Jervis Bay Aquaculture Facility

I do not want to see Jervis Bay used for commercial purposes. These leases will detract from the water surface area and restrictions will apply to entering the proposed areas. Also commerical activity will add to the traffic on the waterway.

I am extremely upset and unhappy at this proposal. Callala relies heavily on tourism and tourists are not going to come here if the beach looks ugly. Callala is currently a beatiful beach with pristine waters, a little piece of Utopia and this will destroy all tourism.
This submission is not about food security it is about money. If people are starving they are not going to eat mussels!
It is also not about jobs as all of those who work because of tourists will lose employment. It is about destroying a wonderful community for the sake of a buck.

I wish to strongly object to the proposal to site the leases just of Callala Beach. It is the pristine views of Jervis Bay that attracts people to this area and one of the reasons we have our house there. I am VERY concerned at anything that impacts this view and the enjoyment of our location that we have had for more than 16 years and which neighbours have had for decades. This pristine, wilderness look is the essence of the tourist trade. Two leases are not going to make an impact on Australia's seafood balance of trade. On the contrary, I am concerned that it may impact the flow of of tourists to Callala Beach and thus be overall negative for the state economy.
I am also concerned that the risks that such leases will lead to change in the environment of the Marine Park are being given too little weight in the proposal. For a minimal benefit to the shellfish industry, we should not risk changing the seabed, water quality and marine environment for the dolphins and other sea life in the Bay. After all, protecting them is one of the very reasons it was declared a Marine Park several years ago.

Hello,

I strongly object to the location of the proposed leases in Jervis Bay.

I believe they will most definitely reduce the quiet enjoyment of anyone of the residents or visitors to the western side of the bay.

The western side of the bay one can enjoy activities, like kayaking, hiring 'tinnies' (that one doesn't need to be licensed to drive), sailing medium and small learner craft in the creek or out the front of the western side of the bay. I've also heard of a small business that teaches kite-surfing and I've noticed (on the few occasions I get to frequent the area) conditions permitting people enjoying this pursuit -though not my cup of tea, good luck to that niche industry - at least they're bringing a new vibrant energy to the area. These pursuits are easily accessed in walking distance from and in residential areas mostly on the western side.

Of course there's the visual impact as well, I read there would be low visual impact markers - is that really safe where there's novice boaters around - will this eye-saw annoy and put some tourists of returning to the pristine waters of JB (noting most accommodation is western and southern sides - it should also be noted that the holiday season if memory serves 2yr ago when Callala Beach was covered deeply in green weed there were many holiday renters that cancelled and/or asked for a refund.

I was delighted to read that this new industry will create about 100 jobs, but I would hate to think this would impact on the job's like holiday letting agents, cleaners, kayak and recreational craft hiring places, putting insurance detrimentally out of reach.

I would like to propose the leases be placed further east - perhaps east of the 2 wrecks that are in the north of JB.

I hope we take this opportunity and do it well the first time to the east.

I thank you for your time and do hope you consider these comments.

As a resident of Callala Beach, I oppose the development of the aquaculture leases in Jervis Bay.
This proposed development in the pristine bay, is both a blight on the visual aesthetics of the bay, and I wonder what impact these massive areas of farming and resulting pollution will have on the resident dolphins that live in Jervis Bay.
Any changes to the dynamics of the ecology will have an impact all the way along the food chain, with disastrous results.

I am writing to strongly object to this proposal to allow aquaculture on three sites in Jervis Bay. During my childhood I often took family holidays to this beautiful area of Australia. Now in my adult life I continue to make the time to visit and spend time here with my own family. It is such a special place and needs special care. Aquaculture poses too greater risk to Jervis Bay. The pristine water and abundant marine life is the essence of Jervis Bay and needs the highest level of protection. This is important for the marine life, current communities of Jervis Bay and the future generations of all Australians.

I am writing to strongly object to this proposal to allow aquaculture on three sites in Jervis Bay. During my childhood I often took family holidays to this beautiful area of Australia. Now in my adult life I continue to make the time to visit and spend time here with my own family. It is such a special place and needs special care. Aquaculture poses too greater risk to Jervis Bay. The pristine water and abundant marine life is the essence of Jervis Bay and needs the highest level of protection. This is important for the marine life, current communities of Jervis Bay and the future generations of all Australians.

