Bowdens Silver

This project is important and benefits will create local employment and stimulate the economy.

This project is environmentally sound, it is essentially to the survival of our towns by providing employment opportunities and for increased business in our struggling local economy. The amendments to the project decreases risk to an already low impact environmental project. The support this company gives to our community is to be congratulated, due to the business already closed down in our community, Bowdens is one of the few that provides educational support and financial support to much need volunteer organisations and community projects.

I have read and understand the amendments proposed. It is my opinion the amendments that have been proposed by Bowden Silver Pty Limited are positive and constructive in their content in further protecting the land and the environment.This action displays an attitude by Borden’s Silver Pty.Limited in seriously endeavouring to work with the NSW government and the Mudgee district in both protecting the land whilst creating badly needed employment in the district which in turn will stimulate and benefit the economy in both the Mudgee area and as revenue provider for NSW. I support these proposals as a plan that if approved will be meritorious for all concerned.

I am supportive of the proposed Bowdens Silver Project.

This proposal is a state significant development with the potential for significant economic stimulus for the state of NSW and the Mid-Western Regional Local Government Area. This stimulus is particularly pertinent in light of the global pandemic, which is crippling economies around the world including that of Australia and NSW. This proposal will create approximately 246 on-site workers and 74 off-site workers for the construction phase, and between 192 and 228 workers over the 15 year time-span of the mines operation (SIA, 2020). Economic stimulus and job creation through major projects, such as the Bowdens Silver Project, are critical as Australia and NSW tackle the economic impacts of the global pandemic.

Rural areas such as the Mid-Western Regional Local Government Area have been particularly hit hard due to their reliance on local and international tourism for economic growth. The Region usually attracts more than 650,000 visitors each year to experience the local wine, food, sporting and cultural events. This number has been significantly impacted by the travel restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. The SIA (2020) identified a "key positive impact of relevance include potential economic benefits to the region through employment, procurement and business opportunities - providing much needed social and economic stimulus".

Mining is often associated with adverse environmental impacts. However, what is not often made clear is the extraction of minerals such as silver is critical to Australia's transition to a cleaner more sustainable society. Silver is used in the construction of renewable energy technology such as solar panels and wind turbines and is also critical in Australia's transition to electric vehicles. Australia is not able to transition to a more renewable and sustainable society without continued access to minerals such as silver. Silver is also important for medical uses such as bandages and for its anti-microbial effects. The use of silver are wide-reaching and it will continue to be an important mineral to support a growing and more sustainable NSW and Australia.

This project presents a unique opportunity to mine a significant amount of this mineral onshore ensuring the subsequent economic benefits of this process are maintained locally. It's also widely reported that a global shortage of silver is likely, as countries throughout the world shift to a more renewable future. Australia is at the forefront of mining technology and innovation meaning best-practice mining practices and subsequent mine remediation will be applied, negating adverse environmental impacts.

The supporting technical report provided with this proposal have not identified any significant or unmanageable issue. Silver is critical to support NSW and Australia's transition to a more sustainable society with a focus on renewable energy. The proposal will result in significant economic benefits, which is particularly important as we transition to a post-covid 19 society. Therefore, it's recommended this proposal receive timely support and approval from the NSW government.

Please see my submission attached with attachments

Hi there,
Please see attached submission voicing my approval for the Bowdens Silver open cut mine.
Many thanks,
Joshua

Please see my submission and attachments

Bowdens Silver Project

Twenty years ago I fell in love with Rylstone’s pristine landscape and it’s people. I moved here from Sydney about ten years ago and cannot imagine living anywhere else. It is my home. In recent times our mid-western regional people and landscape have suffered terribly from the effects of drought and bushfires. Rylstone is roughly 24 kilometres from the proposed mining site.

I object to the Bowdens Silver Mine Proposal.

