir Thomas Playford (Coles and Hunter 2010: 93).

Ngurunderi, another creation ancestor, is said to have been involved with the creation customs and beliefs of the Peramangk, as well as the visiting lower Murray tribes. He is also credited with having created the Murray River. The Point McLeay Missionary, Rev. George Taplin (1879: 55, 58), wrote the following about Ngurunderi:

He is said to have made all things on earth and to have given to men the weapons of war and hunting. Ngurunderi instituted all the rites and ceremonies which are practised by the Aborigines, whether connected with life or death… the natives regard thunder as the angry voice of Ngurunderi and the rainbow as also a production of his.

Another Kaurna story makes mention of the Peramangk association with the hilly country to the east of Adelaide. It is the story of Pootpobberrie, who is said to have, along with his lubra (wife) and children, ‘had possession of the hill country east of the great plain.’ As related to James Cronk by C.H. Harris in 1913, ‘They did not eat flesh, but lived on roots, fruit, and wattle-gum and to supply their wants with least trouble robbed their neighbours on the plain’ (a likely reference to the Kaurna) (Public Service Review 1913: 34-36).

6.1.5 The Effects of European Settlement on the Peramangk

By the mid-1840s, European settlement was encroaching on much of Peramangk territory, with flocks of sheep crowding the watering places traditionally used by the Peramangk and the animals they hunted. Because the area included some of the most productive agricultural land in South Australia (Laut et al 1977: 54), agriculture rapidly expanded in the district. Hossfeld (1926: 291) provides an example of the destruction that occurred to resources in the area:


Page | 20 TRU07

This paper would be incomplete without reference to the very numerous burnt out hollow red gums in the district. The majority of the openings face east of north and provide excellent shelter… In conclusion the writer voices his regret that these important records of the former native occupation should be doomed to rapid disappearance owing to the mutilation which they are subject to by visitors ignorant of their value.

By the mid-1850s documentary sources referring to the Hills Tribe began to disappear, and many of the Peramangk moved to live in the Riverland, displaced by agriculture (Coles and Draper 1988: 2-3).

6.2 Historical Heritage Research

The Linn and Linn (1990) report collected previous studies in the area and provides a themed approach to the built heritage of the area. The report identifies individual places and heritage landscapes of the major regional centres in the area as well as highlighting significant figures in the area.

Further references to built heritage in the area are made by Lester, Firth and Murton (1981), whose report on built heritage throughout the area is used as a reference for the Register of the National Estate listings of many heritage places in the area (please note that this register is no longer active and was accessed in order to determine the likelihood of historical sites in the region

The cultural tourism series by Leader‐Elliot (2005) highlights the importance and exploitation of heritage items and places within the area. Leader‐Elliot suggests the heritage focus in the area is driven from a Eurocentric perspective and a shift in perspective to incorporate other heritage types could be beneficial to the community.

The historic heritage in the area is well documented and appreciated by residents and visitors. Although there are only two heritage places listed as being of National and State significance, local heritage in the area contributes to the everyday lives of people within the Palmer region.

6.3 Discussion

Documentation by early anthropologist Norman Tindale places the project area definitively within the traditional lands of the Peramangk, and records by early settlers document a population of several thousand living in large camps throughout the Mount Lofty Ranges. The area was abundant with food and water, so that the Peramangk were able to remain in semi-permanent camps and did not need to venture far from their traditional lands. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from fires in the area shows that people have lived in the area for at least 2400 years.

The literature, as well as the discovery of numerous rock art sites and campsites along the Marne River, shows that this area was part of an important trade route and cultural centre, with groups conducting meetings and ceremonies on the upper banks of Saunders Creek and the Marne River, near Springton and Eden Valley. With the arrival of European settlers, much of the land was given over to agriculture, and the Peramangk were largely displaced from their lands, many moving to live in the Riverland nearby.

More generally, previous research indicates that various Aboriginal site types, such as campsites, burials, culturally modified trees, rock shelters and rock art sites, are most likely to be found in the vicinity of a watercourse, and that watercourses are often culturally significant in and of themselves. Many such sites have been previously identified within the Mt Lofty Ranges, and it is possible that more could be encountered within the proposed Palmer Wind Farm area.

6.4 ACHM Corporate Archive

The ACHM corporate archive provides a record of all heritage surveys conducted by ACHM consultants since the company began. The ACHM corporate archive was searched for previous surveys in the vicinity of the current areas under investigation. Five ACHM reports and one cultural heritage report by another consulting company were found which have relevance to the project area.

6.4.1 Draper et al. (2006)

In May 2006, ACHM undertook a desktop study of an area of land that was intended for the location of a radio tower near Mount Barker (Draper et al. 2006). The Aboriginal group with heritage interests in the area was the Peramangk. The desktop research results indicated that there were no previously recorded Aboriginal sites within the Radio Tower project area and that there remained a low potential that unrecorded Aboriginal sites would be identified during the course of the proposed works.


Page | 21 TRU07

6.4.2 Mullen, Sivak and Draper (2009)

This report consists of desktop research pertaining to the known Aboriginal cultural heritage values in the vicinity of the Adelaide Hills railway in the southern Mount Lofty Ranges. The research found that numerous archaeological and ethnographic Indigenous sites exist in the region, including rock art sites, culturally modified trees, burials, water courses and camp sites.