I vehemently oppose the creation of the two leases directly opposite Jervis Bay. I believe as an owner of a holiday rental property that these two leases will be a significant detriment to the visual amenity of Callala Beach and will result in tourists choosing to holiday at other locations. I believe that this will have a financial impact to the detriment of the area. I have read the documentation in detail and do not see any logical rationale relating to what can only be described as fantasy figures relation to the job creation benefits. There is no indication of how these figures were quantified. Considering that aquaculture has been tried and stopped on three separate occasions in the bay I see no justification for the spending of $720k of taxpayer money on another white elephant.

I was a mussel farmer in Jervis Bay for 15 years and support aqua-culture in Jervis Bay. We have a collective responsibility to feed our community sustainably and Jervis Bay is an ideal site as long as it does not get over-run with aquaculture.
Longline culture methods are much better than the old raft method I used.
Indigenous communities should be included as there is a cultural responsibility in safe-guarding the wild resource.
Shoalhaven city council needs to be co-operative instead of confrontational, as they were when I was farming.
There needs to be a robust consultation with the Jervis Bay community in gaining consensus.
Pressure from local seafood retailers needs to be managed so the public can receive aqua-culture products direct from the producers.This is one of the public benefits for allowing aqua-culture to take place.

Having well maintained aquaculture activies in any bays and rivers is the best indicator of the health of that water. It also provides places for juvenile fish and other marine life to shelter.
The imporance of sustainable food production is going to be ever more important all over the world. Oyster farming is one of the cleanest forms of producing a food product that dose not have any negative effects on the marine enviroment. There are not feeding supplements required to be added l for oysters or other molluscs to feed grow, while other froms of fish farming requires suppliments added to the water to feed the fish, crabs or crayfish.
The type of cultivation methods should be clearly stipulated and only persons who have a proven record of compliance with enviromental methods and maintance should be consider when alocation of these laese areas takes place.

The issues I wish to raise as a member of the Jervis Bay community who has grown up with and is familliar with the maritime and coastal environments of JERVIS BAY as a surfer ,diver,fisherman and sailor is the likely interaction between the development and existing , approved and proposed operations in the vicinity of the site as is stated in the DIRECTOR GENERALS REQUIREMENTS. I am also concerned ;with the requirement for plans of any proposed building works;the potential impact of increased water-based traffic (including vessel movements likely to be generated by the proposal) on other vessel activities and consideration of measures to ensure the safety of all recreational users of Jervis Bay.

DIRECTOR GENERALS REQUIREMENTS.

likely interactions between the development and existing,
approved and proposed operations in the vicinity of the site;

plans of any proposed building works;

Navigation and safety

the potential impact of increased water-based traffic (including
vessel movements likely to be generated by the proposal) on
other vessel activities (particularly nearby military operations);
and
- consideration of measures to ensure the safety of all recreational
users of Jervis Bay.

The NSW State Government has identified the proposal as a State Significant Infrastructure Project and as such has identified the potential for the project to impact upon existing and future recreational,commercial and tourist activities that rely on the limited existing coastal maritime access points within the NSW Jervis Bay Marine Park to sustain our community economically.

In the EIS ; The proponent has singled out the immediate vicinity of the proposed maritime infrastructure to be established within Jervis Bay; This veiw gives an isolated maritime location on which to focus the majority of the proponents management plan with the aim of offsetting the identified adverse impacts on existing maritime users.

The EIS and management plan gives very little forward planning details on how the project will impact on the existing maritime users and operators that rely heavilly upon the existing coastal access points and maritime thoughfares between as yet unidentified land based processing, construction and servicing industries associated with the proposal and the actual site out in the bay.

The best serviced maritime access points in Jervis Bay that cater for industrial purposes are located not in NSW but in the Jervis Bay Territory . The best access point is The existing Maritime Service Industry infrastructure of HMAS Creswell consisting of Purpose built Wharfs,Slip Ways ,Refueling and Service Centres.

There is another maritime access point at Murrays Beach that is being upgraded to service Commercial and recreational tourist operations for Booderee National Park. The Infrastructure on completion will be a large wharf and boatramp with extensive car parking.

These facilities are both all weather facilities.

In NSW there are small recreational boatramp maritime access points for recreational boat ,kayak and paddleboarders located at Hyams beach ,Plantation Point ,Vincentia and Callala
some are more sheltered than others but none are all weather maritime access points and none would be classified as commercial or industrial . They are very popuar and are busy in the tourist times.

The Major Regional Recreational Maritime access point is located within Currumbene Creek at Woollamia the infrastructure being a small wharf and boatramp with additional facilities that incude public toilets and a carpark.