My reasons are as follows-

Bowdens has stated it will be not rehabilitate the whole site when they have finished mining in sixteen years time, as it will be too costly. They will be using cyanide and other poisonous chemicals in their processing plant and leaving behind toxic rock waste wrapped in plastic, along with the tailings dam full of poisonous sludge. Our beautiful land will recover slowly from drought, bushfires and flood but it will never recover from this savaging.

They also admit that the groundwater and run-off they will use will lower the water table on site by 25 metres, destroying local waterholes and springs in Lue.

Our bushfire ash is still travelling the world and dust storms can blow dust thousands of kilometres. I cannot believe that lead dust, which is much finer and lighter, would not be blown and settle on towns, farms and waterways close to the mine site. I am not on town water and rely on rainwater tanks for my household water. The lead dust from the mine that settles on my roof will be washed into my tank by the rain and contaminate my drinking water. There are no safe levels of exposure to lead and lead poisoning is irreversible.

Please don’t allow them to put our lives and livelihood at risk.

We have a family agricultural farming property less than 10km from the proposed “silver” mine. We regularly travel to the farm and allow our children to run freely through the property, playing in the dirt and drinking from the water tanks. This forms a valuable part of their childhood, their development and fosters an important understanding and appreciation of our land.
I have grave concerns around the health and safety impacts the mine will create for surrounding properties and towns. In particular the potential for lead in the dust, water and soil.
Medical research into lead exposure clearly indicates that all exposure, that is, any level of lead, is detrimental to one’s health, particularly children. A small exposure can cause irreversible health damage.
The lengthy social impact report commissioned by Bowden’s Silver holds a mitigation strategy in the depths that is vague at best. It contains some suggested dot points that require further explanation to fully understand what each comprehensively means, and how the company would implement the suggested strategies.
I strongly object to this proposed project and urge the health ramifications of the lead mining on surrounding community, particularly the children to be further investigated and explained prior to any further consideration to the Project proposal.

I believe the Bowden’s Silver Mine outside of Lue should not be approved for a number of reasons. My biggest concern about the project is I do not see how it can be beneficial to the Lue and greater Mudgee communities. Mudgee is a beautiful clean region in NSW, enjoyed by locals and tourists a far. The number of tourists coming to the Mudgee region has increased substantially since the COVID 19 restrictions have been eased. I do not see how a dirty lead mine that is upstream from Mudgee’s water supply and an increased number of large trucks driving through town can be good for tourism or Mudgee’s clean green perception.
With the mine only having an expected life span of 16 years, the disadvantages and the negative impacts of the mine far out way the positive influx of jobs. This is because Mudgee will now longer have the clean green image that it once had and will severely impact the tourism industry. The benefits of the mine will only be felt by a small number of people lining their pockets. However, the booming tourism industry in Mudgee is something that everyone in the community can benefit from. For example, an olive grower selling their product at the farmers market has the ability to sell more product as more people are walking through the markets as a result of the influx of tourism.
I enjoy coming to the Mudgee region myself, however this will definitely be compromised if the Bowden’s Silver Mine goes ahead. I am a farmer by trade, and have recently experienced the severe droughts and have a very deep understanding of how far dust can travel in the right conditions. No amount of lead consumption/absorption is safe. As a result, I am not willing to potentially put my health at risk through an increase in the potential amount of lead dust in the atmosphere. I will not visit the Mudgee area if this mine goes ahead, there are plenty of beautiful places in NSW that I can visit without the risks from a lead mine.

Please see attached objection.

I am writing to support the residents of Lue, NSW to oppose the Bowden's Silver Mine.
The proposal for an open cut Lead, Zinc and Silver mine so close to the town and school can surely not be approved. There is undoubtably a high risk to residents of the town and the surrounding area, as well as the water table, local roads, flora and fauna (in particular the Koalas) and the children attending the Lue school.
My family hails from Lue. As a child I spent every school holiday at Lue, now as a mother I take my children there for holidays. My husband and I were married in Lue almost 10 years ago. I implore any person considering the approval of this open cut mine to take a trip up to the region. It is truely one of the most beautiful parts of the state, if not the country. The beautiful landscape will be scared forever if the Bowden's mine is approved.
Those that live on the land around Lue are the most impressive farmers you will meet, some of them 4th and 5th generation. These farmers take pride in their profession and their land. The approval of this mine will force these experienced farmers to decide between staying on the land, but risking their health and the helth of their family, or leave the region.
One item that is of particular concern to me is the transportation of ore via local roads. The road trains proposed for transportation are not meant to drive on the small, winding roads around Lue. It is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident, or several.

I wish to object to the Bowden Silver Project due to fundamental shortcomings of the project in relation to its Statutory Planning Framework and contravention of the RU1 Zone objectives as outlined in the Mid-Western Region LEP 2012, but more importantly due to the resulting detrimental social and physical impacts on the township and surrounds of Lue and the greater Mid-Western Region. The social and environmental impacts of this proposal far outweigh any of the economic benefits of this proposal and the proposal certainly is not in the public interest. That a project such as this can even be considered for assessment in the current day is baffling.

For a number of years the Mid-Western Regional Council has been working proactively to shift the local economy towards a more sustainable, tourism based economy away from its mining dependence. This approach should be commended for the inclusive nature of not only Mudgee, but the surrounding towns and villages such as Rylstone, Kandos and Lue. Proposing a silver mine so close to the village of Lue is detrimental to not only the social, agricultural and scenic values of the rural area, but will also be detrimental to the tourism visitor experience of people visiting the greater region. Noise, Air quality and a significant increase in heavy traffic to Lue Rd will all be detrimental to the Visitor experience. However the greatest impact is on the residents of Lue and surrounds. An open cut mine should not be considered in this area.

The proposal to transfer water for the project to service the needs of the project is outright offensive to every farmer who was survived through one of the toughest droughts on record. Imagine what would be possible in this region if the government had such a proactive use of water for agricultural purposes. This is the wrong mine in the wrong place and there should never be a time that an open cut mine should be considered on the door step of Lue and on the doorstep of a region that is growing its tourism potential, a potential that will be significantly harmed by this proposal.

This proposal should be refused outright on the basis of its detrimental, social, physical and environmental impacts.

Please find my submission attached
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission opposing this development.

Brett Farrow

I strongly object to this project. Please see attachment as to why.

I am writing this submission on behalf of astronomers who live, operate observatories and conduct research in the Central West of NSW. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this mine proposal. We are concerned that this mine, and specifically its lighting, should it go ahead, will contribute significantly to degrading the quality of our regional dark skies and thus threaten local, national and, international tourism to our region. Protecting our dark skies is important given that they are a major resource for attracting national and international tourists to observatories. A Gap Analysis and a Concept report have been prepared by SMA Tourism, an international tourism consulting firm. (Website: www.smatourism.com). Astro-tourism has a major potential to generate more employment over a longer term that the life of this mine and thus generate more economic benefit to the rRegion and to NSW. (See attachment.)

I would like to object to the Environmental Impact Statement for Bowdens Silver Mine. I live in Moree and work for a bank specialising in agribusiness. I also have good friends who live six kms downstream from the mine site on Lawson Creek. These friends have a stud beef herd and rely on the Lawson Creek for their water.
Potentially Acid Forming waste rock will be dumped on site forever. This dump will be 77 hectares in size. A large percentage of this rock will break down leaching heavy metals and acidic water in to the water table and Lawson Creek.
Bowdens plans a massive toxic tailings dam with a single wall less than one kilometre from Lawson Creek. This tailings dam will be full of chemicals from processing (cyanide etc), tailings from ore processing and heavy metals. This will be here forever and is designed to leak 1.58 megalitres a day in to Lawson Creek.
Agriculture and tourism are the main drivers of the Lue economy. This mine will destroy tourism and severely impact agriculture. Lawson Creek and its tributaries and the ground water are the lifeblood of this community.
This mine plans to use 2000 megalitres of water each year. There is not enough water in the valley so Bowdens propose to pipe polluted recycled water from Moolarben and Ulan mines. This is water from another catchment (not good policy) and will require a pipeline through valuable farm land. The risk is that this pipeline will leak, polluting these farms.

