This objection is lodged for several reasons including: The general inadequacy of the environmental impact statement dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage; the lack of acknowledgement of cultural loss caused by initial flooding of the Burragorang Valley; and, the failure to address alternative options.

My observation is that the Environmental Impact Statement could be clearer about the effects of the proposed project on the Lake Burragorang Special Areas. Section 20.3.10 of the EIS is clear that the project would cause flood water to temporarily encroach the current Schedule 1 Special Area and a small part of the current Schedule 2 Special Area. Section 20.5.4.4 states that temporary flood inundation will not change access to areas of NPW Act Estate because inundation will only be within Special Areas where access is restricted. These sections imply the current Special Areas will not change as a result of the project because they are defined by the full water storage level rather than flood water level, but it could be made clearer and explained further. The EIS could also clarify the effect of the project on the small area of inundated Schedule 2 Special Area. This area is currently accessible by the public on foot, but would presumably be inaccessible in a flood as it would be inundated.

The Special Areas are important to me because they define land areas with restricted free public access. Schedule 2 Special Areas are regularly used by the public for recreation, research, and other interests and a change in any type of Special Area would change the available use of public land. The EIS could be clearer about follow on effects of the project on the Special Areas.

My objections to the proposed project are described in the attached document.

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.
here 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.
t 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.

See attachment

See attached submission