The Woollamia Boat Ramp is located on Currumbene Creek, a sheltered waterway and is an all weather facility.To access this facility users must navigate the hazardous and shifting tidal mouth at Huskisson. This is a busy throughfare conjested with recreational ,commercial and tourist craft as well as surfer,kayakers ,swimmers and paddle boarders.

The only NSW Commercial wharfs able to service industry and commercial operators are the public and private maritime access points located at Huskisson at the Mouth of Currambene Creek . This area is an add hock ,poorly managed zone of maritime chaos that includes limited commercial fishing ,diving and sightseeing moorings alongside permanant berthings.

Existing operations dominate this zone and compete for time and maritime access in order to embark and disembark,load and unload, as well as the dodgy adhock and unregulated refuelling and servicing that takes place.

There is very little room for parking or room for visiting maritime users and the area is a hive of activity that includes surfers ,paddle boarders,kayakers and swimmers .

The maritime zone at Huskisson is heavilly influenced by the tide and is a dangerous bar crossing.

This area has no ability to service the proposal without causing a severe adverse impact on existing users during both the construction phase and the ongoing servicing and operation of the proposal out in the bay.

The last maritime access point is Callala Bay
This ramp is located in Boorawine Terrace, Callala Bay, its a two laned concrete ramp with a long jetty located on the left hand side of ramp. The Ramp has Fish and Boat Cleaning facilities, Toilets with Wheel Chair access, BBQ / Picnic area with a play ground for the kids. Plenty of parking but can be very busy at peak times. *WARNING - Be careful at this ramp on low tide as the trailer may drop off the concrete onto the sand if care is not taken.

PROPONANTS ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

This is a very limited document and I believe an extensive and detailed plan of management that identifies and manages all risks and hazards as they relate to the limited maritime access to Jervis Bay must be in place before any approval is given i.e see below is very limited and brief.

3.1.3
Traffic Management Plan

The Traffic Management Plan will consider the movements of road vehicles and marine vessels. The plan will address potential impacts on marine fauna and other road and waterway users, particularly in relation to navigational safety, the maintenance of navigation buoys, minimising the risk of boat strikes to marine fauna, minimising acoustic pollution and mitigating road congestion issues associated with the transport of products and movement of staff.
During the construction stage, road and marine vessel traffic will be managed in accordance with the requirements of NSW RMS.

THE EIS

In the EIS the proponant states that Jervis Bay has characteristics that make it highly suitable for shellfish aquaculture, including excellent water quality, it is well sheltered from most prevailing weather conditions, it has a suitable depth profile and it is well serviced with local infrastructure and support industries.

Jervis Bay is not well serviced with local infrastructure and support industries , the nearest commercial slip way is in Ulludulla .There is limited land available as local infrastructure for processing facilities ,construction depots and most importantantly there are no NSW commercial maritime access points that are not already at capacity.

The EIS also states In siting the leases, the constraints considered included: Marine Park Sanctuary Zones; Commonwealth Waters; designated anchor/mooring areas; wharves and boat ramps; main passage for recreational boating and sailing;

I cant see how any person who has spent time navigating around Jervis Bay can say that the existing designated anchor/ mooring areas; wharves and boat boatramps;main passage for recreational boating and sailing have been risk assessed and planned for adequately to conclude that Jervis Bay at present is the ideal location for a State Significant Infrastructure commercial aquaculture Project. The proponant can not assume that the land based infrastucture they rely upon will come in time and suggest it is the responsibility of someone else who will be required to go through a seperate EIS to develop the required infrastructure for this proposal in order to make the operation way out in the bay viable.



Development of land based facilities is not part of this proposal as it is only for the water based lease sites. However, it was identified by Fisheries NSW that the region has industrial estates suitable for land based depots and boat ramp facilities particularly at Callala Bay and Woollamia which could be used for servicing the Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Leases. During lease construction, application may be made to use the Huskisson public wharf to load vessels with infrastructure for deployment.

Is this paragraph above the depth of forethought and strategic planning that will direct the decision of the Minister in relation to maritime access points and associated infrastructure in a sensitive coastal location that is already sustaining a viable tourist industry servicing 700 000 visitors a year ? The paraagraph above relies on second hand information to make vague assumptions of the proposals ability to become viable based on its simbiotic relationship with the land.

