HI,

I have already made submission and placed comments in this box as well as an attachment. Those comments were really a covering letter. It is totally opposed to raising the dam wall.

I have made sme modififactions to the attachment, which conatined the bulk of my submission. They are in yellow on the attachment. I think these are important as, although conatained within the original are sort of locked away and putting them in this form rams the point home in a more effective way as it is clearer.

Please accept, if possible this new attacment (with the yellow bits added to the old, the rest is the same) as a replacment. If that is not possible, I just have to suck it up.

Thanks for making this possible. Ill also send it to the Planner address as above

Brian Crowther

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.
The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 
Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”.
The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole.
The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.
Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.

The raising of the Warragamba Dam wall provides a good opportunity to upgrade an aging piece of critical Sydney infrastructure and safeguard our water supply through the strengthening and modernisation of the dam structure and operating systems (not additional water capacity).
Past studies have shown that the calculations undertaken for the initial construction were deficient in the aspects of large rain events - which we are experiencing (and are predicted to experience) in a higher frequency and intensity than ever before, this was realised by the construction of the emergency spillway. The current design of Warragamba Dam was not initially intended for flood mitigation purposes, but it can be seen from recent events that flood mitigation must be now considered.
It will be of great benefit for all downstream areas to have control over the intensity of releases and the ability to delay a release as not to amplify the storm surges of other inflows into the Nepean river. This will help protect downstream properties and the natural environment by limiting the rapid rise of rivers and their flow rates in flood events. It will also reduce the risk of human life in these extreme events through longer warning times and slower river rise rates.
There will be an upstream impact on the natural environment and cultural heritage (both European and aboriginal), however many objections do not consider that these areas will not be permanently inundated and will only be inundated in extreme weather events for short periods of time. There is also concern from many objections that the aboriginal heritage study was not thorough enough, but it is my understanding that these studies were undertaken using all information available on the location of aboriginal heritage sites in the area and there is no documentation available from the aboriginal or European communities of more heritage sites present or their location.
It is important to consider that the raising of the dam wall will not enable more development to occur in the flood plain areas downstream as it is not intended for zoning restrictions to be altered in these areas. They will still remain flood affected areas and will have continued protection through the existing legislation and legal system.
There will be some effect on the local community during the construction works, however there is to be strict rules of working times and pollution (noise/dust). Extra vehicles will be on the road during construction times, this may prompt the upgrade of the local roads and will only be during working hours. It is important to consider that construction works will only be undertaken for a few years and the existing townships surrounding the dam will return to normal afterwards.
There will also be a boost to local shops and business through the many workers that will be coming to the area who will require things such as food, equipment and goods and services. Many of the people living in the area work in construction and manufacturing industries.
The project will provide many new jobs, both during construction and throughout the life of the dam and may also give a tourism boost, helping the area be "put back on the map".
It is the considerations mentioned above that bring me to support the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. In my opinion the short and long term benefits of the project greatly outweigh the negative impacts that it may have.

It is unbelievable that National Park, World Heritage, Aboriginal sites of significance and the habitat of rare and endangered species could possibly be put at risk by so senseless a proposal. The flooding of these areas if the wall is raised betrays every assurance and promise of good environmental management ever made by State governments and also betrays those people in the past that have made real compromises to achieve just, permanent outcomes which will be trashed by this proposal. The proper approach to dealing with flooding on a floodplain (many parts of the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment) is to plan properly, identify risks, ameliorate them through in situ engineering and above all, prevent urban development in active flood zones. I emphatically oppose the raising of the Warragamba dam wall.

I am the coordinator of a Friends group which volunteers on a weekly basis at our local conservation reserve. I have seen first hand the fragmentation of our bushland, the impacts of a drying climate and a decline in our bird species.
Australia is currently facing the challenges of climate change, extinction of our native species due to a diverse range of human induced factors, and land degradation. We cannot continue to operate in the future as we have in the past, primarily for the sake of our children and grandchildren, that is, for future generations.
Raising the level of the Warragamba Dam is an outdated response that takes no account of the environmental impacts of such a decision and will in the long run lead to further environmental degradation. This will be to the detriment of the people of New South Wales and of all Australians.
The short term impact will see the degradation of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and the extinction of some threatened species. To give an example, the Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with very few individuals remaining in the wild. Our Federal Government and the New South Wales government have invested considerable resources into the recovery plan for this elusive bird. During the assessment project it was discovered that there were 21 Regent Honeyeaters, which included active nests, recorded in the impact area.
To proceed with this project in light of the above would be both unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for the Regent Honeyeater, that is, for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I oppose any suggestion of offsets as a response to the enormous loss of the Regent Honeyeaters’ breeding habitat if this project was approved. It is a rare and endangered species because of its specific needs; it is unlikely any offset could meet that need.
The Regent Honeyeater is one species for which a National Recovery Plan has been developed. Will this Recovery Plan be adhered to rather than set aside as has happened to other recovery plans in the past, and how many more undetected, unnamed and unknown species will be lost if the dam wall is raised?

As a resident of the Blue Mountains, I am acutely aware of how precious its World Heritage listed natural landscape is.

There are few wild rivers left in NSW, and they are very important to our environment. Raising the dam wall would cause horrific flooding damage to the Kowmung, Coxs and Nattai rivers. The area is also important to the survival of endangered species such as the swift parrot and regent honeyeater, which stand to lose food and breeding hollows.

I understand there is also a number of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within the prospective area of inundation, which would be destroyed.

For these reasons and more, I am strongly opposed to the expansion of Warragamba Dam.

The supposed goal of protection from flooding can be achieved without raising the dam wall. Measures such as dam level control, improving evacuation routes, not approving high density housing on floodplains (or even buying back residential areas within the floodplain) should all be fully exercised instead.

Please, do not deface our World Heritage National Parks any further than they have already been. Do not raise the Warragamba Dam wall.

This area is part of a World Heritage listed area of significance . If the wall is raised it will flood many First Nations sites. This wall will not stop flooding on the plains as other rivers run into this area. I see that this is just a way for the Liberal Government to put more houses on the flood plain and gain money for developers. I am very opposed to this raising of the dam wall as are most of the population that understand the awful consequences. The government could be sued by First Nations for destroying sacred sites. These areas need protection not destruction.

My name is Steven Lang and I live in South East Queensland but for many years I lived in the Blue Mountains and have done extensive walking in the Kowmung Creek area. The region is especially important to me on a personal level, but my objections to the proposal to raise the dam wall have a serious scientific focus.
I strongly oppose the project due to its unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.
The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 
Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”.
The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
I also strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater. Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
I strongly encourage you to reject the proposal,
Yours sincerely, Steven Lang

Wilderness areas are being destroyed around the world. Once gone, they will be almost impossible to replace. As a wealthy country, with large areas of wilderness per resident, Australia will find it easier than most to preserve these important places. Areas close to Sydney are particularly valuable because they are accessible to more people and offset the air pollution produced by urban areas.
The wilderness that will be lost underwater if the dam wall is raised falls into this category. It is beautiful, important and irreplaceable. The Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate regarding threatened species and aboriginal heritage sites. It needs to be reviewed in the light of the recent bushfires and worsening climate change.
No substantial arguments have been made to justify the expense and destructive effects of raising the dam wall. Democratic governments should be advancing the interests of the great mass of citizens, not short-term profits for well-connected property developers.
My interest is as an ordinary person who's been visiting the Blue Mountains and surrounds for over fifty years, bushwalking and touring. Our forebears had the good sense to protect these areas. Let's not be the generation that's remembered for destroying them.
Thank you.