6.4.3 Gorman, Howard and Sivak (2012)

In November 2012, ACHM was engaged by the District Council of Mount Barker (DCMB) to undertake an Aboriginal cultural heritage survey (archaeological and anthropological) of the Dutton Road upgrade. The work required desktop research as well as a one day Aboriginal cultural heritage field survey. Desktop research, which involved an analysis of archival material and previous literature, revealed that no Aboriginal sites had been previously recorded within the survey area. The anthropological component of the survey of the Dutton Road upgrade identified no new sites of cultural significance within the proposed work areas. All survey areas were anthropologically cleared for the purpose of the proposed development. Furthermore, no new archaeological sites were identified during the course of the survey and all surveyed areas were archaeologically cleared for the purpose of the proposed development, subject to the following recommendations. Heritage monitoring was recommended in order to manage the risk of disturbing sub-surface archaeological materials.

6.4.4 Gara (2012)

In the context of an earlier survey for DCMB (Gorman, Howard and Sivak 2012), Tom Gara was engaged by ACHM to conduct historical research regarding a 'tribal battle' that occurred in the Mount Barker area in the early decades of European settlement (Gara 2012). This 'battle' relates to the Crows Nest Hill battle site, just south of the survey area. The report also comments upon culturally modified trees, giving context to those that might be found within or near the survey area.

6.4.5 Sivak, Field and Thomas (2013)

In April of 2013, ACHM was engaged by DCMB to undertake an Aboriginal cultural heritage survey (archaeological and anthropological) of the Bald Hills Road upgrade. No new anthropological or archaeological sites were identified during the course of the survey and the proposed work program on Bald Hill Road was cleared for the works to proceed. One tree was noted as possibly being culturally modified. The tree was assessed as being approximately 59 years old, and as such was considered unlikely to constitute an Aboriginal site under the AHA. Although there was no legal obligation for DCMB to protect the tree under the AHA, MACAI requested that damage to the tree be avoided.

6.4.6 Hobbs, Field and Parker (2013)

In July of 2013, ACHM was engaged by DCMB to undertake an Aboriginal cultural heritage survey (archaeological and anthropological) of the Alexandrina Road upgrade. No new anthropological or archaeological sites were identified during the course of the survey, and the proposed work program on Alexandrina Road was cleared for the works to proceed.

6.5 Discussion

Sixty-one Aboriginal heritage sites were identified on the AARD Register within 5 km of the survey area, with a further 21 objects recorded in the SAM database. Five previous cultural heritage surveys were undertaken by ACHM (in 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2013) with Peramangk participants, but none of these surveys were located in areas that overlapped the survey area thus no previously identified sites have been recorded in the survey area. This research indicates, however, that the types of cultural heritage sites likely to be present within the survey area include artefact assemblages, paintings and culturally modified trees.


Page | 22 TRU07

7 Constraints Analysis The Mount Lofty Ranges are home to many archaeological and anthropological/mythological sites, and while it would not be appropriate to go into any detail regarding these sites because of Aboriginal cultural concerns, it is relevant to note that mythological sites are usually directly related to particular landscape features which have significance because of their association with or representation of Creation Ancestors. Archaeological sites are also often associated with certain landforms either because of the proximity to resources (e.g. campsites located near waterways) or because of the protection such landforms afford to delicate archaeological features (e.g. paintings within rock shelters). The following section discusses generally the principles of association between Aboriginal sites and environmental features.

To frame the constraints analysis in a way that provides clear and concise recommendations in relation to the likelihood of archaeological materials and anthropological sites being present at the proposed work areas, the following definitions are made:

Low potential to discover artefacts and sites of cultural significance: Survey areas designated as low potential are typically those located on disturbed land (i.e. ploughed and cleared or built up), or areas with a low topographical relief. Generally these are confined to inland areas and are not located near certain natural features associated with Aboriginal heritage sites including limestone outcrops, sand dunes, hills and water sources.

Moderate potential to discover artefacts and sites of cultural significance: Survey areas designated as moderate potential are also at times located on disturbed land (i.e. ploughed and cleared or built up) with a low topographical relief. Some areas are heavily vegetated with native bushland and offer very poor ground surface visibility. These areas are often located near natural features typically associated with Aboriginal heritage sites, such as limestone outcrops, sand dunes, hills and water sources. Areas that are reasonably undisturbed are also given a moderate potential for heritage significance.

High potential to discover artefacts and sites of cultural significance: Survey areas designated as high potential are normally those on totally undisturbed land. These areas often have a high topographical relief, such as hills or dune systems. They may occur in association with rocky outcrops, watercourses or water sources. High potential areas are also those where Aboriginal heritage places or objects have been noted within close proximity.

7.1 General Principles of Association: Aboriginal Sites and Environmental Features

Although not exhaustive, the following points can be used as a general guide to where Aboriginal sites may be located within a particular landscape feature. Note that not all environmental features listed below may be applicable to the project area. An in-depth discussion regarding these features is also provided below.

Sand dunes and associated hardpan swale areas, banks of watercourses (especially bordering stream channel confluences), the sandy margins of swamps and other wetland areas and the margins of clay pans are often associated with archaeological sites. In addition, sand dunes and flats (e.g., the Saunders Creek site complex at Eden Valley) are often associated with mythological sites and with traditional burials

Long term water sources, including springs and semi-permanent pools, are often associated with both mythological sites and large archaeological sites, less reliable water sources and sandy areas near large swamps are often associated with medium sized archaeological sites, and temporary water sources are often associated with archaeological sites of varying sizes, depending on the amount, duration, and frequency of water accumulating at that place.

Stone outcrops of quartz (often localised reefs), quartzite, etc. may be associated with stone quarry and workshop sites. These outcrops are also often associated with anthropological sites.

Stream channels often have archaeological sites along their watercourses and associated clay pans. Watercourses are also often associated with anthropological sites.

Wetlands, clay pans, salt lakes, isolated hills (e.g. Mt Barker), stands of trees of a single species and other distinctive landscape features are often culturally significant mythological sites.

Drainage gullies and stream courses with quartzite/sandstone outcrops or pavements are sometimes associated with engraving sites.

Large native trees (particularly red gums) may be culturally modified.


Page | 23 TRU07

Built Environments. Most early built environments (i.e. homesteads, bore sites) were a focus of Aboriginal-colonial interaction for the distribution of rations, fringe camps and ceremonial activity. These environments also contain pastoral access and land use issues as well as potential built heritage or other historical heritage sites. These should be avoided where possible.

Rock shelters may be rock art (mostly painting) sites, particularly in Peramangk country.

Ploughed or disturbed land has low potential to contain archaeological sites. The anthropological significance of these places varies depending on the original land form and the extent to which the area has been modified.

7.2 Discussion

The above provides a description of landforms and general environmental zones that are more likely to feature Aboriginal heritage sites within the project area. Archaeological sites can be identified by the archaeological material present, however anthropological sites might not include any archaeological material, and their presence can only be confirmed by consultation with the Traditional Owners with knowledge of the Creation Ancestor stories that may relate to the project area.

7.3 Aboriginal Site Types Prevalent in the General Region

In 2009, ACHM conducted cultural heritage desktop studies for a proposed rail line which was to run along the Mt Lofty Ranges, passing just east of the current project area (ACHM 2009a; ACHM 2009b; ACHM 2009c). As this was a generalised study spanning a large area, the reports listed site types that are known to occur in the Mt Lofty Ranges. These are outlined below, and provide an indication of the type of site that may be encountered within or near the project area.

7.3.1 Campsites

ACHM (2009c) found that Aboriginal campsites were common in the Mount Lofty Ranges. As discussed above, the ranges are well watered and contain sufficient resources to be able to sustain large groups for long periods (Draper 1985). Early colonists in the region noted that large groups of Aboriginal people would camp by the banks of a creek for many weeks at a time, and there are many specific references to campsite locations observed by the settlers in the region (e.g. Schmidt 1983).

The archaeological remains of such campsites are most often found adjacent the numerous creeks and streams feeding out of the ranges, and are usually situated on the sandy banks and overflow areas of the larger water courses (e.g. Hossfeld 1926). Site descriptions tell us that such campsites usually consist of large open areas containing scattered stone artefacts and the remains of hearths and ground ovens, the use of which in the region is also attested by the historical record (e.g. Schmidt 1983). Human burials are sometimes found within campsites, and rock art and culturally modified or scarred trees are also often found in close proximity (Gara and Turner 1986), indicating that a range of activities was taking place at these locations.

7.3.2 Aboriginal burials

Burial grounds are also known in the Mount Lofty Ranges, particularly in sandy areas near creeks and rivers (Gara and Turner 1982; Hossfeld 1926). As mentioned above, these are the areas also targeted for campsites, and the co‐location of burials and campsites in sandy grounds adjacent water sources is not uncommon.

7.3.3 Culturally modified trees

The culturally modified or scarred tree is possibly the most abundant site type in the region. Found primarily on the banks of the many watercourses, most are River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) bearing scars from the removal of bark for use as dishes, shields or canoes (see Gara and Turner 1982), although large ‘sheets’ were also removed for use in shelter construction (Tindale 1974, cited in Coles and Draper 1988). Additionally, smaller scars may also be present where toe‐holds have been cut out and/or spikes driven into the wood by Aboriginal people climbing trees to catch possums for food and skins (Draper 1985; Gara 2012).

7.3.4 Rock shelters

Rock shelters with occupational debris are reasonably abundant in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Rock shelters of sufficient height and with reasonably sized living areas are sometimes found to contain hearths, stone tools and food remains (Gara and Turner 1986), and a number have been reported containing artefacts manufactured from imported stone such as chert as well as, occasionally, rock art (e.g. Hancock 1997).


Page | 24 TRU07

7.3.5 Water Courses

A high correlation between major watercourses and Aboriginal archaeological sites in South Australia has been found to exist (e.g. Cooper 1961 on the Wakefield River and Thorley 2001). The availability of reliable fresh water has been demonstrated to correlate directly with important traditional living places, which are often associated with extensive archaeological campsites (ACHM 2001). Burials are also common in the overflow or flood zone areas of rivers and creeks; the easy-to‐dig soft, sandy soil makes them ideally suited as interment grounds (Gara and Turner 1982). Rock shelters containing Aboriginal paintings and engravings in the Mt Lofty Ranges also are generally associated with nearby streams (Coles and Draper 1988; Blair 1997).

Water sources are also often ethnographically significant, forming parts of stories related to ancestor/creation stories (e.g. Tjilbruki, see Tindale 1987). Some of these have social restrictions (e.g. gender, age) placed upon their access and/or use (e.g. parts of the Broughton and Onkaparinga Rivers, and aspects of the stories associated with them, are restricted to women; see ACHM 2009d and 2001, respectively).

Previous research indicates that various Aboriginal site types, such as campsites, burials, culturally modified trees, rock shelters and rock art sites, are most likely to be found in the vicinity of a watercourse, and that watercourses are often culturally significant in and of themselves. As such, Reedy Creek, Harrison Creek and other minor waterways that traverse the Palmer Wind Farm project area should be subject to as little disturbance as possible.


Page | 25 TRU07

8 Survey Methodology The following section of this report provides details of the anthropological and archaeological field visits, including the dates, participants, methodologies used, and reporting standards provided.

8.1 Participation

At the time of writing this report, seven one-week surveys have taken place. No surveys were conducted on weekends. Surveys are continuing within the proposed Project Area. The following people participated in the cultural heritage surveys:

Aiden Holland (archaeological surveys)

Anita Hunter (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Cynthia Hutchinson (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Dion Holland (archaeological surveys)

Isobelle Campbell (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Ivy Campbell (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Lynne Rigney (anthropological and archaeological surveys)

Mavis Campbell (archaeological surveys)

Samantha Campbell (archaeological surveys)

Samuel Stewart (archaeological surveys)

Steven Rigney (archaeological surveys)

Rebecca Hunter (archaeological surveys)

Fiona Sutherland (Senior Anthropologist)

Aylza Donald (Anthropologist)

Michael Field (Archaeologist)

Daniel Thomas (Archaeologist)

Claire Keating (Archaeologist)

Jon Marshallsay (Archaeologist)

Martin Wimmer (Archaeologist)

Amy Pyatt (Archaeologist)

Stephen Muller (Archaeologist)

8.2 Anthropological Survey Methodology

To aid orientation in the field, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data was uploaded onto handheld Garmin 62 S Global Positioning System (GPS) units prior to the commencement of the survey. Field maps were also printed and made available to all members of the survey teams.

The survey team for both the anthropological and archaeological surveys consisted of two representatives from MACAI, one male archaeologist and one female anthropologist. The presence of male and female ACHM staff was to ensure any gender-sensitive information could be adequately recorded. The combined archaeology and anthropology team also allowed an initial archaeological assessment of the overall survey area to be carried out during the anthropological survey. A representative from Trustpower attended to provide field support and explain the proposed project and infrastructure. The anthropological survey team accessed the survey areas by 4WD. At each location and travelling between locations within the survey area the survey participants were invited to identify culturally significant features in the landscape.

A brief summary meeting was held at the end of each survey day to clarify the outcomes and to record any recommendations the Traditional Owners wished to make.


Page | 26 TRU07

8.3 Archaeological Survey Methodology

The archaeological survey involved examining the survey areas for Aboriginal archaeological sites and objects, and historical heritage places. To aid orientation in the field, GIS data was uploaded onto handheld Garmin 60CS GPS units prior to the commencement of the survey. Field maps were also printed and made available to all members of the survey team.

The locations of the proposed WTGs and access routes were surveyed in several ways, depending on the terrain and geography, level of disturbance, ground surface visibility and guidance form MACAI survey participants.

On bald hills or access routes with high levels of disturbance and no significant boulders or outcrops, vehicular survey was considered sufficient to ensure that Aboriginal heritage sites would not be missed.

In areas with a few prominent outcrops of rock or riverbeds in an otherwise heavily disturbed landscape, targeted survey methodologies were adopted. This involved a detailed investigation of the undisturbed landscape features for any site types with a reasonable likelihood of remaining in the project area after erosion, human development and faunal disturbance (e.g. rockshelters).

Undisturbed areas and other places with a high likelihood of sites, such as exposed ridges of rock, were surveyed by pedestrian transect. This involved either traversing the survey area with four-wheel drive support, or walking across one side of the survey area in one direction, and then the other side on the way back to the vehicles.

The spatial data provided by Trustpower included proposed access routes and GPS coordinates for WTG locations. The surrounding areas were also included in the project area to enable flexibility in WTG locations. Because of the way this data was compiled, inaccuracies occasionally placed WTGs or access tracks in impractical positions (for example, WTGs in sheltered gullies). After consultation with Michael Head (Trustpower), it was agreed that the most practical and time-efficient approach would be to survey the areas most relevant to the development plans based on common sense. Access routes were, therefore, not surveyed in places where the sites could be accessed by existing roads, or where the WTGs had been removed. Alternative access routes were occasionally surveyed where the proposed routes were impractical or would have a high likelihood of disturbing heritage sites. WTGs and their surrounding areas were surveyed to enable maximum flexibility and allow corrections for errors in the GIS data. The extended survey corridors were surveyed wherever possible, but were occasionally limited by terrain or other obstacles.

Four WTGs (A06, A09, A12, and A14) could not be accessed by the survey team and have not been surveyed.

Consultation was held throughout the survey to clarify the details of any findings and record any additional recommendations MACAI wished to make.

8.3.1 Recording Archaeological Sites

The recording of archaeological sites includes both standardised conventions and an element of judgement on the part of the site recorder. The ultimate basis of heritage site recording, registration, protection, and management involves two characteristics: significance and spatial. Archaeological sites are physical places – they are specific areas of land/water located on the landscape. The specified boundary of a site should include all of the area that has heritage significance, and should not include any substantial areas that do not have heritage significance.

Given the nature of the survey landscape, ‘places and objects’ that may constitute Aboriginal sites, but were not able to be fully surveyed at the time, were also noted. Areas that should be avoided are all categorised as being part of Exclusion Zones.

Exclusion Zones may be made up of any of the following categories::

Aboriginal sites:

Recorded as Site Avoidance: These are places or objects that can be defined as a site under heritage legislation. These are protected under the AHA. Aboriginal sites cannot be disturbed without ministerial consent under section 23 of the AHA. These sites have been recorded with enough information to create site cards for the AARD database.

Recorded as Avoidance Areas: Avoidance Areas are generally larger locations that contain known archaeological sites or features that may be recorded at a later date as an archaeological site. Avoidance Areas can also be a single GPS point taken where specific Aboriginal sites were observed but not recorded for various reasons, such as lying just outside the project area. At times it was deemed more efficient to record sites by GPS point only in areas of archaeological concentrations as time constraints would not allow detailed recording. These areas should be revisited to determine accurate boundaries of the features noted. The boundaries provided for these Avoidance Areas may alter upon further investigation.


Page | 27 TRU07

Culturally Sensitive Landscape Features (CSLFs): CSLFs are those that should be avoided at the request of the Traditional Owners for reasons other than ethnographic or archaeological concerns. This may include typical features or landforms that should generally be avoided in accordance with the recommendations of the public report, such as native woodlands, creeks, large unsurveyed rocky outcrops etc. It should be noted that these areas are not defined as Aboriginal sites.

Historic Sites: are features such as ruins, DSWs etc. that may be included into either state or local heritage lists.

The smallest site element or feature that ACHM record is based upon either:

1. A GPS point that has been buffered by a circle with a 10 m radius to provide a minimum, accurate spatial boundary, or

2. A specifically recorded polygon encompassing the margins of the feature if it is larger than the 20 m diameter circle recorded for a single GPS point, or contains distinct features that are spatially discrete at the scale of data capture.

In this case, open archaeological sites such as artefact assemblages were recorded using GPS polygons for definition of physical extent (determined by their archaeological features). Single GPS points were taken for rock shelter entrances, reservoirs, engraved motifs, scarred trees and other isolated archaeological features. Additionally, field notes, maps and digital photography were used to document each site recorded by ACHM.

Please note: MACAI representatives have stated that archaeological and anthropological cultural heritage survey reports should not be made available in the public domain, as such the above described Exclusion Zones have not been utilised within this report. For the purposes of satisfying the DA process and adhering to this requirement, the below stated terminology and mapping references have been utilised within this report.

8.4 Cultural Heritage Reporting

Due to the complex and multi-faceted methodology adopted in this survey, the definition of non-archaeologically cleared areas is ambiguous as these incorporate heritage sites, inaccessible areas and areas avoided for other reasons (for example, regions of the project area from which WTGs had been removed and where access was no longer required). In order to provide clear and concise recommendations, the results have therefore been provided simply as areas Surveyed or Not Surveyed.

As mentioned above, MACAI has requested that the details of culturally sensitive Exclusion Zones are not made available in the public domain.


Page | 28 TRU07

9 Survey Results The following section discusses the results of the anthropological and archaeological surveys.

9.1 Anthropological Survey Results

Details regarding the Aboriginal anthropological survey will be provided to Trustpower in a confidential report.

9.2 Archaeological Survey Results

9.3 Area A

Area A was noted as being extremely difficult to navigate. High hills and rough terrain made access to many WTG locations and access tracks impossible (see Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2). Although mostly clear of native vegetation on the tops of the hills, gullies, in parts, were rich with larger eucalypt, acacia and casuarina varieties (i.e. sheoak etc.). The upper terrain was characterised as being cleared and heavily grazed with oat grasses covering most of the ground surface. Visibility was generally very low. Large rocky outcrops are common within Area A with Aboriginal cultural heritage features noted within these areas.

Area A has not been completely surveyed within the delineated envelopes (see Map 9-1). Due to recent bush fires within Area A, access was limited throughout January 2014, while subsequent rains have prevented surveys up until the time of writing.

Figure 9-1: Area A facing south prior to the 2014 fires


Page | 29 TRU07

Figure 9-2: Area A facing north

9.3.1 Area A Heritage Results

Details regarding Aboriginal archaeological sites are provided to Trustpower in a separate confidential document.

Three historical sites were noted during the surveys within Area A. These include two DSWs and a three-sided dry stone structure (see Map 9-1). It is recommended that these places also be avoided during the construction phase.

It is understood that Trustpower may want to access areas through these DSWs. Should a DSW need to be disturbed or access is required through a DSW, ACHM recommends that Trustpower consult directly with the DSW Association prior to these works occurring in order to determine appropriate management practices for this work. ACHM understand that Trustpower has included such processes into their Statement of Commitments for the Palmer Wind Farm.

9.3.2 Areas Not Surveyed

As stated above, the terrain within Area A was challenging to navigate making access to some locations dangerous. Map 9-1 identifies areas that have not yet been surveyed.

As a way of showing due diligence in protecting heritage, it is understood that Trustpower has highlighted the importance of finishing heritage surveys within the Project Area prior to ground disturbance works commencing as the only true way of identifying (and avoiding where possible) heritage places and objects.

Further, due to the very low ground visibility during the heritage survey, it is recommended that MACAI participants be engaged as monitors for all initial ground disturbance works.

Among the areas remaining to be surveyed are the transmission lines. Recommendations relating to these will be forwarded to Trustpower following completion of cultural heritage surveys.

9.3.3 Further comments

There are concerns for all gullies, valleys and minor waterways within and surrounding the survey areas. The concern is regarding secondary impact to natural landforms as a result of construction works including impact as a result of blast works, erosion and water runoff contamination. It is understood that Trustpower is addressing these issues seriously and have committed to the development of a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan to manage these potential impacts. It is recommended that following all works, these areas be inspected for any potential impact.

Further historical sites have been noted within Area A, but have not been recorded yet as they are situated within areas that are not surveyed. ACHM will provide Trustpower with details regarding these places as surveys continue.


Page | 30 TRU07

Map 9-1: Surveyed areas - Area A


Page | 31 TRU07

9.4 Area B

Area B was extremely difficult to navigate. Rolling hills with rocky outcrops and rough terrain made access to many WTG locations and access tracks problematic (see Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-4). Although mostly clear of native vegetation on the tops of the hills, gullies were rich with larger eucalypt, acacia and casuarina varieties (i.e. sheoak etc.) in some parts. The upper terrain was characterised as being cleared and heavily grazed with oat grasses covering most of the ground surface. Visibility was generally very low. Large rocky outcrops are common within Area B with Aboriginal cultural heritage features noted within most of areas.