The closest industrial estate at Woollamia is 5 kilometres in land and would have environmental impacts associated with lack of salt water and waste water.Callala Bay and Woollamia boatramps service recreational maritime users and have very limited capacity in non peak seasons to service a State significant commercial seafood industry.

Huskisson wharf is poorly managed and at capacity all year round . Even during the construction phase ;assuming an adequate depot can be sourced within the Woollamia industrial estate;there is no capacity for the construction and servicing of a State significant seafood processing facility to coexist with the existing commercial and recreational users that compete daily for time and access to the existing limited maritime infrastructure.

In conclusion the land based industry and maritime industry associated with this State significant Infrastructure Proposal must be assessed together to make this project viable and be concidered an Ecologically Sustainable Development.

I suggest looking at accessing existing maritime service infrastructure at HMAS Creswell or Ulludulla Harbour.

Strategic Planning would suggest Jervis Bay is Ideal for the Maritime growing environment to sustain commercial aquaculture but the Land based processing,construction and servicing infrastructure only exists at HMAS Creswell in Jervis Bay Territory and Ulludulla Harbour only a short boat ride to the south.

Until the inadequacies of the land based infrastructure is identified; strategic planning initiated and all associated risks are identified; The proponant can not claim the principle of ecelogically sustainable development that compliments existing nature based tourist industries , recreational fishing and commercial operations to sustain our community .

We rely upon the limited existing maritime and service infrastructure and by not recognising the impacts that the proposal places on this limited infrastructure ,our future is in Jeopody should this proposal proceed; I must therefore object to this proposal.

The concept of a Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture that only grows species native to Jervis Bay like Blue Mussels, scallops and oysters is an excellent example of sustainability in action. Commercial development of aquaculture is an important step for the seafood industry in the progression of food production to support the increase demand for healthy and fresh seafood products. With strong population growth predicted as we head towards 2050, sustainable food production is a rational and reasonable expectation that ensures the principles of environmental sustainable development are incorporated for the benefit of future generations. I strongly support the Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture development. I'll have a dozen oysters please!

I support the thorough background work of the EIS and the draft Environmental Management Plan, and the proposal for extractive aquaculture leases in Jervis Bay.

Sustainable seafood production is something that NSW should start to lead with by good example and that is exactly what this process is contributing to. NSW is not large in scale regarding aquaculture, but it can become a leader in good standards of aquaculture and quality product. Shellfish aquaculture when managed properly has minimum local impact and potentially larger regional benefits in terms of nutrient remediation and sustainable local industry development.

This can also go hand in hand with seaweed aquaculture development for Australia which is also a nutrient stripper with great benefits for coastal water quality and seafood production human nutritional value.

As regular visitors to Callala Beach, my family and I were shocked to hear of the proposal to offer 3 aquaculture leases in the area.

Jervis Bay is an absolutely pristine environment that should be preserved at all cost. To indicate that there is a moderate risk of degradation of water quality and sedimentation due to the aquaculture leases is simply unacceptable.

One of the reasons that Jervis Bay is so unique compared to other coastal communities is that it has been protected from inappropriate development. As has been well documented, it also boasts stunning white sand beaches and beautiful turquoise water, which, according to Jervis Bay Tourism, are amongst the most beautiful in the world.

Any degradation in water and sand quality or bio fouling of the natural environment will have a huge impact on the amenity of this area not only for local residents but for the number of visitors who flock to the region in summer to appreciate one of the few last remaining unspoiled environments.

We urge you to reconsider offering aquaculture leases in this pristine region.

These are comments and or observations after having read the
EIS issued in October 2013 by NSW fisheries

. The visual impact photos taken from the western shore of the bay esp. from the dunes at princess street callala beach don't really give the readers a true perspective and I believe most houses along the dune foreshore will be visually impacted( and from windows at ground level, not just from windows on second stories as is claimed in the EIS)
.when walking along the beach I also believe there will be a detrimental visual impact esp due west of the leases where there is a large visitor/holiday population
The Jervis Bay Marine Park is currently a pristine environment, notwithstanding the visual pollution that council has permitted to in the Huskisson township, so any navigation markers and buoys , will I believe negatively impact the pristine nature of the Bay
.in the event of any storm damage that causes material from the farms to be washed ashore I would hope that activities would be suspended indefinitely until the operators practices and standards were reviewed in full and revoked if found to be deficient in any way
. Can you incorporate a requirement to move the farms to others areas of the bay,further away from residential dwellings should the Commonwealths zoning of the Bay change which would allow other sites to be considered suitable.

