Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay - Eden 1

It’s an undeveloped and coastline with significant environmental value. A Large scale industrial project would cause significant destruction to the coastline and its biodiverse ecosystem and could have impacts on marine life.

Due to the pristine environment and local natural beauty I strongly oppose this project, there are several other locations that could be more suitable for a kelp farm but this is NOT the place for it. With more and more development happening on the pristine coastlines of NSW we are at risk of making the natural beauty that attracts locals and tourists and turning the environment into industrial locations that damage the ecosystem and repel tourism and the communities that steward this area. If the government allows these kinds of projects to happen in the few remaining untouched bays we have left, they will destroy the very thing that makes the NSW South Coast special. I grew up in the region and have seen the impacts of commercial fishing, cruise ships, logging industries, and other projects. I oppose the development of Diaster Bay. Find another location, somewhere already used for commercial purposes. Twofold Bay?

I object this kelp farm project. I know the area well and object this location being used for commercial purposes. It will cause environmental damage that would impact the waterways, roads, and wildlife in the local area, as well as negatively impact the tourism and local communities.

I object to this project going ahead. I think this wild land deserves to stay wild. It will also really affect community life and activities.

This is not in the best interests of the local community nor the land or marine wildlife that will be permanently impacted. This is a further money grab by people who do not need more money and do not have the best interests of those impacted at the forefront of their decision making.

I write from New Zealand that has numerous marine reserves (national parks if you will) and in some cases these are offshore from land based national parks or areas on national and internation significance. It is my considered opinion that the establishment of an aquaculture industry in Disaster Bay will precipitate detrimental environmental consequences for the marine environment and the immediate adjacent national and indigenous lands. There are inextricable natural connections between the marine environment ecosystems, the intertidal zone, and the adjacent landscape. Any significant alteration to any one of the three contiguous zones will indisputably impact the other zones.

So it of grave concern that I note the proposed aquaculture farming off the near coast in Disaster Bay. It is unlikely that any attempts, be they engineering or fiscal, will completely ameliorate the environmental impact to the marine, coastal and land ecosystems.

Disaster Bay in a unique aquatic area, mostly untainted by significant human or industrial activities. It survives largely intact with its association with the significant coastal currents and natural environmental interactions with intertidal and land based ecosystems.

I am opposed to the establishment of any aquaculture industry the Bay. In retort, I would suggest and advocate that appropriate parts of Disaster Bay should be gazetted as a marine state/national reserve or park. New South Wales has a rare opportunity to display environmental leadership by creating a marine park adjacent to significant and pristine terrestrial ecosystems. The alternative of industrial farming and the commercial exploitation of the area will be detrimental to our futures.

The aquaculture activities in Disaster Bay should not proceed and the area should be declared a state or national marine park.

Thank you for your consideration.

This would be detrimental to the delicate local ecosystem

I object to the kelp farm because:
• The huge size of Eden1 is not justified in the wilderness area where it is proposed. Nadgee Nature Reserve and Disaster Bay are pristine wilderness areas with very high water quality – these areas need to be protected. It will detract from the visual appeal of the wilderness areas affected.
• There are huge risks for whales and other wild animals to be tangled in the kelp farm infrastructure. Whales actively migrate and also rest in the area proposed for Eden1. It means that whales cannot rest in this area.
• The noise and light pollution from the development and associated boats, drones, and lights during set up and operation will have a hugely detrimental affect on the wilderness area and affect wildlife such as whales and other sea life as well as affecting humans.
• Microplastic pollution will increase from ropes and other plastic items (eg buoys) and have a big effect on the water quality and will also negatively affect fauna like fish, turtles and whales when they ingest the microplastics.
• Plastic pollution from buoys and ropes damaged and released into the ecosystem during storm events and from weathering (from the sun and wave action) will increase the risk of aquatic animals becoming tangled in the large plastic ropes and plastics, could kill marine animals if larger plastic pieces are ingested and will pollute local beaches.
• Artificial habitat will be created: Mussel spat is inevitable and will foul ropes and structures – the developers propose to defoul ropes and throw the mussel spat waste overboard in the area. This will have a huge effect on natural ecosystems and cause an imbalance in the ecosystem (for example an increase in sea stars). This larger concentration of sea stars may, as a result, devour other marine organisms. The sea stars will also attract larger marine fauna that will risk being tangled in the ropes.

This proposal is concerning. Constructing a kelp farm in a high value habitat area requires careful audited research and assessment prior to any action.
Allowing such a project to go through without a thorough analysis by an outside group with no vested interests in the project is essential. Letting the current project move forward without such careful analysis will set a precedent that will likely lead to extensive ecological and habitat degradation. There are serious concerns with this proposal around nutrient loading, erosion and disturbance to a relatively pristine ecosystem and environment. Building such a system will also impact wave action, sedimentation and a variety of other ecological processes. For context, I am the Elisabeth Murdoch chair of landscape architecture at the University of Melbourne and have a PhD in Ecology and Evolution.

Please find enclosed a pdf document containing my detailed objections to this project.

I believe the project will deliver many benefits.
There will be a much needed economic benefit for Eden and surrounds from the trade and employment that will be generated. The economic multiplier effect will be good for the Bega Valley Shire,
Environmentally Kelp will improve the quality of the water in and around Disasster Bay leading to increased marine biodiversity and help prevent damaging algal blooms.
A protein rich food the World Bank estimates if Kelp production can be increased 14% p.a. the worlds food supply would increase by 10% (http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/947831469090666344)- a worthy aim.

As I have only been aware of this project in the last few days I have not had enough time to provide a comprehensive submission on behalf of the Far South Coast National Parks Association Branch. However, our members are very concerned about the protection of our national park values.

And it's not just NPA members who strive to defend these values. Bird watchers and fishers in the park are as vigilant in protecting the wild nature of this coastline.

Straight away one can see the great potential for there to be a visual impact in and around Beowa National Park, where visitors would see this project infrastructure as they look out from key areas of the park, especially from Disaster bay Lookout, whether admiring the views through binoculars or the naked eye. This park's accommodation is booked out at key times of year. People come to admire the whale migration event, something the area is renowned for.

This areas is known as the Wilderness Coast, a branding that is gaining traction and is important to existing nature tourism businesses. It's valued by people living along the far south coast. There are not many temperate places on the planet where such a claim can be made.

There is a big difference in the scenic values of waterways where there is commercial oyster farming and where there is not. Fish farming infrastructure in other Australian Ocean areas are controversial for their visual and ecological impacts. This is not to equate the kelp farming with fish farming as they are very different operations. But the visual impacts are there. And the unintended adverse environmental outcomes may not be easily identified yet, as was the case with fish farming. The precautionary principle should apply here.

Nonetheless, a project is endeavouring to make money from a public resource and the public has a right to be wary of it, even if there are some stated positive environmental benefits. Once projects are commenced, they are very hard to wind back.

Another concern here is that the Eden Land Council feels that there has not been proper, and ongoing, consultation. The proposal says there has been. If there hasn't, this would not be the first time that consultation with the elected and traditional owners has been portrayed not entirely authentically. This area is very special to local Aboriginal people. So special that the 4th day of the recent Light to Light Walk project was terminated, as track construction would have impaired areas with high cultural values along the northern section of Disaster Bay.

It is fitting I write this submission on the 100th birthday of Sir David Attenborough.
In his book, A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future, he writes:
"As a young man, I felt I was out there in the wild, experiencing the untouched natural world - but it was an illusion. The tragedy of our times has been happening all around us, barely noticeable from day to day - the loss of our planet's wild places . . . "

Please consider the impacts on our wild places and national park values, and give them the proper weighting they deserve.

Yours sincerely

David Gallan
President
Far South Coast branch
National Parks Association (NSW)

I’m unqualified to comment on the exact ecological impact of a project such as this, although I can’t imagine that if this proposal didn’t have a direct negative impact on the environment in disaster bay that it wouldn’t significantly alter this areas exceptional and unique ecosystem and biodiversity. This is before considering the flow on effects of any ecological impact of the associated water ways of Wonboyn river and lake and of Merrica River. Let alone its proximity to the Nadgee Nature reserve. A suspended growing method is proposed to minimise the impact on the sea bed but what implication will this have on the marine life that frequents the area? There are large dolphin and seal populations and its main migratory path for whales.

Disaster bay is part of one of the last regions of this coastline that is relatively untouched and still close to its natural state. To exploit this for commercial gain would be allowing a small minority to benefit from the loss of the entire community. You might argue the “economical” benefit of this project, I believe Auskelp predict 40-60 jobs. However keep in mind the economical benefit this entire region gains from the tourism drawn to this area for its outstanding, pristine and UNTOUCHED environment. The NSW government has invested in the restoration of the greencape lighthouse and the upgrade of the light to light walking track and now are considering allowing a commercial enterprise to set up shop in the bay people look into when visiting.

An Australian first, untried and untested. This is not the place for experimental business.

As a person who grew up locally and has frequented this part of the coastline my whole life I have a deep connection with this area. I know I’m not alone in this. Please reconsider this proposal.

I object strongly to this project. My familyhave owned property at Wonboyn Lake for 75years. Whilst living in Melbourne I have spent a large part of my life at WL. I have been actively involved in WL Assotiation, building a new Fire Shed, Power & Roads. In my youth I enjoyed fishing, particulary beach fishing. When visitors come to Wonboyn I immediantly show them our beautiful beach. Last year unfortunately the beach sand was covered with tonnes of grey Kelp that had detached from the trial lease. I have never whitnessed this before. My son James Ross has photos, if you can provide a mobile number we can send. You must be reminded the the name Disaster Bay came from ship wrecks ie. Green Cape Lighthouse. The area is very exposed, Sydney Hobart boats blown out here and Sir Frances Chistester, the wourlds most famous sailer running Gipsy Moth 1V onto Gabo Island, just to the south.

I strongly oppose the proposed Eden 1 Auskelp 200 hectare commercial kelp farm in Disaster Bay.
As someone who lives in Wonboyn, I believe this proposal is incompatible with the pristine ecological, scenic, and wilderness values of the coastline adjacent to Nadgee Nature Reserve - NSW's only declared coastal wilderness area.
I believe there are some locations that are too environmentally and culturally significant for large-scale commercial industry, regardless of how 'green' (or blue) it may claim to be. If a development of this scale can be placed adjacent to Nadgee Nature Reserve, what precedent does that set for the future protection of our oceans and wild coastlines?
The proposal creates a stark juxtaposition between industrial development and one of the last remaining stretches of truly wild coastline in NSW.
I am also concerned about a lack of effective community consultation, despite SEARs requirements for a 'comprehensive open and transparent community consultation engagement process' during preparation for the EIS. Many of the community - myself included remained unaware of the true scale and location of the proposed 200 hectare development until July 2025.
A 2023 workshop in Wonboyn titled 'Seaweed Farming Community Information and Research Workshop' was communicated only to paid members of the Wonboyn Lake Ratepayers Association email list, and the wording and lack of detail around the Eden 1 proposal resulted in only 4-6 community members attending. No broader consultation was provided to the wider Wonboyn community until community concern escalated around July - which prompted a community-led information session with Auskelp in October 2025.
A poster at Myrtle Cove Boat Ramp from March2024 regarding 'offshore kelp testing' also failed to clearly communicate the scale difference between the temporary 50m x 50m test site and the proposed commercial development - approximately 800 times larger. This wording gives the impression of a small-scale, low-impact trial and does not clearly communicate the scale or intent of the Eden 1 project, therefore creating a lack of trust in overall reporting from Auskelp. This is highly concerning for an area as pristine as Disaster Bay.
I am also very concerned that the Local Aboriginal Land Council has not been adequately consulted for such a sacred site in the community, again the process failing to provide meaningful engagement.
Disaster Bay and the Nadgee coastline are rare, undeveloped, and irreplaceable places that should be protected from industrialisation.

My objection to the proposed kelp farm project centres around the inappropriate location, offshore from the Nadgee Nature Reserve, which is significant at a national level because it has the only coastal wilderness area in NSW. It is a beautiful, natural coastal landscape and with its sense of isolation, it has an inspirational power. The proposal seeks to monetise and privatise this precious asset.
A boom in seaweed farming is being sold globally as a climate solution ,but it could make climate change worse. Kelp farming is a monoculture. Big mistakes were made on land and we must take care not to repeat this in the ocean. Salmon farming was initially greeted with enthusiasm and now there are environmental problems. Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson, when commenting on the rapid expansion of seaweed farms, stated "if we want to help the ocean heal, we have to leave it alone."
Martin Clunes( Doc Martin actor) described the plans for a seaweed farm on a beautiful part of the Cornish coast in the UK as" nothing short of criminal"and joined by Andrew Lincoln( Walking Dead and Love Actually) commented that " I am amazed that an idea as dreadful as this has made(it) far enough to make any protest necessary. It's disguised as some sort of environmental flavour to the area and a source of local employment. I'm under no illusion that this is just an elaborate way for a couple of people to make a lot of money at the expense of a pristine coastline of outstanding beauty, so that they can live comfortably elsewhere."The proposal was rejected by the Marine Management Organization stating that "... there was insufficient evidence there would not be significant impact on the landscape, seascape and environment."
The Australian Government plans to declare 30% of our ocean " highly protected" by 2030. Free from resource activities, such as kelp farms. The proposed area is part of the Twofold Shelf Bioregion, which as yet has no marine park protection. It is logical that such a park would include the waters offshore from the Nadgee Nature Reserve.
It would indeed be "criminal"to allow such a project to proceed in such a special environment.

My family has been visiting the Eden region for many years, and I strongly object to the proposed kelp farm project.
I feel that the inclusion of such a project in a pristine and historical area is not just. I have concerns of the impact to local towns due to increased commercial activity, not only on land, but the negative impact to the ocean from the increased activity of sea vessels, harvesters and noise pollution.
Visually, it will hinder the tranquility of the area, and force a potential negative impact to local tourism.

From an ecological standpoint, the risk to marine wildlife and sea-floor is irreversible. To negatively impact the last costal wilderness in NSW for commercial gain is disturbing. Not only that, but with the current global drive to reduce plastic use, and a current high focus on reducing microplastic in todays society, the idea to introduce such high levels of plastics in the form of bouys/rope is counter intuitive. The risk of introducing microplastics into our food chain is not in-line with current global economic values.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Seaweed Aquaculture Lease – Disaster Bay (Eden 1).

Disaster Bay is an increasingly rare example of a relatively undeveloped and minimally disturbed stretch of coastline. In a time where much of the Australian coastline has already been altered by development, the environmental and social value of places such as this should not be underestimated.

While I acknowledge the potential benefits of sustainable aquaculture and the role seaweed farming may play in future industries, I do not believe this proposal is appropriate for this location or at the scale proposed.

A key concern is that the proposal seeks approval for what the Environmental Impact Statement itself describes as a pioneering development. The project is repeatedly referred to as Australia’s first offshore kelp farm and the first commercial cultivation of Ecklonia radiata at this scale. Despite this, the proposal seeks approval for an immediate 200-hectare commercial-scale deployment within environmentally sensitive coastal waters.

This represents a significant leap in scale for an emerging industry that does not yet appear to have comparable operational precedent in exposed south-east Australian marine conditions.

The proposal references prior trials and testing activities; however, publicly available material appears to indicate that offshore testing areas were substantially smaller in scale and were themselves intended to investigate unresolved questions regarding nutrient availability, growth performance, mortality parameters, swell impacts, and offshore viability. These trials do not appear to provide sufficient long-term evidence regarding the ecological impacts of continuous industrial-scale kelp cultivation within a relatively undeveloped marine environment.

The available testing appears limited in both scale and duration when compared with the proposed 200-hectare operation. As a result, it is difficult to conclude that the long-term impacts of the project (including cumulative ecosystem interactions, changes to marine ecology, operational intensity, vessel activity, and broader environmental effects over time ) are adequately understood or demonstrated. The ecological and operational impacts of a 200-hectare commercial operation cannot reasonably be assumed to mirror those of comparatively small-scale testing activities.

While the proponent may argue that the development would be staged, approval would still establish the broader framework for industrial-scale offshore aquaculture in this rare marine environment. Even an initial rollout remains substantially larger than the previously documented testing scale.

I am also concerned about the precedent this proposal would establish. Approval of this development would likely make future aquaculture proposals within the region easier to justify, creating the risk of gradual industrialisation of a coastline that is currently defined by its undeveloped and natural character. The cumulative impacts of this broader trajectory do not appear to have been adequately assessed.

The Environmental Impact Statement also places considerable emphasis on broad sustainability and environmental benefit claims, including climate mitigation, biodiversity support, and carbon sequestration. However, many of these claims appear conceptual or industry-wide in nature and do not sufficiently offset the uncertainty associated with industrial-scale deployment in this specific location.

Importantly, the proposal itself acknowledges that the site was selected partly due to minimal marine traffic, limited recreational use, and low levels of surrounding development. In my view, these characteristics are not reasons to industrialise the area, but rather evidence of the rarity and value of the environment that currently exists.

Disaster Bay’s remoteness, minimal human disturbance, and relatively untouched marine character are qualities that cannot easily be restored once altered. Temporary or removable infrastructure does not eliminate the long-term impacts associated with continuous industrial marine operations, vessel activity, maintenance, harvesting, and ecosystem interaction over time.

In summary, I believe the proposal presents an inappropriate scale of development for an emerging industry in a sensitive and relatively undeveloped coastal environment. A substantially more precautionary and staged approach would be appropriate before industrial-scale deployment is considered.

I respectfully request that the proposal be refused, or at minimum significantly reconsidered in scale and location.

Kind regards,
Charlotte Robinson

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
Re: Objection to Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay - Eden 1

Although I’m not a permanent resident of Wonboyn village but I have been coming to this unique coastal area since 2015 to visit my friend who lives there at least a dozen times. So, I can say that I know it quite well.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 200-hectare kelp farm in Disaster Bay. My objection is based on the following planning and environmental grounds:
1. Environmental Impact: the project is located in a highly sensitive area adjacent to the renowned Nadgee Nature Reserve, itself a unique coastal wilderness area. The commercialisation of this pristine coastline risks irreversible damage to the native ecosystem.
2. Marine Wildlife: Disaster Bay is a resting location for migrating whales. The presence of a large-scale installation of a commercial farm will introduce long-term risks to migrating whales and other marine fauna.
3. Community Impact: The potential for increased marine debris and the smell of decomposing kelp on local beaches will negatively affect the local tourism industry and residents of Wonboyn.

For the above reasons, I urge the Department to reject the application to preserve the unique natural character of the coast.

Yours sincerely.

The proposed area for this project is one of the few untouched stretches of coastal park on the south east coast. The project, in my opinion, would have permanent negative effects to the natural habitat of all animals that rely on it.