Area B has been partially surveyed within the delineated envelopes (see Map 9-2 and Map 9-3).

Figure 9-3: Area B facing south

Figure 9-4: Area B facing east


Page | 32 TRU07

9.4.1 Area B Heritage Results


Seven historical sites were noted during the surveys within Are B. These include DSWs, old ruined homesteads, a dry stone embankment and dry stone dams (see Map 9-2 and Map 9-3). It is recommended that these places are also avoided where possible during the construction phase. One DSW was recorded near WTG B19. According to the property owner, this DSW was constructed by his father less than 100 years ago (Pers. comm. Shane Rathjen). A closer inspection of the DSW has resulted in confirmation that this DSW is likely to be much younger than others noted in the area. There are no restrictions regarding the disturbance of this DSW.

It is understood that Trustpower may want to access areas through these DSWs. Should a DSW need to be disturbed or access is required through a DSW, ACHM recommends that Trustpower consult directly with the DSW Association prior to these works occurring in order to determine appropriate management practices for this work. ACHM understand that Trustpower has included such processes into their Statement of Commitments for the Palmer Wind Farm.

Borthwick-Brae Road

In February 2014, Trustpower held a public workshop during which members of the public were invited to express their views and concerns about the proposed wind farm development. During this meeting community members raised concerned about the impact these developments may have on the Borthwick-Brae Road which runs through Area B in an approximate east to west direction. The Borthwick-Brae Road holds social value for the Palmer community due to its connection to past events in the district's history. Places of social value are defined under Article 1 of the Burra Charter as follows:

Social value refers to the associations that a place has for a particular community or cultural group and the social or cultural meanings that it holds for them (ICOMOS 2013)

In light of this, it is recommended that the Borthwick-Brae Road be maintained as a public road. It is recommended that impact to the road and road shoulders be minimised and developments take place within the existing road reserve. Furthermore, proposed works along the Borthwick-Brae Road should where possible avoid any outcrop areas within 20 m of the existing road.


Heritage survey work within parts of Area B is still continuing. Maps 9-2 and 9-3 identifies areas that have not been surveyed including the proposed 275 kV transmission line.

As a way of showing due diligence in protecting heritage, Trustpower has highlighted the importance of finishing heritage surveys within the Project Area prior to ground disturbance works commencing as the only true way of identifying (and avoiding where possible) heritage places and objects.



At the time of undertaking heritage surveys within Area B, WTGs B09, B39 and B50 were located outside the survey area, however ACHM anthropologists and archaeologists surveyed the specific locations, including a 150 m buffer around these WTGs and a 20 m buffer along their access tracks. It was noted that B39 has no access track leading to it. As such, ACHM heritage consultants, in consultation with MACAI survey participants, surveyed B39 along with a 150m buffer which joins this WTG with the original Project Area envelope.

Concern was noted regarding the high level of quarrying moss rocks that was being undertaken in Area B. The concern is related to the lack of monitoring undertaken when mining culturally sensitive areas. Although not the responsibility of Trustpower, MACAI would like to use the current project as a platform to open up a dialogue with landowners regarding the protection of Aboriginal heritage, specifically the risk of breaching the AHA.

Concern has also been noted regarding all gullies, valleys and minor waterways within and surrounding the survey areas. These concerns relate to secondary impact to natural landforms as a result of construction works including impact as a result of blast works, erosion and water runoff contamination. It is understood that Trustpower is addressing these issues seriously and have committed to the development of a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan to manage these potential impacts. It is recommended that following all works, these areas be inspected for any potential impact.


Page | 33 TRU07

Further historical sites have been noted within Area B but have not been recorded yet as they are situated within areas that are not surveyed. ACHM will provide Trustpower with details regarding these places as surveys continue.


Page | 34 TRU07

Map 9-2: Surveyed areas - Area B (1)


Page | 35 TRU07

Map 9-3: Surveyed areas - Area B (2)


Page | 36 TRU07

9.5 Area C

Area C was difficult to navigate. Although the hills within Area C were significantly lower and easier to navigate than Area A, deep gorges were unsafe to traverse. Within these gorges was noted an abundance of native vegetation and undisturbed waterways. The upper terrain was characterised as being cleared and heavily grazed with oat grasses covering most of the ground surface. Visibility was generally very low. Rocky outcrops are less common within Area C.

Area C has been partially surveyed within the delineated envelopes (see Map 9-4 and Map 1-4).

Figure 9-5: Area C facing west

9.5.1 Area C Heritage Results


One historical sites was noted during the surveys within Area C.

Camel Hump Road

Camel Hump Road is located within Area C running in a northwest to southeast direction along a ridgeline bounded by gullies. Where possible turbines and associated infrastructure should avoid these gullies; however if certain developments are considered necessary and unavoidable (such as culverts for access roads), their impact should be minimal. Furthermore, initial ground disturbing works for these developments should be monitored by MACAI representatives.

During a public workshop help by Trustpower in February 2014, community members raised concerns about the impact these developments may have on Camel Hump Road which runs through Area C. Camel Hump Road holds social value for the Palmer community due to its connection to past events in the district's history. Places of social value are defined under Article 1 of the Burra Charter, as follows:

1. Social value refers to the associations that a place has for a particular community or cultural group and the social or cultural meanings that it holds for them (ICOMOS 2013)

In light of this, it is recommended that the Camel Hump Road be maintained as a public road. It is recommended that impact to the road and road shoulders be minimised and, where possible, developments take place within the existing road reserve.


The proposed 275 kV transmission line within Area C has not been surveyed. Recommendations relating to these will be forwarded to Trustpower following completion of cultural heritage surveys.


Page | 37 TRU07

As a way of showing due diligence in protecting heritage, it is understood that Trustpower has highlighted the importance of finishing heritage surveys within the Project Area prior to ground disturbance works commencing as the only absolute way of identifying (and avoiding where possible) heritage places and objects.



As discussed in Field, Thomas and Marshallsay (2013: 21-23), there are several areas within the Project Area that contain a higher risk of containing Aboriginal sites. Areas such as watercourses, stream channels and rocky outcrops have all been noted. These areas may not contain archaeological sites; however, they are more likely to than surrounding areas. It is recommended that if necessary development works (such as access roads) cannot avoid impacting or traversing any of these landforms, specific management processes (see below Recommendations) must be followed to mitigate the risk of damaging or disturbing any Aboriginal heritage sites in the process. These management processes include the employment of MACAI representatives to monitor initial ground disturbance works.

Concern was noted regarding the high level of moss rock quarrying being undertaken in Area C. The concern is related to the lack of monitoring undertaken when mining culturally sensitive areas. Although not the responsibility of Trustpower, MACAI would like to use the current project as a platform to open up a dialogue with landowners regarding the protection of Aboriginal heritage, specifically the risk of breaching the AHA.

Further concern for all gullies, valleys and minor waterways within and surrounding the survey areas was also noted. These concerns relate to secondary impact to natural landforms as a result of construction works including impact as a result of blast works, erosion and water runoff contamination. It is understood that Trustpower is addressing these issues seriously and has a management plan regarding these impacts to environment and heritage. It is recommended that following all works, these areas be inspected for any potential impact.

Further historical sites have been noted within Area C but have not been recorded yet as they are situated within areas that are not surveyed. ACHM will provide Trustpower with details regarding these places as surveys continue.


Page | 38 TRU07

Map 9-4: Surveyed areas - Area C


Page | 39 TRU07

10 Summary and Recommendations ACHM has been engaged by Trustpower to undertake a cultural heritage survey of the proposed development footprint of the Palmer Wind Farm infrastructure between Mount Pleasant and Palmer, South Australia.

The purpose of this report is to inform Trustpower of the presence of any newly recorded historical cultural heritage within the Project Area, to summarise the work conducted and methodology used, to outline the obligations Trustpower has under current heritage protection legislation, to inform Trustpower of potential risks with regard to conducting work that could impact upon the historical and Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Project Area, and to put forward recommendations to help Trustpower minimise impact to cultural heritage and meet its legal obligations.

The proposed location of the Palmer Wind Farm lies within the traditional lands of the Peramangk Aboriginal group. The Peramangk Aboriginal group does not have a native title claim lodged over its asserted traditional land and is represented for heritage matters by MACAI. Details regarding Aboriginal heritage have been provided to Trustpower within a separate confidential report not a part of the DA.

10.1 Recommendations

A series of recommendations are currently being formulated under the direction of MACAI. As these recommendations are still being formulated, they are not included within this report. Recommendations have been provided regarding historical heritage and general high level desktop advice.

ACHM make the following recommendations:

1. Waterways are of high cultural significance to Aboriginal people. Where possible all turbine infrastructure should avoid waterways and gullies. Where turbine infrastructure cannot avoid these areas, initial ground disturbance works should be monitored by representatives provided by MACAI.

2. Trustpower should, wherever possible, utilise existing access tracks. New access tracks should, wherever possible, keep to the crest or upper slopes of the hills within the project area. Where it is deemed necessary for access tracks to traverse gullies or creeks, these should carry minimal impact, and initial ground disturbance works should be monitored by representatives provided by MACAI.

3. Areas that have not been surveyed as seen within Map 9-1 to Map 9-4 are Not Cleared. Heritage surveys are currently being conducted in these areas to determine whether or not there are any Aboriginal or historical sites located within. It is recommended that all areas within the Project Area are subject to heritage surveys prior to all initial ground disturbance works as a way of showing due diligence and the only way of determining whether or not Aboriginal and historic sites are located within.

4. All previously recorded and newly recorded Aboriginal sites should be treated in accordance with the requirements of the AHA. Section 23 of the AHA states that it is an offence to 'damage, disturb or interfere' with any Aboriginal site or object without Ministerial approval.

5. The Aboriginal site discovery procedure in Appendix 1 should be followed if Aboriginal sites, objects or remains are discovered during works in the Project Area.

6. Prior to work commencing, construction workers on the project should be given appropriate cultural heritage awareness training. MACAI representatives, supported by an ACHM heritage consultant, can provide these services. This should also include historical heritage training.

7. All on site workers should remain within the project footprint at all times and avoid going into nearby gullies and rocky outcrops as these are likely to contain Aboriginal heritage sites.


Page | 40 TRU07

11 References

ACHM 2001. A GIS Desktop Analysis of Aboriginal Cultural Sites in the OCWMB Jurisdiction. Unpublished report.

ACHM 2009a. Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment for the Keyneton Wind Farm Project Area. Unpublished report prepared for Pacific Hydro Pty Ltd, June 2009.

ACHM 2009b. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Desktop Study of the Proposed Rail Freight Line Route from Mallala to Murray Bridge, South Australia. Unpublished report prepared for GHD, April 2009.

ACHM 2009c. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Desktop Study for the Adelaide Hills Rail Capacity Upgrade Project. Unpublished report prepared for GHD, July 2009.

ACHM 2009d. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Desktop Study for the ElectraNet Connection Works at the Barn Hill Wind Farm, Redhill, South Australia. Unpublished report.

Australia ICOMOS 2013. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Signifiance. Australia ICOMOS Inc. Burwood, Victoria.