Keep Australia's proud legacy of being one of the world's most foresightful coastal protection legislation societies intact.

Jervis Bay is jewel that needs additional attention and protection due to being so close to such a major urban area such as Greater Sydney. I don't think there is a marine area so close to a major metro area so 'lock in' like Jervis Bay in the entire world.

Commercial aquaculture is NOT APPROPRIATE for Jervis Bay Marine Park.

I object to the proposed mussel leases within Jervis Bay for the following reasons:

1. Jervis Bay is a unique NSW coastal bay that has strong eco-tourism values due to its pristine environmental qualities. The entire area relies on this for generation of local income. The proposed leases will diminish these values.
2. Jervis Bay is home to approximately eighty dolphins that are within and around the proposed lease areas every day. No-one can predict with any certainty the impacts upon this population, which has far greater environmental and eco-tourism value to the region than the supposed creation of 30 new jobs.
3. The views of Jervis Bay from local residential communities and beaches have always been highly valued for their pristine, untouched qualities. This is an area surrounded by National Parks and Marine Parks. The proposed leases will impact significantly, adversely and permanently upon these highly valued environmental values. Although the leases are not within the actual Park areas, it is an established principle that the curtilage to these Parks is of high significance in assessment of any proposal that may have adverse environmental impacts.
4. The leases require operation of barges on a daily basis. This will further impact upon the environmental quality of the Bay. The barges and permanent buoys will create visual pollution of the environment.
5. The quietness of Jervis Bay is one of its most important environmental qualities. Operation of the proposed leases will create continuous noise pollution both above and below the water. This will detrimentally impact upon residents and visitors, and potentially with catastrophic impacts upon the resident dolphin population.
6. The clean, clear air and water quality of Jervis Bay is one of its most important and valued environmental qualities. Operation of the proposed leases will have high adverse impacts upon this, through large quantities of organic waste generated by the mussels and continuous operation of the barges, which are likely to be diesel-fuelled.
7. Adverse impacts upon marine life are not limited to the dolphin population, they will extend to all marine flora and fauna within the Bay. The proponents of the proposed commercial enterprise can offer no certainty in relation to the extent or nature of these impacts.
8. The proposed leases are very close to established residential communities at Callala Beach and Vincentia. These waters are used regularly and frequently by all forms of small recreational watercraft. The proposed lease infrastructure will create additional navigation hazards and permanent loss of access to a highly valued public asset.
9. The proposed lease will provide economic benefit to relatively few people, and principally to the private lease operators. The adverse impacts will affect thousands of people however, including local residents and visitors to this profoundly significant and beautiful area. On this basis I urge the Department to not approve these proposed leases in any form.

I wish to object to the proposal for the following reasons.

1: 50 ha of submerged cable structure presents a real danger to recreational users of Jervis Bay. Entanglements of marine mammals (e.g. whales, dolphins) in aquaculture infrastructure are also known to occur.

2: There will be visual pollution presented by 50 ha of floating buoys.

3: NSW Fisheries indicated that commercial aquaculture on this scale was not financially viable. Therefore the developer, which will eventually hold these leases, will seek to maximise the leases to the full 440 ha.

4: When Jervis Bay became a Marine Park, there was an allocation of 440 ha for commercial aquacultureleases. It is obvious that any lease holder will seek to maximise their production. If we allow this 50 ha development, there is a real risk that we will end up with 440 ha of aquaculture in the Bay within this decade.

5: Jervis Bay is a well known international sailing venue and has been for approx. 30 years. Sailing and other recreational water-based activities such as scuba diving and kayaking, contribute significantly to the local and regional economy. For instance in February 2014 it is estimated that sailing events alone, such as the Hobie World Titles, will contribute more than $1,000,000 to the local economy. The estimated gross turn over of the commercial aquaculture proposal of 50 ha, is a mere $173,000!!! Not only will the proposal contribute little to the local and regional economy, it may compromise attracting future national and international events such as the Hobie World Titles.

6: Jervis Bay has the "whitest sand in the world" and a number of the beaches have been recognised with "clean beach" awards. The Bay's beaches are one of our major tourism drawcards and the pride of all that have the opportunity to enjoy them. Foreshore and beach litter is known to occur as a result of aquaculture activities. Our clean and white beaches should be preserved.

7: Jervis Bay is the last body of water in proximity to Sydney that has no commercial aquaculture leases in place. The Bay is well known for its high water quality. The community, and governments, have fought for generations to protect Jervis Bay and keep it free from primary industry.

