Bowdens Silver

My biggest objection to this mine is that the proposed mine is situated in a place with an unreliable water supply. The mine needs 1788 megalitres per year to operate. A large farm dam holds 1-2 megalitres, 1788ML is a lot of water. Where will the water come from during a dry time? The mine will have to shut down during droughts. We have only come out of a significant drought and the memory of its impact is still fresh. Lawson Creek is identified in the NSW Stressed River Assessments to be in the most seriously stressed category with a high level of environmental stress as well as a high extraction rate. Bowdens Mine proposes to transfer water licences from further down the Macquarie catchment as well from the Sydney basin catchment, further depleting Lawson Creek. This proposed mine will have a ripple effect into other catchment areas and will negatively affect many environmental ecosystems. I strongly object to this proposed mine.

As Manager of the Lue Hotel, I am pleased to provide this submission on behalf of our business.
The Lue Hotel is the only retail enterprise in the village and is the social centre of the village and local area.
Under the new ownership and management, we have spent a considerable amount of time and money in undertaking a range of repairs to the Hotel including upgrades to the bar, kitchen, restaurant and accommodation areas. We currently have a DA submitted for a cafe in an adjacent building. This is something the locals have expressed a great interest in.
We are excited about the opportunities the Hotel presents going forward. However, being a very small town and being the only retail business in the village we rely almost exclusively on the success of the town.
The Hotel already experiences benefits from Bowdens Silver with members of their team often supporting our business and contributing strongly to our communities.
The development of the Bowdens Silver project will certainly bring much needed business to the Hotel. With well over 200 local and well-paid jobs created there will certainly be a proportion that will be living in close proximity to the Hotel. Our new cafe will definitely receive strong support from the Bowdens workers on a day-to-day basis. This support and economic benefit will enable the Hotel to continue to increase its offerings and services to the local community. The Hotel is not just a hotel. It is the hub and heart of our community.
In addition to the benefits to Lue, the Bowdens development is critically important for the local towns of Rylstone and Kandos. Unemployment is very high in the area and Bowdens is the only new development of substance in the area that can help.
With the latest Bowdens Silver project amendment, it is welcome to see further positive refinements and in particular when it comes to water and its security.
We strongly support the Bowdens Silver development.

By way of disclosure, a director of Bowdens Silver is a part owner of the Lue Hotel.

The proposed silver mine at Lue is going to require a lot of water. This will place pressure on a water supply that is only just meeting current needs for agriculture. The drought of 2018 / 19 is evidence of this. The Lawsons Creek was reduced to water holes with no flow.
There is also a high risk that the tailings dam that collects the waste water will leak into the Lawsons Creek. Damage from an event such as this would be beyond repair.

I support the project for the future economic benefits to the community in terms of employment and flow of income generation created from that. The project has ongoing environmental monitoring as per regulations in the various applicable legislation and therefore should not pose a great risk to the environment or local agricultural enterprises.

As can be seen in a recent newsletter silver products are used a wide range of applications that will be beneficial to people not only in the local community but also nationwide and internationally.

If this project was to get refused I feel it would be a lost opportunity for growth in the region. Bowdens is committed to fostering positive relationships with community groups and council to the benefit of the wider region.

As stated in my original submission, this project threatens to irreversibly damage the water table in this productive agricultural area, & the risks of environmental pollution are too great to allow the project to proceed.
At a time when Australia is reeling from the catastrophic effects of climate change, it is vital that governments act NOW to limit carbon emissions from projects like this. There are other employment projects like renewable energy which could be encouraged. It is time to curb mining activity in favour of less destructive industries.
We hope our concerns are taken seriously so that future generations can live in harmony with this land.

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.

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.

Waterways will be poisoned.

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.

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

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

I cannot understand why a company is allowed to take water that is supposed to be there for everyone to use.

If the on site water is going to be used it will be drain the water table.

I strongly object to this mine due to the enormous environmental devastation it would cause for the Lue community and beyond. This is largely due to the proposed mine's high extraction rate and the water it would require, further depleting Lawson Creek.