Blair, AEJ 1997. Aboriginal Art at Lofty Heights: the distribution and patterning of Aboriginal Art sites in the South Eastern Lofty Ranges of South Australia. Do they reflect changes in social interaction or Culture? Unpublished Master of Letters thesis submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Boomsa, C and N Lewis 1980. The Native Forest and Woodland Vegetation of South Australia. Woods and Forests Department, South Australian Government, Adelaide, South Australia.

Cawthorne, WA 1844-46. Diaries and Notes. Mitchell Library, SA.

Coles, RB 1993. Documentation and Systematic Survey Work Around Newly Found Aboriginal Painting Sites in the South Mount Lofty Ranges. A.I.A.T.S.I.S.

Coles, R and Draper, N. 1988. Aboriginal history and recently-discovered art in the Mount Lofty Ranges, in Torrens Valley Historical Journal, 33 pp. 2-42.

Coles, RB and R Hunter 2010. The Ochre Warriors: Peramangk Culture and Rock Art in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Axiom Australia, Stepney, SA.

Cooper, HM 1961. Archaeological stone implements along the Lower River Wakefield, South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 84: 105‐118.

Draper, N., Law, B., Maland, A. and Pemberton, F. 2006. Aboriginal Heritage Desktop Research for the

Proposed ElectraNet SA Radio Tower at Hoeflinger Farm, SA. Unpublished report prepared for ElectraNet SA, May 2006. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Draper, N. 1985. Mount Barker Summit: Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage Significance. Unpublished report.

Field, M., Thomas, D. & Marshallsay, J. 2013. Trustpower Palmer Wind Farm Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment. Unpublished report prepared for Trustpower Australia, November 2013. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Gara, T. 2012. Aboriginal History and Heritage in the Mount Barker Area. Unpublished report prepared for District Council of Mount Barker, October 2012. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Gara, T. and Turner, J. 1982. 275 kV Transmission Line: Port Augusta to Adelaide – Archaeological Survey from Tungkillo to Eudunda. Unpublished report.

Gara, T. and Turner, J. 1986. Two Aboriginal engraving sites in the Mount Lofty Ranges, in Journal of the Anthropological Society of Australia 24 (2).

Gorman, A., Howard, D. and Sivak, L. 2012. Aboriginal Heritage Survey of the proposed Dutton Road upgrade for the District Council of Mount Barker. Unpublished report prepared for District Council of Mount Barker, February 2013. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Hobbs, J., Field, M. and Parker, P. 2013. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey of the proposed Alexandrina Road Upgrade: A report prepared for the District Council of Mount Barker. Unpublished report prepared for District Council of Mount Barker, July 2013. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Hancock, D 1997. An Archaeological report on a Peramangk Aboriginal location near Springton South Australia. Flinders University.

Hossfeld, P.S. 1926. The Aborigines of South Australia: native occupation of the Eden Valley and Angaston districts, in Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 50 pp. 287-297.

Laut, P., Heyligers, P. C., Keig, G., Lijffler, E., Margules, C. and Scott, R. 1977. Environments of South Australia. Division of Land Use Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra.

Leader‐Elliot, L 2005. Cultural landscapes of a tourism destination: South Australia’s Barossa Valley. Understanding Cultural Landscapes Symposium. Flinders University, July 11‐16 2005.


Page | 41 TRU07

Lester, Firth & Murton Pty Ltd 1981. Barossa Valley Heritage Study. District Council of Angaston, Lyndoch.

Linn, R and J Linn 1990. The Heritage of Eight Lower North Towns. Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide.

Mullen, D., Sivak, L. and Draper, N. 2009. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Desktop Study for the Adelaide Hills Rail Capacity Upgrade Project. Unpublished report prepared for GHD, July 2009. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Public Service Review 1913, February, 1913: 34-36.

Schmidt, R 1983. Mountain Upon the Plain: A History of Mt Barker and its Surroundings. Gillingham, Adelaide.

Sivak, L., Field, M. and Thomas, D. 2013. Peramangk Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey of Proposed Bald Hills Road Upgrade - A report prepared for the District Council of Mount Barker. Unpublished report prepared for District Council of Mount Barker, October 2012. Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA.

Taplin, G 1879. The Narrinyeri. In Woods, GD (ed) The Native Tribes of South Australia. ES Wigg & Son, Adelaide.

Thorley, P 2001. Uncertain supplies: water availability and regional archaeological structure in the Palmer River catchment, central Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 36: 1‐14.

Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press, Canberra.

Tindale, NB 1987. Wanderings of Tjibruki: A Tale of the Kaurna People of Adelaide. Records of the South Australian Museum V20: 5-13.

Teusner, RE 1963. Aboriginal Cave Paintings on the River Marne near Eden Valley, South Australia. Mankind V6: 15-19.

Tokarev, V and V Gostin 2003. Mt Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA. Viewed online 04/05/2011 at crcleme.org.au/RegLandEvol/MtLofty.pdf.

Legal Case

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, High Court of Australia

Legislation

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cwth)

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA)

Development Act 1993 (SA)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003) (Cwth )

Environment, Resources & Development Court (Native Title) Amendment Act 1995 (Cwth)Heritage Places Act 1993 (SA)

Heritage Places Act 1993 (SA)

Land Acquisition (Native Title) Amendment Act 1994 (SA)

Mining (Native Title) Amendment Act 1994

Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth)

Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994

Opal Mining Act 1995


Page | 42 TRU07

12 Appendices

12.1 Appendix 1: Site Discovery Procedure

trustpower palmer wind farm development …...sa guidelines based on background noise monitoring...

Documents