Bowdens Mine, should it go ahead, will mean the end of the village of Lue and clean air, tank water, ground water and creek water for the whole valley. Our friends and their neighbours will not have a viable business.

I object to the proposed project.

I attach my objection summary together with 5 annexes.

I have also emailed my objection directly to Rose Anne Hawkwood due to my concern over the size of the files.

best regards
Margaret Cameron

Please see attached document

I am writing in opposition of the proposed Bowden’s Silver Mine, as I believe the negative consequences of its construction and operation far outweigh the positive benefits it would bring to the region.
I have a strong connection to the Lue region, growing up on the family farm a short distance from the proposed mine. I visit my parents, who still run the grazing property, as often as possible. One day I hope to move back to family farm and that my children have the same opportunity and privilege I had, growing up on the property in a safe and healthy environment.
However, I am deeply concerned about the impacts of lead dust, carried on the wind, may have on the developmental health, of not only my own children, but also the wider community who live within close proximity to the open cut, as well as along the transportation route. Depending on the economic circumstances of these people, they may not have the option to relocate should their health be impacted by lead exposure.
In addition to the potentially detrimental impacts to community health, I am also sceptical that a lead mine, as large as the one proposed by Bowden’s would have as few impacts to the surrounding environment as alluded to in the EIS.
As an ecological consultant, after reading the Biodiversity Assessment prepared by EnviroKey for submission as part of the EIS, I have some serious concerns with the limited assessment conducted by the consultant. Some of the concerns of note include:
1) The determination that Koala’s are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposal. EnviroKey has based this conclusion on “the relatively localised nature of the BAR footprint when compared to the wider local and regional distribution of Koala” and “Greater extent of habitat in the locality known to be used by Koala”. Surprisingly, the recent impact of fire on the local Koala population have not been considered despite the Biodiversity Assessment published a short time after these events. In addition, the lack of Koala survey throughout the development footprint, in particular, along the proposed pipeline, speaks to the lack of understanding of the abundance and distribution of Koala’s in the region. Further, a survey needs to be conducted to better understand the current local and regional distribution of Koala and remaining extent of habitat in the locality following the 2019/2020 bushfires. Only then can EnviroKey make a true assessment of the impacts on the Koala population.
2) EcoLogical Australia’s data used by EnviroKey as part of their assessment was collected in 2014, this data is now six years old. Surely this data is outdated and too old to represent the current vegetation condition which could have changed during this time. Has EnviroKey validated any of these plots to ensure consistency?
3) There has not been adequate survey for some threatened flora, in particular, Swainsona sericea which was identified with in the Study Area but has not been identified in the development footprint. The ‘comprehensive field survey’ alluded to by EnviroKey appears to have been conducted as per Section 2.3.5 Random Meander Surveys. The methodology described appears to only include short 15 minute surveys when travelling between plots or fauna survey points. Due to the substantial distances between most of these locations, it is unlikely these short surveys would have been conducted over a large enough area to provide conclusive survey to rule out the presence of many of these species. It is far more likely that travel between sites took place by vehicle, which would not have allow detailed enough survey for threatened species such as S. sericea, even if it were flowering at the time. Furthermore, EnviroKey has not mapped survey tracks and have not provided sufficient evidence that the site has been surveyed adequately for threatened flora. Time spent conducting fauna surveys cannot be included as threatened flora survey, as these surveys are vastly different, requiring focus on a very different habitat. Therefore, this methodology would not have resulted in effective coverage of the development footprint and further surveys should be conducted during the survey period.
