I strongly object to the mine going ahead. I'm less than 2kms from the mine. I want it to STOP.

The amount of water that is proposed as groundwater harvested is well above what is legal for that area of land.

I support the development of the Bowdens Silver project and the economic and employment benefits it will bring to the Mid-West, especially given the likely limited life of the existing thermal coal mines in the region, in which a large number of skilled local mine workers will face the loss of employment. I am supportive of the revised water management plan, including the reduced overall water requirement, the increased on-site runoff capture and storage, and the withdrawal of the proposed Ulan water pipeline. Bowdens Silver has been an active and supportive member of the local community to build social licence.

Waterways will be poisoned.

Here we are again with yet another amendment post EIS. l do suspect this may have been planned by the proponent all along to keep the original EIS in play. This amendment withdrawing an underdeveloped pipeline plan to now utilise all local ground and surface water resources would have been dead in the water had the proponent proposed this in the EIS originally and is now attempting to fly under the radar with this amendment.
And here we are again as a community defending our right to exist. Disrupted from our work and leisure time, finding information, researching and writing yet another submission to protect our homes, businesses and importantly valuable water resources essential to all life.

The proponent’s report states, “Baseflow reductions at Hawkins and Lawsons Creeks would occur but this would not impact the availability of water for downstream users except during periods of drought when it may be experienced as a reduction in water levels in remnant pools.” With dry periods/droughts now occurring more frequently, these are the same remanent pools that have had populations of platypus recorded over many generations along Lawson Ck. Is the monetary gain of a lead mine life of 15 years a good enough reason to wipe out these populations for ever?
This statement below from the amendment suggests ‘significant reliance’ on local water but it’s OK because it’s legal, they have purchased the licenses for the water which the local community rely on for stock and domestic. “Furthermore, as the Project would utilise in-pit and ex-pit production bores, it allows the Project to co-locate aquifer interference activities (open cut pit development and groundwater abstraction) within a single zone of impact that is centred on the Mine Site. Whilst the Project places significant reliance on water resources, its full requirements are accounted for in water licensing permitted under the current water access regime, with no additional demand placed on local water sources other than what is considered permissible by the NSW Government.” Again, it might be legal but is it moral to take this water from a sustainable community with impending water demands that climate change will no doubt throw up?
Even without a degree in hydrology no amount of data or modelling can make the overall picture of ground and surface water usage add up. If the bucket is empty during a dry period, the bucket is empty. No one has any water, but less so the local community for stock and domestic requirements and more damaging still when they see multiple dams at a mine site catching anything falling or flowing in the upper catchment. Many sustainable long term local agricultural business will not survive the 15 years of a drained system let alone the biodiversity and environment.
The report consistently states that the proponents have reduced the area of native vegetation to be cleared by omitting the pipeline. It is offensive that the proponent suggests that because they have reduced the clearing of 180.17ha of Box-Gum Woodland (which is listed as an endangered ecological community under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016) by 2.09ha that it is any less damaging to this area. There is also 146.72ha classified as a critically endangered ecological community under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Any amount of clearing in these ecological communities is still an overall net loss to the environment. It may be legal but is it moral? The suggestion also that the clearing of this endangered ecological community and “the purchase of substantial biodiversity offsetting as presented in the Biodiversity Offset Strategy for the Project (Niche, 2022) would result in large areas of this vegetation community being conserved in perpetuity” is an absolute absurdity. As previously stated, there is a net loss of this endangered and critically endangered native vegetation to our state and federal landscapes. It is merely creative accounting. Legal but certainly not moral.

In our community/local area we average 10d/b of a night. Last week we heard music from a party at a neighbours 6kms away. Cows can be heard calling to calves many kms away which helps our farm management to intervene when this indicates a problem. With a proposed minimum of 35d/b l can see no honesty to the below statement by the proponent. “There are no health impacts of concern in relation to noise from the Project. At times, noise from the Project would be audible and distinguishable above background noise levels. While these noises may be distinguishable, they would remain too low to impact upon community health.” It would be a constant background rumble effecting the peaceful community which is the very reason most people settled in this area. Health effects in the form of mental health and the difficulties some will find when considering the financial implications of having to relocate.

Another statement below is offensive to those who have lived in the area many generations or decades and have witnessed villages such as Ulan, Wollar and Bylong disappear or lose their ‘character’. I see the only advantage to the village will be to the local hotel. With a commuting workforce ‘dropping in for a drink’ and guess what? Yes, the Lue Hotel has been purchased by the proponent’s CEO. “A key objective of the Project is to provide for the sustainability of Lue as a village and retention of its character. This has been achieved via the design of a Project that provides direct benefits for the local community, albeit not to the extent that negative impacts to the character of the local community would be felt.” To seriously suggest that a mine less than 2kms from the Lue village to the mine pit will have no effect on the character of the village is a joke. If people still choose to live so close to an operating lead mine it will be because they cannot afford to relocate, are locked into an agricultural business or B and Bs then become accommodation for mine workers. Honestly what tourist would then choose to stay in a village or once quiet rural area that is then all bright lights, noise and dust?
There is no mention in the amendment report of the effect of drawdown/loss of ground water to native vegetation which is to be used as on-site offsets. “In addition, the biodiversity offsetting obligations of the Project have been assessed in accordance with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the NSW Biodiversity Offset Scheme. This process maintains the integrity of native vegetation and habitat in locations assessed to be consistent with that removed for the Project. Bowdens Silver would establish or facilitate the establishment of Biodiversity Offset Sites, either on land within or adjacent to the Mine Site (on-site offsets) or on other freehold land within the region. If necessary, any residual offset requirements would be satisfied by purchasing available credits from the market, through payment into the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund, or other supplementary measures, subject to agreement.” During the 2018-2019 dry period the area experienced extensive die back in many species of Eucalyptus leaving many hills with patches of dying trees. The question again, that the Biodiversity Offsetting Scheme is legal but is it moral?

The below statement reflects the agricultural capability of the mine site and yet the proponents have recently grown a sorghum crop and are turning off production livestock which would indicate that this is highly productive agricultural land. It also states that impacts to other agricultural businesses will be ‘minor’. That’s only if they can operate without surface or ground water on their properties, especially downstream users. “A key consideration for the Project relates to the potential for land use conflicts between the proposed mining activities and the existing agricultural uses of nearby land. An Agricultural Impact Statement (RWC, 2020b) prepared for the Project concluded that the land within the Mine Site was of limited agricultural capability. Following a review of nearby agricultural land uses and proximity to the mining activity, it was also concluded that the Project would have negligible to minor adverse impacts upon the agricultural resources and enterprises in the region. Bowdens Silver sought and obtained a Site Verification Certificate on 8 November 2017 which confirms that there is no contiguous Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) within the Mine Site boundary.
I have consistently found the following statement an insult to those who have put a lot of time and effort to express their concerns into these submissions. A large number of the supporting submissions quoted below were single word pro formas, mostly saying ‘jobs’ which was supported by a local business who also happens to work for the proponent. DPIE consistently advised that ‘unique’ submissions would only be considered so many people put in a huge effort only to have multiple, single word pro formas being considered equal to all their well-researched response to the EIS. “Finally, the overwhelming support demonstrated in submissions on the EIS supports the strategic context for the Project. A total of 1 504 submissions or 79% of all submissions received provided support for the Project. ”
It is to be expected that the mining proponent use whatever means available to them to push this project through as there is a large financial benefit at stake for them. But what about the community? They are held to ransom for such a long period with the need to defend their homes, businesses and local environment. A very draining process for what ends? For the possibility that an inexperienced mining group can turn their world upside down and leave hundreds of years of toxic mess for 15 years of financial gain and then get to walk away. Please don't let history repeat.

I strongly oppose to the reconfigured water use proposed by Bowden’s at their Lue project.
The potential for damage to the environment in the area is far too great with the highly probable destruction of the water table, native vegetation and animals with adverse impacts on Lawson Creek if water is removed for the use of this mine. Water is a precious commodity for the local community and should not be used in this way for mining purposes.
There are far too many risks associated with this proposal and it is of no benefit to the local community or surrounding areas.