Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay - Eden 1

I have been a long time visitor to the Eden region and in particular Wonboyn and the Nadgee Nature Reserve since the 1980's.
I am disturbed and distressed by the submission to create a kelp farm at Disaster Bay.
I strongly object the proposal.
This area like much of that region is distinguished by its flourishing and vibrant environments. Both land and water ways.
The approval of a private enterprise such as a kelp farm at Disaster Bay will not only impose and ruin the visual , aesthetic of that location but I believe will have long term impacts on the natural environment that will be impossible to reverse. To introduce any man made industry into what is essentially a national park I think is foolhardy and misguided.
I am truly perplexed and distressed by the potential impact on marine life and animals, pollutions, plastics on land and sea as well as the precedent that will be set that may open a floodgate for future submissions.
Surely there are better locations that are accessed by land and already have industry present.
This environment MUST be preserved for our future generations.

The proposed kelp farm is incompatible with the pristine coastal environment of the Nadgee Nature Reserve.

This region is one of the last untouched areas in NSW. Its been a fight to limit the commercialisation of Beowa NP, and now its the BaYwater waters. The landscape view from Beowa across Disaster will be ruined.
I expect any kelp and other sea development will affect the important whale migration that occurs twice a year.

The placement and size of the proposed kelp farm is worrying and odd. Such a long way from Eden and vastly larger in scale than originally planned, boats needing to make multiple and lengthy trips to the site each day, kilometres of rope anchored to the sea floor, how is that environmentally sensitive? It makes no sense to me that an industrial sized farm would be allowed in pristine waters so close by to a national park. Surely a more appropriate site could be found closer to what was originally planned.

I strongly object to this project. I have been visiting Wonboyn yearly for the last 23 years. Is it one of the only untouched locations on the south east coast. The wildlife and marine life have always thrived like no other location I've visited and it would be an injustice to disturb this. Everyone I know who visits Nadgee Nature Reserve are taken away by its beauty. You can see how visitors and locals are extremely mindful and caring of the environment, which can be a rarity in other places for holiday goers in particular. It gives you an appreciation for nature just being there. I believe the project would absolutely hinder the beauty and uniqueness that keeps people coming back. I am concerned if this goes ahead that more and more commercial development will follow changing the whole feel of the area.

George Malolakis
24 Weemilah Drive Pambula Beach 2549
Comments on the Project:
Eden -1 Kelp Aquaculture Farm, Disaster Bay
Application Number SSD-41680467
I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Hello,

I was a Ranger with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service for nearly 30 years and was the Ranger for Nadgee and for Beowa National Park for many years. I have a good knowledge and strong connection to the area where the Kelp farm is being proposed and I strongly object to the placement of the proposed Kelp Farm in Disaster Bay for a variety of reason.

This area where the Kelp Farm is being proposed whilst not being specifically with Nadgee Nature Reserve and Beowa National Park sits adjacent to them and will significantly impact on the intrinsic value of the area. The Nadgee NR/Beowa NP area is a largely undeveloped coastal strip extending from Wonboyn Lake in the north east to Mallacoota Inlet in the south west of which Disaster Bay and its surrounds is a significant part. This is the largest essential unmodified coastal area in South Eastern Australia. (Assessment Report on Proposed Nadgee Wilderness Area. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1991 ) and this project will significantly impact this area and should not be allowed.

Largely undisturbed natural areas in coastal regions of NSW are limited to only a few places. Nadgee was the only coastal area identified by Helman et al 1976, (Helman, P.M. et al Wilderness in Australia: Eastern New South Wales and South Western Queensland. Department of Geagraphy, University of New England. Armidale 1976) in the survey of wilderness areas of NSW (Assessment Report on Proposed Nadgee Wilderness Area. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1991). Many visitors come to this area to explore its largely unspoilt natural beauty. They access and view the area from a variety of places such as Disaster Bay Lookout on Greencape Road, the beach access points at Greenglades and Baycliff and also the Wilderness area of Merrica River. This area is internationally recognised and would be significantly diminished by the proposal and its associated infrastructure, and should not be permitted.

There are so few wild places left and this area is a wild and natural seascape. The report, "The Intrinsic Values of Nadgee/Howe Area of South Eastern Australia, Ecology Australia, 1999" states that the Coastal Complex of Nadgee which includes the area adjoining the proposed project area and Disaster Bay has been assessed as being of International Significance. To even consider to placing such a large (200ha) seaweed farm in the middle of this beautiful, wild area is unfathomable.

This area is is pristine or near pristine. This development will affect the wilderness values of Nadgee through the visual disturbance created by the development. It will also significantly impact on Nadgee Nature Reserve through increased traffic, noise and activity. A large development in the waters adjacent to this largely pristine area and visual from viewing areas such as Disaster Bay viewing area (Beowa NP) will significantly damage the visual/intrinsic values. This is an international significant area, stunningly beautiful. In other parts of Australia such as Tasmania you have areas such as Wineglass Bay in Freycinet National Park which are protected and celebrated for their outstanding scenic beauty. Disaster Bay is the equal of this internationally recognised natural area and you are proposing to place a 200ha kelp farm with associated infrastructure such as buoys etc slap bang in the middle of it. I strongly object to this and urge you to not allow this proposal to proceed in this area.

As I have already stated, this proposal is ignoring the incredible intrinsic value of this wild and remote area, all so that the proponents can make a lot of money. This is wrong and should be stopped. Wilderness is measured by the amount of naturalness . The visual impacts, noise and other disturbance from this project will be significant and will affect solitude and wilderness values from the nearby Merrica River entrance which is within the Nadgee Wilderness Area. Not to mention impacts on Nadgee Nature Reserve in the Greenglades/Baycliff area. The impacts emanating from this proposal on this wild landscape and pristine area have not been adequately addressed and are a significant reason as to why the positioning of this Kelp Farm in the middle of such a remote and pristine area should not be allowed.

The proponent states in Appendix C: Project Assessment against MWSAS Constraint Criteria
CRITERIA CONSTRAINT SPECIFIC TO PROPOSED LOCATION
1. Conservation Exclusion Zone : Must not be within land reserved acquired under the National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1974, nature reserves : Site complies with this requirement
However it then states in section 3.4 that there will be an increase in vehicle and marine traffic and that they wish to utilise Greenglades Road and Baycliff Roads as access routes for monitoring and maintenance purposes. Somehow the need to utilise these roads and the upgrades which will be required is magically not part of the project proposal? Using the roads in a Nature Reserve for a commercial operation should be not allowed. This is a Nature Reserve and yes, whilst these tracks are public access routes they are dirt roads, narrow and constrained and totally unacceptable for use by such a major project and goes against what is suitable and allowable in a Nature Reserve. To utilise these tracks would require significant upgrade through the Nature Reserve and thus have significant impact on the amenity of the area. The proponents state that their project complies with the requirement of the MWSAS constraints criteria but fails to acknowledge the significant upgrade on the Nature Reserve road network and the significant impacts this will have on traffic, access and visual amenity of the Nature Reserve.

Further to this. The area where the proponent is implying the project will have minimal impacts has also very high natural heritage values. The area associated with Greenglades and Baycliffs roads is an area known to home southern brown bandicoot and Long nosed potoroo both listed species. Any significant increase in traffic could potentially impact on these species. Also, any potential upgrade of Greenglades and Baycliff roads would require the removal of significant amounts of vegetation and significant old growth trees. These large trees in this area are habitat for a variety of large forest owls such as Powerful Owl, Masked Owl and Sooty Owl.

There are also significant indigenous cultural sites in the Greenglades/ Baycliff areas which could also potentially be impacted by this proposed project and any upgrade of the existing track network.

Another issue that has not been adequately addressed is that the beach area adjacent to the proposed kelp farm which the proponent will be utilising is also nationally significant breeding and foraging habitat for the endangered Hooded Plover and Regionally significant habitat for Pied and Sooty Oystercatchers as well as Eastern Curlew. Increased activity taking place on the beach area from this project could potentially impact on endangered shore birds and should be considered.

The proponent also states on page 15 of its scoping report (v2.5) that the site was "specifically chosen to minimise conflict with other users and to minimise environmental impacts...... That the area is not recognised as having any navigation channels, shipping routes or regular marine vessel traffic from commercial or recreational usage. The proposed aquaculture lease is not within a marine national park" It however fails to address the fact that many recreational sea kayakers utilise this area, that the project has the potential to impact highly on marine mammals with large whales such as Humpback whale and other significant marine animals utilise this area and also fails to address the fact that at the pubic meeting held in Eden to outline this project that there was significant opposition to the project and its location from the commercial Fisher representatives.

Thank you for allowing me to comment on this proposed Kelp Farm. I will not comment on the so called bioremedial gains that the proponent is advocating. There are many conflicting interpretations as to the net environmental benefits of kelp farms. Yes, Kelp does sequest large amounts of CO2 but there is some question as to how much the net benefit there is to the environment once processing and other impacts are considered. I am still of the opinion that the location of this kelp farm in such a wild and pristine area is inappropriate and should not be permitted.

Kind Regards
George Malolakis

I feel this is an inappropriate development for this pristine piece of coast line.
I am concerned that irreparable damage will be done.
I am not against this development, but I feel this is not the correct location.
many thanks,
Dominic

Disaster Bay is widely regarded as the most pristine marine environment in the
region. It’s waters are home to whales, dolphins, fur seals, fairy penguins and
other animals, including critically endangered and vulnerable species and is a Blue Corridor or
Superhighway for migrating Humpback whales. It is estimated that 40,000 Humback whales
are migrating each year, and as their numbers increase, so do the risks of
entanglement.
AusKelp is yet to show real evidence that they will put in place mitigation measures
that will prevent marine wildlife and seabird entanglements in its longline
infrastructure.
Increased vessel traffic within Disaster Bay and around Greencape to Twofold Bay
will also affect whales. The kelp farm will generate noise as a result of its operations
for harvesting and noise disrupts whale communication and increases whales’ stress levels.
Due to the nature of the rough waters the kelp farm’s buoys and ropes run a high risk of damage and of being set
adrift during storms and east coast lows. The plastic debris from the kelp farm can
entangle and injure animals and birds. Within the pristine location of Disaster Bay and
Nadgee Wilderness Coastline to the south, there is a strong risk of pollution including
on beaches and river and creek mouth ecosystems as a result of debris from the
proposed kelp farm.

Disaster Bay is rare place of wilderness and a place for marine life to live and thrive. This is not the place for an industrial business with hectares of noise, lights, vessel traffic and human intervention.
Our increasing rare wilderness and the animals that live and thrive there need our protection.

It's such a beautiful. Special. Sacred place. I have never witnessed such abundance of life in the ocean in one area. It would be such a shame to put this at risk. Just another money farm guised as something 'sustainable'. This should most definetly be considered with a lot of thought. These places don't just come back overnight if at all from this kind of destruction.

I do not want to see the natural habitat of this area of NSW destroyed by the proposed activity of a kelp farm. This wilderness area must be protected from development.

Submission Opposing the Proposed Eden-1 Kelp Aquaculture Farm – Disaster Bay

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Eden-1 Kelp Aquaculture Project (Disaster Bay, NSW)
From: Chris Fraser, BAppSc (Coastal Management & Environmental Resource Management)
Date: 02nd May 2026

⸻

1. Introduction

I write to formally object to the proposed Eden-1 offshore kelp aquaculture development in Disaster Bay.

I hold a Bachelor of Applied Science majoring in Coastal Management and Environmental Resource Management, and my submission is based on professional understanding of coastal processes, marine ecology, and environmental impact assessment frameworks.

While I acknowledge the potential for emerging aquaculture industries, this proposal presents significant environmental, social, and planning concerns that have not been adequately resolved or justified.

⸻

2. Project Overview

The proposal seeks approval for a 200-hectare offshore kelp farm in Disaster Bay, utilising longline infrastructure anchored to the seabed to cultivate species such as Ecklonia radiata.

It is positioned as:

* Australia’s first commercial ocean kelp farm
* A new industry targeting food, agriculture, and pharmaceutical markets

Despite these claims, the scale, location, and uncertainty of impacts raise serious concerns.

⸻

3. Key Grounds for Objection

3.1 Inappropriate Site Selection – High Environmental Value Area

Disaster Bay is a high-value, relatively undisturbed coastal and marine environment, adjoining:

* Ben Boyd National Park
* Critical marine habitats supporting biodiversity and fisheries

The proposal itself acknowledges:

* Potential interactions with whales, sharks, seabirds, and turtles, including risk of injury or death

This directly contradicts the principle of avoidance, which is a cornerstone of environmental planning. Sensitive, near-pristine environments should not be the testing ground for a first-of-its-kind industry.

⸻

3.2 Unacceptable Risk to Marine Fauna

Although mitigation measures are proposed (e.g. taut lines, anchor systems), the documentation concedes:

* Infrastructure can interact with marine fauna, with potential for entanglement and mortality

Given:

* The scale (200 hectares)
* The offshore location
* The presence of migratory species (including cetaceans)

There is insufficient empirical evidence in Australian conditions to demonstrate that risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

This represents a precautionary principle failure.

⸻

3.3 Lack of Proven Environmental Impact Data

This project is described as:

* The first commercial cultivation of this type in NSW waters

Accordingly:

* There is no long-term local dataset assessing cumulative impacts
* Hydrodynamic changes, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem effects remain uncertain

Emerging research indicates that kelp farm structures can:

* Alter water column dynamics and turbulence
* Change nutrient distribution and ecological balance

Approving a large-scale commercial operation prior to pilot-scale validation is inconsistent with best-practice adaptive management.

⸻

3.4 Industrialisation of a Natural Coastal Landscape

The development introduces:

* Extensive longline infrastructure
* Vessel traffic from Eden and Edrom
* Ongoing operational footprint (March–November annually)

This represents a clear industrialisation of a natural seascape, with impacts including:

* Visual intrusion
* Loss of wilderness character
* Potential conflict with tourism and recreation

The assertion that the area has “minimal use” is not sufficient justification for permanent alteration of a coastal asset of this significance.

⸻

3.5 Precedent Risk

Approval of this project would:

* Establish a precedent for large-scale offshore aquaculture in NSW
* