Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay - Eden 1

I'm writing in support of Eden-1. This isn't really a submission about a 200-hectare lease. It's about what kelp means for Australia in the decade ahead, and why this project is the right first move.

I work in planet centric design. Working with industry and government on measuring value beyond money: what economies actually cost and what they actually produce. I founded Acacia Earth for that work, and co-founded Mimyr Pty Ltd, and have built trustworthy data systems for Australian research and industry alongside CSIRO and others. I've spent time on the South Coast and stood at Wonboyn looking out across Disaster Bay.

My case comes down to three things.

One. Kelp is a rare crop. It solves more than one problem at a time. Grown at scale it becomes food, pharma, biostimulants, cosmetics, and the next generation of bioplastics. It needs no land, no freshwater, no fertiliser, no feed. The global market is past USD $16 billion and NSW already has companies turning seaweed into packaging pellets. Our southern kelp forests are in measurable decline. A farm doesn't save a forest, but it builds the people, hatcheries and field experience we'll need when restoration stops being optional.

Two. The timing is not accidental. The wars of the last few years have shown how thin Australia's supply chains really are. We import almost all of our synthetic fertiliser. Most of our bioplastic feedstock. A large share of the speciality ingredients our food and pharma industries depend on. When shipping lanes tighten, Australian farms, pharmacies and factories feel it first. Kelp is one of the few materials we can grow on our own coastline that directly pushes back on that exposure. Seaweed biostimulants cut synthetic fertiliser needs. Kelp-derived alginates replace some petrochemical-origin hydrocolloids. Eden-1 on its own is small. As the first project of a domestic kelp industry, it matters strategically.

Three. The South Coast is the right place for it. The region has been losing industries for a decade. What the region still has, and what this industry most needs, are experienced ocean workers: oyster growers, mussel farmers, fishers, boat builders. The skills are already in the water. A kelp farm in open ocean, sub-surface and kilometres offshore, does not compete for nearshore leases. It gives the existing workforce a second line of work on country they already know. For a region that has been shrinking, this is how a new boom starts.

The project itself earns approval on its design. One native species, grown locally. No feed, no chemicals, no clearing. Gear that's sub-surface and removable. Between scoping and the final EIS, the farm moved further offshore and vessel access moved out of Wonboyn. These were visible responses to what the community asked for. Whatever shape this project takes in approval will shape every kelp proposal that follows it. That's worth getting right.

One condition would make the approval stronger. The monitoring data Eden-1 produces, from seabed to water column to wildlife, is the baseline every future NSW seaweed proposal and every Great Southern Reef restoration project will need. Require that data to live as a public asset, accessible to NSW Government, CSIRO, universities and future proponents. A modest cost to the proponent, a significant long-term gain for the state.

Australia has spent a decade talking about new industries, about regions that need work, about making things here instead of shipping them in. Eden-1 is where a lot of that conversation finally meets the water. Approvals like this don't come along often.

I am a member of the Wonboyn community. Wonboyn is a special place. It's a long way from Canberra and Melbourne of relative equal distance between them. You also can't get to the beach in a city car, and the road to the beach is not quick. Really, to enjoy the place fully takes quite a bit of knowledge and nouse. Because of this inaccessibility, the environment that surrounds the town of Wonboyn remains very much wild. Especially when it’s not summer holidays, you often have the most beautiful landscapes all to yourself.

There are commercial oyster farms in Wonboyn lake. But I argue that these ventures work with the community. My opinion is that the oceanic kelp farm will not, because
- I don’t trust that Aus Kelp has the best intentions for the Wonboyn community
o Such a change to the way Wonboyn exists, should have consultation with the people that live and love Wonboyn. This opens up room for the concerns of the community to be addressed and negotiated with. Instead the project has been evolving over multiple years without most of the community knowing that it was in planning.
- The kelp farm requires a much larger scale of operations
o In order to harvest kelp in disaster bay, boats of large scales will have to travel from Eden to maintain the farm. Resulting in high amounts of petrol consumption. The farm will have to cope with the rough seas of disaster bay. Aus kelp will have to manage the risk of mammals getting caught in the bay, which is visited by humpback whales. Aus Kelp is prepared to confront this big operation of growing kelp in a remote location. I fear the environment will suffer when things inevitably meet complications.