I object to the proposed mussel leases within Jervis Bay for the following reasons:

1. The EIS accepts that there are impacts stating they are `acceptable' which is a matter of opinion given they are not backed up in many areas by facts. In my opinion, given the sensitivity of the environment any impacts should only be positive. In this proposal they are not and the report reads only as justifications.

2. There is no evidence to suggest that the sensitive eco system that has occurred for 1000 years will not be compromised.

3. how can we as a community on one hand talk about awareness of our environment and sustainability and on the other consider a proposal that will have such a damaging impact on one of the worlds most pristine and beautiful marine environments.

4. I have not read anything that confidently predicts with any certainty the impacts upon the population of approx. eighty dolphins living in the bay. This surely has a far greater environmental and eco-tourism value to the region than the supposed creation of 30 new jobs.

5. The proposed leases will impact significantly, adversely and permanently upon the highly valued environmental values and the views of Jervis Bay from local residential communities and beaches which have always been highly valued for their pristine, untouched qualities.

6. Although the leases are not within the actual Park areas, it is an established principle that the curtilage to these Parks is of high significance in assessment of any proposal that may have adverse environmental impacts.

7. The barges required for the leases and permanent buoys will create visual pollution of the environment.

8. Operation of the proposed leases will create continuous noise pollution both above and below the water. This will detrimentally impact upon residents and visitors, and potentially with catastrophic impacts upon the resident dolphin population.

9. The large quantities of organic waste generated by the mussels and continuous operation of the barges, which are likely to be diesel-fuelled, will have a detrimental effect on the clean, clear air and water quality of the Bay
10. There is no certainty evident with regard to the adverse impacts upon marine life including the dolphin population and all marine flora and fauna within the Bay.

11 The proposed lease proximity to the established residential communities at Callala Beach and Vincentia is of concern. These waters are used regularly and frequently by all forms of small recreational watercraft. The proposed lease infrastructure will create additional navigation hazards and permanent loss of access to a highly valued public asset.

I urge the department NOT to APPROVE this proposal for leases in any form

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have read with interest the Environmental Impact Statement for Jervis Bay related to a proposal to allow oyster and mussel farming off Callala Beach.

I am a resident of Callala Beach and invested substantially in this area for my retirement because of the lovely white sand beach and pristine waters of Jervis Bay. The future for this area is recreation and tourism and not industrial aquaculture. The twenty jobs that are to be generated by the aquaculture proposal will not compensate for the subsequent lack of growth opportunities if the Jervis Bay area, with its close proximity to large populations in Sydney, is not kept solely for recreational activities.

The environmental study did not adequately address a problem that affects Callala Beach today and will increase if the farming proposal goes ahead. This is the extra pollution from jetsam washed up on shore.

I daily walk my section of Callala Beach with a plastic bag and regularly fill it with all sorts of debris jettisoned into the bay from boats. I suspect the major polluters at the moment are those vessels that take tourists for rides around the bay looking for dolphins. I often encounter plastic cutlery, plastic cups, plastic bottles, plastic butter/jam containers, plastic bags, aluminium cans, confectionary wrappers, etc. These are most likely come with food and drink sold on board and then flung over the side when their contents are consumed.

This sort of rubbish will increase on Callala Beach if those serving and harvesting the artificial mussel/oyster beds show as much care as those who take cruises around the bay. Please don't advise me that all this sort of debris will be disposed of on shore by the aqua-farmers, because this won`t happen. It is human nature to quickly offload unwanted items - just look at the debris on our roadsides. I suspect the sort of rubbish I pick up on the tide is also supposed to be dealt with on shore by the boat trip companies, but undoubtedly much of it isn't. No one can stop litterers unless they are heavily fined on the spot. This doesn't often happen on shore - it will never happen offshore.

The increase in beach rubbish will be counter productive if the full potential of the area for tourism is to be realised. I can foresee that those working on the beds will not take their sandwich bags, drink containers, confectionary wrappers, etc. back to shore facilities for disposal. More unwanted visual pollution on beaches will definitely happen.

I hope that you will take my concerns into consideration. You can try and ensure that personal and work-related rubbish will not escape into the environment from the aqua-culturists all you like, but you and I know that this won't happen. The sands of Callala Beach will get more filthy and less attractive if this proposal for industrial sea-farming goes ahead. I strongly object to the planned enterprise on environmental grounds.

Yours faithfully,

David R Jones (Dr)