I’m ounce again discussed by the lack community consultation and the amount of response time given to community to respond. The amount of time given to voice our concerns is poor. You leave us with the feeling that there is something been hidden and corruption involved . There is still huge amounts of the community locally and wider not aware of the new submission required to be lodged. Given the current changes put forward the original proposal should be terminated and a whole new application for approval to be put forward from Bowdens. The water issue was never completely disclosed and formalised before approval given. Water is such an important factor for all mining operations and when you look at Bowdens proposal for how they are going to source the water it is a floored report and not accurate in so many ways. All the stakeholders were never made aware of the submission process in play. The stakeholders includes local business, tourism local and statewide , farmers of all types , schools and all workers in area. who’s lives will hugely be adversely impacted by a mining operation
You need too do right by the people impacted which is outlined above and provide more time and the consideration of a new proposal to be put forward

I am writing in support of this project, which I am confident is in very capable hands and will be hugely beneficial to the local economy.
With the water pipeline now removed from the development, the reduced water requirements, greater water recycling and water self sufficiency, I fully support the progression of this project to the next stage.

See attached

The proposed mine is not feasible in it's current form and should not be approved. Further details on relevant issues is provided in the attached.

Potential for Acid Mine Drainage from long term storage and consequent exposure of mine waste is such that any Pb Zn Ag sulphide and related mining at the head of a regionally significant catchment is unjustifiable both environmentally and consequently economically.

I strongly object to amendment as it does not make this project safe. By scapping the pipeline, Bowdens wish to extract all water for their mining from their harvestable rights onsite, from aquifers. The amendment does not demonstrate that this mine will have a reliable water supply causing even more pollution from lead and other heavy metal and mineral dust to our local environment. The mine will have to close in dry times. Bowdens have not modelled stream flows from lawson Creek on a meter above Rylstone on the Cudgegong River - totally irrelevant. They don't know anything about local creek flows. They have not demonstrated they are suitable to operate a mine as design of the TSF is experimental and widely disputed by experts. They want to destroy our local creeks and aquifers forever to mine for a short period of 16 years. Who will care for the toxic tailing storage dam and leachate residue dam FOREVER. Experience from other similar old mines such as Captains Flat near Canberra and Sunnny Corner near Bathurst is that heavy metals cause pollution which despite repeated efforts to rectify damage, mostly at the expense of government, they cannot rehabilitate the waterways. What a prospect for the future of the Lawson Valley.
Bowdens is seeking to amend the alignment of 500kV powerlines from on top of the mine site - many residents of Lue will have suffer. Not only will they have to suffer poisoning from lead dust, dry bores, increased road traffic, noise from mining vehicles and light pollution, many of them will now look onto enormous high transmission lines. Bowdens has not yet secured a supply of electricity for the mine - they are hoping to bring a 66kV line through sensitive vegetation and many private landholdings. They cannot demonstrate they are fit to operate a mine. I don't believe they have the skill or the will to be good mine managers and the ore they are mining is particularly toxic. As a landowner near the mine and on the Lawson Creek, I am extremely worried about our future and the detrimental effect this proposed mine will have on my property. We are proud of our farm and have spent many years improving our native and improved pastures, fencing out sensitive vegetation and soils from stock, maintaining grass cover even during droughts - all to ensure we have a healthy farm producing healthy animals. We love our home. This mine threatens my home.
For many years we have battled the prospect of a silver lead and zinc mine at Lue. As time goes on, proponents get more determined and seem to have deeper pockets. One fact has not changed - mining for lead is extremely dangerous and polluting especially 1.9km from a large village and set within a fragile landscape high in the catchment. I strongly object to the Amendment and also to the Bowdens Silver Project SSD-5765

I don’t believe that there is complete transparency and honesty in relation to jobs that will be created or lost by this mining operations. The issue of the job numbers to be created is that there is no mention of the jobs lost to the community adversely affected by a mining intrusion to the area either locally or wider ranging. As seen in other areas when the mining operation cease to continue the remaining surrounding surviving community fails to recover. The mental and human health toll that has been afflicted on a community is unacceptable and is morally wrong

The retention of extra surface water runoff will have to have an adverse effect on the downstream waterways and the wildlife relying on the water. Landowners will also lose water already available for stock.
The short and long term effect of the drawdown effect on the groundwater is unnacceptable.
Bowdens make a sketchy and frivolous attempt at justifying their disdain of biodiversity and it's value to the wider community.
The Application attempts to justify the destruction of 381.17ha of native vegetation. 180ha of this is EndangeredBox Gum Woodland, 146ha of this is Critically Endangered Community!!
This must be considered in context with other mining activity around the State and the entire country as having a cumulative and devastating effect on wildlife listed as Threatened and on other unlisted but important species.
There are six species listed as threatened or migratory.Envirokey claim no significant impact on these with the exception of the
rgegent Honeyeater.
How advanced are the offset plantings?will they be mature enough to supply food and shelter for when the land is cleared? I think not.
What about the other five species listed? Koalas - now Endangered, Squirrel Glider, Silky Swainsona Pea, Small Purple pea, Large -eared Pied Bat.
The report totally ignores them!
Where are these offset areas? Can the wildlife onsite reach them before the land is cleared? Is the existing bushland already at maximum capacity? Or are they just crushed and buried. If they manage to relocate is there sufficient food and shelter for them or do they need to compete with the animals already in residence.
Some of these will no doubt perish.
How can this project possibly justify itself as an Ecological Sustainable Development?