I just really don’t want to drive down that beautiful road to Greenglades beach, and see yet another act of domination of our environment. Wonboyn has remained relatively untouched. It’s actually a rare area of pristine nature that has been preserved for the next generation by the fact of pure inaccessibility. Not a high number of people may be impacted by this farm, but for the ones it does impact it is a grave loss in world where humans don’t know when to stop.

Attached is a photo of a rock that looks out over where the kelp farm will be. I hope I'll be able to stand with it and admire the beautiful bay. Feeling a deep state of connection to our wild planet. In it's untouched nature, the bay provides endless wisdom and solace. A pure source of energy and inspiration to guide us through these dark times.

Wonboyn is the place which has shaped me. I am constantly finding tensions between the pure world experienced there, and the confused state of civilisation. Wonboyn has given me the gift of clarity and perspective about truth. Please don't take this away from our world and the world of generations to come.

I love to run along the remote beach of disaster bay. I swim in the wild clean waters and then sprint along the sand at pull pelt. I jump in the air as high I can go. I am one with the world. I am free.

Refer attached.

I am concerned about the support lines for the Kelp farming in Disaster Bay - Eden 1. I am most concerned that whales may get tangled in the lines on their migration to and from warmer waters up north. This proposed Kelp farm is in the migratory path of the Humpback whales. I realise this is low risk, but any risk is a negative. How can the organisation ensure the Kelp lines planned to be used are of the least impact to these mammals? I have read that some lines are much more suitable than others. Perhaps even sonar beacons could be attached. If I cannot be reassured that there is almost no threat to the whales, then I will object to this proposal.

Similar projects world wide have caused considerable environmental damage to both the sea life and the flora, both during establishment and operations. The area is an historic whale resting place as they travel along the coast and could deny this facility to the whales with unknown repercussions. The area is an environmentally important venue for a number of other specific reasons which I am sure will be identified in more detail through scientifically based submissions. The scenic beauty of the area will be impacted through increased both land and marine activities, with the potential for serious pollution.

Objection to:
State Significant Development
Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay - Eden 1
SSD-41680467
From: Dr Toni Roberts
28/4/2026

I object to the proposed development of a huge scale golden kelp aquaculture project in this pristine location. The claims made for low risk to marine biodiversity and visual amenity are clearly misguided. This is a place of great natural significance, a thoroughfare for migrating whales, and one of the few remaining pristine aquatic environments adjacent to a protected nature reserve and is a renowned destination for nature tourism. My objection centres around three main aspects: Environmental impacts, Visual impact and Cultural significance.

Environmental impacts
The project’s EIS report claims low risk due to using “locally sourced seed stock’’, but the golden kelp (species) is not naturally occurring in this location, which has a sandy sea floor, so this statement is misleading.
It also claims there will be no pollution from the infrastructure but it is widely recognised that synthetic ropes and the other materials such as plastic buoys shed microplastics into marine environments, with long term damaging consequences. There will be many kilometres of synthetic rope used to anchor the kelp which normally only grows on rocky reefs. Microplastics enter the marine food chain, building up particularly in larger animals with devastating effects. There is no way to mitigate this once the lines are in the water: salt water corrodes the ropes, continually causing shedding of fibres.
The report claims that “The Project is located entirely within offshore marine waters and does not involve clearing of native vegetation or interaction with terrestrial habitats”, another untruth. All coastal marine areas interact with the adjacent land, particularly through pollution washing up on shore. Drones will be required to monitor the site, which will likely be launched from land. The long distances required for boats to travel from Eden to the site will also result in unnecessary use of fuel and generation of pollution. Increased boat traffic will also bring pest species from the more populated areas. This physical and noise pollution will undoubtedly affect the Nadgee Nature Reserve and its fauna, which are not constrained to lines on a map.
Visual impact
Having visited this location several times I can attest to its profound beauty, tranquility and natural values. It is one of very few places where you can feel distant from modern life, industry and human impacts. It is a place for reflection, restoration and appreciation of the majestic marine and coastal environment.
This project will impact the visual amenity due to its vast scale. The report claims that its distance off shore will mitigate this, but the huge extent of the project, with its grid of floating buoys, will be clearly visible from the lookout points. This visual pollution will be devastating to nature tourism and profoundly impact the site’s natural values.

Cultural significance
Although the report claims that, “No known Aboriginal or historic heritage items occur within the proposed lease area,” this indicates a lack of research and deep engagement with the Traditional Owners. A simple Google search reveals: “The Nadgee Nature Reserve on the far south coast of New South Wales holds significant, long-term spiritual and cultural associations for Aboriginal people. The land within the reserve is traditionally associated with the Bidawal people and is shared with the Dtharwa and Monaroo (Monaro) peoples.” Obviously, given that the grow site is marine, no cultural artefacts are to be found within its boundaries, but the impact of the project reaches far beyond the boundaries of the specified site, with increased traffic on land and water creating increased pollution, noise and disturbance to the whole area, including areas of significance to Traditional Owners.
The project’s scale will also impact migration routes of culturally significant species such as humpback whales, and the range of local species such as dolphins and schooling fish.

Project relocation
I propose that the project be relocated to a more suitable site, one which already has a greater level of human impacts and visual disturbance to the natural environment, and which has better infrastructure in terms of roads and closer access by boat. If it is relocated I sincerely hope that more genuine community consultation occurs as this has been severely neglected in this case, reduced to a mere box ticking exercise, with very few local individuals involved.
Regards
Dr Toni Roberts

Objection to Aus Kelp’s Proposed Eden 1 project
My name is Stanys, I am 25 year old scientist and have been visiting Nadgee, Wonboyn, Bittangabee and Beowa National Park area since I was born. In this relatively short time, I have already seen drastic man-made changes to the landscape by way of logging and various construction developments. I have also witnessed first-hand the effects of bushfires and floods, their damage is exacerbated by man-made activities, primarily logging, and directly impacts the landscape’s ability to recover, geologically and ecologically. As a result of my experiences over the years, the proposed 200 hectare kelp farm in the pristine waters of Disaster Bay concerns me. The proposed industrialisation of Disaster Bay is concerning because of its proposed size, location, environmental impact, the misleading nature of Aus Kelp’s claims and precedent that it sets for the NSW coastline.



The proposed farm is very large, and in my mind it seems inevitable to have an environmental impact at any size. Aus Kelp describes the benthic habitat of Disaster Bay as a “Marine Desert” which is quite misleading because it paints Disaster Bay as a lifeless environment however, a Marine Desert isn’t a barren landscape with no life, it’s just another biome in the ocean, and in my experience it is teeming with life. From just what I’ve seen Disaster Bay is home to: dolphins, whales, sharks, seals, pelagic fish (pilchards, Australian salmon, bream, trevallies, tuna, king fish, just to name a few), sea birds (sea eagles, turns, sooty oyster catchers, pelicans, gulls, other sea faring birds, and most dive and fish in the proposed kelp farm area). That list is just animals impacted in the direct area where the kelp farm could potentially be, other animals will be impacted by the boats travelling up and down the coast if the farm needs to be serviced or harvesting needs to be done.

The construction of the Aus Kelp farm will be intrusive and no doubt negatively impact the area, with drilling into the sea floor plus exhaust fumes from the boats taking workers to the proposed area. If the kelp farm gets approved, the kelp farm will negatively impact the area in various ways. The kelp farm is a monoculture of kelp which is a highly unnatural and is unsupportive of diversity. It will not be beneficial to fish species or improve fishing as Aus Kelp suggests, that’s because this is not how an ecosystem works. The very thing that makes an ecosystem thrive is the complex web of organisms that create it. Monocultures are not complex because they are made up of one organism, thus Eden 1 will not support marine diversity. It may be beneficial in other ways, however my review of the the literature suggests there are gaps in the knowledge of this new industry, which is also concerning because the risk of unpredictable impacts of a kelp farm of this unprecedented size and location are relatively unknown. Most kelp farms now days are inland with tanks and have no impact on the natural ocean environment. The proposed kelp farm has numerous environmental impacts some known and some unknown, building one in a pristine environment seems very risky and could be detrimental for Disaster Bay in the short and long term.

With these various environmental factors and one sidedness of information from Aus Kelp, it’s hard to agree with the proposed kelp farm in Disaster Bay. If the farm gets approved, it also sets a precedent for other farms to get approval, possibly more in Disaster Bay or possibly further down the coastline towards Victoria in even more pristine waters. This also concerns me because they won’t only be tainting the pristine environment in the ocean but also in the national park that it is adjacent to. There are so many related factors, but the bottom line is that there is no way this industrialisation is good for the environment - in fact it’s extremely risky and possibly dangerous. The information received from Aus Kelp about this project is unscientific and misleading, if you only hear one side to the story you cannot trust the story, which is the case for Aus Kelp.

There’s something about Disaster Bay that resists being reduced to a “site.” It isn’t just a stretch of water on a planning map—it’s a place of raw beauty, of memory, of quiet continuity. To stand on that shoreline is to feel something intact and unspoiled, something increasingly rare.

That’s why the proposal to install a kelp farm here doesn’t feel like progress. It feels like an intrusion.
Yes, kelp farming is often described as sustainable. But sustainability isn’t just about carbon or industry—it’s also about protecting places that still feel whole. Disaster Bay is one of those places. Its open horizon, its unbroken waters, its sense of stillness—these aren’t empty qualities. They’re the very reason people come here, return here, and fight to keep it as it is.

The idea of lines, buoys, and infrastructure stretching across the bay changes that experience entirely. It introduces a human imprint that can’t be ignored once it’s there. Even if it’s modest at first, it alters the character of the place—from wild and open to managed and utilitarian.

And there’s uncertainty that shouldn’t be brushed aside. This coastline supports delicate and interconnected marine life. We don’t fully understand how introducing a commercial-scale kelp operation will affect local ecosystems over time—currents, species interactions, or the balance that has quietly sustained itself for generations.

There’s also a deeper concern: precedent. If Disaster Bay becomes a location for marine industry, what comes next? Approving one development makes it harder to say no to the next, and slowly, almost without noticing, the identity of the place begins to shift.
This isn’t about rejecting innovation or dismissing environmental solutions. It’s about recognising that some places carry a value beyond what they can produce. Disaster Bay is one of those places. It holds a kind of quiet significance that can’t be replicated once it’s compromised.

Not every suitable location on paper is the right place in reality. And once a place like this is changed, even slightly, it’s changed for good.

My connection to Disaster Bay isn’t something recent or incidental—it runs through my family like a thread, stretching back generations and, I hope, forward into many more.

Long before I was here, my grandparents stood on this same shoreline. They fished these waters, walked these lands, and came to understand the rhythms of the place—the way the light shifts across the bay, the seasons marked not by calendars but by what returns and what passes through. Those experiences weren’t written down; they were shared in stories, in habits, in a quiet respect for the land and sea that shaped how they lived.

That connection was passed to my parents, and then to me—not as something abstract, but as something lived. It’s in the familiarity of the coastline, the sense of belonging that comes from knowing a place deeply over time. It’s in returning year after year and finding that, despite everything else in life changing, this place remains a constant.

And now, it’s something I think about in terms of the future. What will be left for the next generation to inherit? Will they be able to stand in the same place and feel that same sense of continuity, that same unbroken connection? Or will they inherit something altered—something that carries the marks of decisions made without fully considering what would be lost?

Places like this hold more than just natural value. They carry memory, identity, and a sense of stewardship. When you’ve grown up with that, when you know your family’s story is tied to a place like Disaster Bay, it becomes harder to see it as simply available for change.

It becomes something you feel responsible for protecting—so that the connection doesn’t end with you, but continues, intact, into the generations that follow.

Since 1979 until comparatively recently I have travelled up and down this coast from Wollongong and ending in the Eden area. There are many bays like this one but I don’t believe there are any like it. The rope method is fine for mussels and oysters and when turbulence comes and damages these two there is no real environmental harm done. But the opportunity for escape of kelp would be disastrous.if it is a good area to grow kelp artificially, it is perfect for it to grow widely and eventually choke the bay. It is a disgrace that the area is not protected. Kelp generally prevents sunlight reaching the floor, making a desert of it.

My objections are as follows:

I am a resident of North Wonboyn and have been associated with the area since 1979. Since that time I have witnessed ecology change in Wonboyn lake.

Some would say estuary siltation is the product of climate change, but to my mind the introduction of intensive Oyster culture cannot be dismissed as a contributing factor. Clearly, this is an example where technical assessment of proposed Oyster farming activities, ignored or could not forsee the long term damage .

To my knowledge, the propents application to establish "Eden-1" will be for the first intensive Kelp farm on the South Coast, (or possibly in the country).

The technical panel charged with assessing this application must err on the side of caution to ensure we don't get a repeat of the disasterous ecologic conditions that are now an ongoing legacy of aquaculture activity in pristine wilderness areas.Eg: (Salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, and the Huon river systems).

My concerns relate to their being insufficient science based data to " risk manage" the possibility of a Kelp farm being the vector for:
- introduction of invasive flora species

- shedding of dissolved and particulate matter onto the sea floor and environs

-possible siltation growth on the seabed due to dimmunition of Sea currents within the farm precinct.