4) For some portions of the proposed water pipeline, land access agreements were not in place at the time of the field surveys. EnviroKey have used a combination of air photo interpretation, ‘over the fence’ survey and the use of existing data, which was used qualitatively to ‘best-guess’ the BVT and presence of TEC in those portions. This may be sufficient for the purposes of some survey such as validating vegetation. Again, these areas have not been surveyed for threatened flora species and further surveys should be conducted.
5) Threatened fauna species such as Barking Owl have been identified within the Study Area. EnviroKey noted that “No breeding site has been located within the Study Area, despite extensive searches of hollow-bearing trees. It is probable that the woody vegetation portions of the Study Area provide foraging habitat and potentially breeding habitat for Barking Owl.” EnviroKey have not ruled out breeding habitat occurring in the development footprint, and there appears to be suitable nesting hollows despite their lack of habitat mapping. Therefore, the occurrence of Barking Owl breeding habitat cannot be ruled out and species credits should be generated for areas which contain suitable breeding hollows. What about impacts to other hollow dependant species (dual credit species), namely the Gang-gang Cockatoo, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Little Eagle, Masked Owl, Powerful Owl and Square-tailed Kite? How were offsets for breeding habitat excluded for these species?
6) There hasn’t been enough information provided on the rehabilitation process. Will Bowden’s be retaining hollow-bearing trees cleared from the development footprint and reinstating them on areas of rehabilitation? Is this something that will be developed before approval along with the BMP?
7) There hasn’t been enough consideration given to the indirect impacts section of the biodiversity assessment. The assessment only briefly touches on the impacts as a result of increased traffic. There will be a dramatic increase to the road traffic seen in the area. This will not only have an impact on common fauna but as pointed out in the Biodiversity Assessment this will result in increased mortality of threatened fauna such as Spotted Quoll which was hit on Lue Road.
8) It is interesting that EnviroKey makes note of the benefits of indirect impacts to some threatened species in Section 7.4.9. They go so far as to provide specific examples of benefits to threatened species at other mine sites, such as Grey-crowned Babbler and Microchiropteran Bats. However, they fail to note specific examples of the negative impacts of mining at these sites or point out the relocation of these species to areas such as the car park or car park lights may be directly related to impact that mining has had on areas of breeding or foraging habitat in the locality.
9) I find it difficult to believe that there is 113.83 hectares (ha) of land within the development footprint which does not align to the Commonwealth definition of BGW. Table 21 of the Biodiversity Assessment shows the average cover of exotic species compared to native species as higher, however, it does not specify if this vegetation is perennial or annual vegetation. A predominantly native ground layer is one where at least 50 percent of the perennial vegetation in the ground layer is made up of native species (DEH 2006) . The Biodiversity Assessment does not address this. Where plots completed in these areas to confirm that they did not have a vegetation integrity score of less than 17?
10) EnviroKey have not even provided a conclusion as to whether the project would have a significant impact on the Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), stating in their conclusion “The Project could have a significant impact on Box-Gum Woodland as listed by the EPBC Act and Regent Honeyeater.”
11) Is the lifespan of the mine going to remain at the predicted 16 years or will it be extended in the future? Once the initial mining area has been approved, this will make it far easier for the owner of the mine to have future modifications approved leading to cumulative impacts on threatened biodiversity in the future, which wouldn’t have been considered in the initial EIS.
12) Avoidance measures such as the relocation of specific infrastructure based on the presence of ecological sensitivity has not been explained in detail in Section 6 of the Biodiversity Assessment. Whilst a traffic light system has been shown in the Map 54 and Map 55, no explanation of how this mapping was used to redesign around ecological sensitive areas has been provided. Therefore, it is not understood if Bowden’s have made a conscious effort to avoid impacts to threatened biodiversity.
This EIS inadequately addresses the numerous impacts associate with the construction and operation of the mine. The short term economic gain associated with the very brief lifespan of the mine (only 16 years), would not compensate for the immeasurable and largely unknown impacts associated with this mine.