I object to the Bowdens Silver Pty Limited application for development consent to develop a mine approximately 2 kms north east of Lue.
I object to the relocation of 500kV Transmission Line, whether it be 500m from the open cut pit or 300m from the open cut pit as amended. I object to this amendment on visual, excessive noise and increased traffic grounds and the fact that the massive 60m towers will be pulled down and wasted.
The Bowdens responses to Submissions to the EIS and the Transmission Line amendment are vague and in many cases inaccurate. They openly discriminate against perceived less intelligent submitters, they have made racist and discriminatory comments, they avoid answering questions and prefer to correct typos and other minor mistakes rather than tackling the submitter’s query. They allowed their own chairman to make 2 submissions, they collected submissions from passers by who had no real interest in the merits of the projectand their CEO lied about where he lived.
Although I strongly object to the construction of a pipeline to the Ulan coalfields the removal of this pipeline leaves the project with no external water supply. Many of the reports in the EIS are based on the project having an external water source and not all these reports have been updated or amended so the Department or anyone else cannot possibly make an assessment based on out of date reports and reviews.
The available surface water and groundwater at Lue and north of Lue will not be reliable. This project must have a reliable water source in order to process ore and for dust suppression. Without an external water source this project will not be financially viable. There is no evidence that Bowdens have the required water licences to pump ground water and even if they do have water licences, this water is not reliable and often cannot be pumped. It is likely that if the ground water is available to Bowdens it will be at the expense of other water users. There is a high risk that surface and/or ground water will be adversely effected by the project by reduced capacity and contamination. The dewatering of the mine pit will take water at a rate far greater than has ever been experienced in this area and with many bores, and the creek being not as deep as the Bowdens bores the creek will dry up as will surrounding bores up to a distance of at least 5 kms. Is it a local government or state government responsibility to ensure that residents have domestic and stock water? As a neighbouring landowner this is a serious concern and has not been adequately addressed.
The amended mine site is immediately adjacent to the Hawkins – Rumker area which was recently refused consent to be released for exploration.
The new power supply will be constructed through the extremely sensitive Hawkins – Rumker area with substantial opposition from effected landowners.
The amended mine site is in close proximity to the recently refused Kepco Coal Mine project.
The Bowdens Project has significant commercial, logistical and social constraints which mean there is a low probability of it being successful.
It would be reckless of the Department of Planning and Environment to assess and recommend this project to the Independent Planning Commission.

I am writing to voice my opposition to this latest iteration of this deeply flawed proposal.

They have always struggled to find the water required to give this lead mine any potential to be viable.

Now, suddenly, they are able to find the water they need in-situ! How remarkable. Why the plan with the waste water from the Ulan mines if it was here all along? Apart from other shortcomings, their flawed modeling conveniently leaves out the low rainfall 2019, when we were in drought.

How will they make the mine operational in dry years? What will happen downstream in drought? Climate modeling shows times of drought will get more frequent and more severe. This is a semi arid area. There is simply not enough water for a mine.

And any water they use will have massive impacts on removal of downstream flows, the water table and the habitats for human, plant and animal, that rely on this precious and scarce water resource.

Please reject this non-viable proposal for good. They can not find the water they need. They will not acknowledge or address the issue of Acid Mine Drainage (from the Tailings Dam). There is too much willfully ignored in their proposal and amendments to let this go ahead. It will be the taxpayers and future generations that will have to deal with the cleanup and the destructive legacy if this were to be approved. This mine will release great levels of toxicity and risk local and downstream life for generations.

Save the beautiful township and people of Lue. Save the land and keep it life sustaining for those local and downstream. Keep the area a location people love to visit. This mine cannot go ahead. Please stop it now!

I support this modification due to the reduction in potential environmental impact associated with no longer requiring a pipeline and water supply from offsite. I support the reuse of mine water as opposed to using freshwater for processing, therefore conserving a valuable resource. Further to this, support of a new extractive industry will diversify employment within region and support a move to renewables. Silver is key resource for a successful move to renewable economy.

An independent review has shown that Bowdens have over-estimated likely water availability, especially in dry years.
It is likely that they will severely reduce groundwater available to other users and also reduce severely water for other water users downstream on Lawson Creek. Lawson Creek is already classed as a stressed (S1) stream.
In dry times there will be very little water available for dust suppression resulting in pollution from lead bearing dust.

Based on the vast amount of tested scientific evidence, already presented by Dr Haydn Washington to Bowdens, I strongly oppose to the opening of a mine in Lue's surroundings.
The harmful effects of Zinc, copper, Lead and Cadmium's high toxicity must not be ignored.
Marcus & Elizabeth Cremonese, Rylstone NSW 2849

Concern with regard to the depth of excavation lowering the ground water table impacting existing bores, noise and vibration impacting amenity of local residents, increased heavy vehicle traffic damaging the Lue Rd surface and impact upon Koala habitat