-migration of farmed organisms into the surrounding area with deleterious effects.

-reduced pelargic fish stocks due to reduction in refracted filtered light in their feeding grounds

-potential entrapment of dolphins, seals and migrating whales withing the "long line" farm network.

-potential beach pollution from fugitive kelp clumps. It is well known the precinct of Disaster Bay periodically is subjected to wild weather events that would have potential to generate large scale kelp release and potential pollution of adjacent beaches. What obligations govern the proponents duty of care to ensure precinct beaches are kept claen. Given the beach precinct is land-locked by National Parks with excluded access for mechanical beach cleaning, are they willing to fund large scale manual beach cleanups?

The notion of being able to enjoy a pristine wilderness under the management of a National Parks Authority does not sit well with the prospect of adjacent commercial intensive farming operations and the risks associated with doing more harm than good.

My "desk top" research shows a typical Kelp farm yields around 1.5 tonnes (dry weight) per hectare. Despite all the "warm and fuzzy" positive statements in the application document , the fact remains the proponent initially wants to lock up 5.5% surface area of Disaster Bay for a commercial enterprise for the benefit of a family business.

"Auskelp plans to develop commercial kelp farms in the Bega Valley Shire that create a new and innovative industry, while protecting the pristine Sapphire Coast." (ref Eden 1 Scoping Report (v2.5) Pre-Development Application PDA-23376549).

The proponent uses "Farms" in his preamble suggesting this application forms the thin end of a wedge.

The Global farmed Kelp market is dominated by China and Indonesia, who grow different Kelp species adjacent to well known markets for edible human consumption. In its current state, our Kelp industry is Niche or "Sunrise". If the proposed project is deemed to have merit, surely it should be located away to a region less environmentally sensitive than Disaster Bay. Here's hoping future generations wont gazing out from Greencape look-out onto another testament to mans poor descision making.

The proximity of this project to Nadgee Nature reserve along with it’s distance from Eden make this location unsuitable for this project for environmental reasons. The project is at odds with the intention of the Nagee Reserve, with few areas of wilderness remaining the significance of this should not be underestimated. Also, distance to Eden will create sea traffic past Ben Boyd national parks and comprimise recent investment in coastal walks and stays in this area. There are plenty of less pristine areas where this project could be developed.

I object to the Eden 1 kelp farm Project at Disaster Bay. Disaster Bay is too much of a precious and delicate ecosystem to be a suitable site for this project. Disaster Bay is a pristine wildlife and ecological sanctuary. It is not to be industrialised. This project would bring plastic, wildlife entanglement risks, boats and intense ecological disruption. The project should be moved to an area of shoreline that is already degraded by industrial use, not in the marine haven of disaster bay.

I am worried about the amount of excess seaweed washing up on the beach impacting beach fishing.
I am concerned that in extreme weather there may be a cable failure resulting in large amounts of seaweed on the beach.
I don't believe this project has any benefit for Wonboyn or the environment.
I would prefer to watch whales migrating then kelp farming.
So i object to this project, but if its all to do with money i have just wasted my time writing this as the project will go ahead.

The kelp farm will greatly increase the amount of kelp washed up on the shore of Disaster Bay and will affect the local population of the critically endangered Hooded Plover. These birds are very selective of the habitat they forage and breed in. At the moment Disaster Bay is one of the strongholds of this species in NSW.
The huge size of the project will have a negative effect on those creatures that make up the original, close to pristine, marine ecosystem.

Submission in support of Seaweed Aquaculture Lease – Disaster Bay (Eden 1)

I strongly support the proposed Seaweed Aquaculture Lease Eden 1 in Disaster Bay.

This project represents an important opportunity to establish a new, sustainable marine industry in New South Wales. As a 200-hectare offshore seaweed farm, it would be the first commercial-scale development of its kind in NSW waters, helping position Australia within a rapidly growing global sector.

This project is in line with the 2024 NSW Aquaculture Vision Statement which aims to grow the state's aquaculture farmgate production to $300 million by 2030. This strategy focuses on increasing regional production through sustainable seafood, developing bioproducts, and implementing climate change solutions, supported by a $20 million Industry Development Program.

Seaweed aquaculture offers clear environmental benefits. It requires no freshwater, fertiliser, or land clearing, and has the potential to absorb carbon, support ocean health, and contribute to climate change mitigation. It also aligns with the transition toward regenerative, low-impact food and biomaterial production systems.

The project also has meaningful regional economic benefits. It is expected to create new jobs, support local supply chains, and diversify the Bega Valley economy with an industry that is resilient to drought and other land-based pressures.

Overall, this proposal represents a forward-looking, environmentally responsible investment in Australia’s “blue economy.” I encourage the Department to support the project, subject to appropriate safeguards and ongoing monitoring.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Ignacio Retamal Lantadilla

AusKelp had done the work to ensure valid ESG credentials and kelp farming brings so much benefit to the region, including Ecological, Social and Societal benefits. The NSW Government has already identified the need to develop the seaweed farming industry and AusKelp has done the hard work to establish an industry venture and is a global leader in cultivation of Golden Kelp.

We need to ensure support for the AusKelp enterprise to ensure we can move ahead with developing the seaweed industry to meet growing demand for seaweed products for food, for pharmaceutical products, for fertilizers, and for ocean restoration.

I object to the Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay- Eden 1 (SSD-41690467). What concerns me is what this opens the doors to. This coastline has stayed relatively untouched compared to other parts of NSW, and that feels worth protecting. If a project like this goes ahead here, it sets a precedent that this kind of development is acceptable in places like Nadgee. It becomes muh harder to say no to future proposals once the first one is approved. Even if this project on its own is considered low impact, it changes how the area is viewed and used going forward.

At present, looking from the Disaster Bay lookout, one has the impression of a relatively pristine environment, due to the presence of the Nadgee-Howe Wilderness area in the background. This is one of the few areas left on the South Coast where one could get that impression and such views will presumably become less and less available and therefore more and more important for tourism with the passage of time, as other areas become more developed.

A further reason that the project should not go ahead is the precedent that it will set, as once one such project is approved it is increasingly easy to justify others, some of which may be much worse for the environment.

I object this project as I grew up in this area and appreciate the diverse nature and landscape.
Aquaculture leases, which grant exclusive rights to use submerged crown land for farming aquatic organisms, can have several negative impacts on the environment, local communities, and existing industries. These impacts range from localized ecological disruption to social conflicts over coastal water usage.Environmental Impacts include habitat Destruction and Modification: The installation of aquaculture infrastructure, such as cages, nets, and racks, can physically alter or destroy seabed habitats, including sensitive seagrass beds.Organic Pollution and Eutrophication: Waste from fish farms, including feces and uneaten food, can accumulate on the seabed, reducing oxygen levels and creating conditions for bacterial growth.Chemical Contamination: The use of antibiotics, pesticides, and other chemicals to treat disease and manage pests can lead to chemical residues that impact water quality and non-target organisms.Disease and Parasite Spread: High-density farming increases the risk of developing pathogens and parasites (e.g., sea lice), which can spread to wild fish populations.Bycatch and Predator Impact: The infrastructure can attract predators, causing injury or death through entanglement, and the collection of wild seed stock can lead to the bycatch of other marine species.Escape of Non-Indigenous Species: Farmed species that escape can compete with native species, leading to hybridization and potential ecosystem disruption.Social and Economic ImpactsUser Conflicts and Navigation Hazards: Aquaculture leases can restrict access to traditional fishing, boating, or diving locations, causing conflict with commercial and recreational users.Visual Pollution and Noise: Infrastructure can reduce visual amenity and disrupt the natural landscape, causing concern among nearby residents and landowners.Dependence on Wild Fisheries: Some aquaculture operations rely on wild-caught fish for feed, which can put additional pressure on small pelagic fisheries.Impact on Local Economy and Tourism: Negative visual impacts or reduced access to waterways can affect tourism and the quality of life for coastal communities.Management and MitigationLease conditions in many areas require that infrastructure be removed if operations are surrendered, and environmental monitoring is often required to ensure water quality and habitat protection.Strategic spatial planning and leasing frameworks are used to minimize conflicts and protect sensitive environmental

I object to the proposal on the following grounds. I have been coming to Wonboyn for over 60 years and own a house in the village. Wonboyn Lake and beaches are surrounded by National Park and Wilderness Reserve - this is a near pristine environment visually and activity wise, a commercial operation will adversely affect this. This aquaculture would be better suited to a location where commercial operation is already occurring such as Twofold Bay. I am concerned that the location will affect whale activities as they are frequently seen in this area. This is a remote location which should remain unspoilt.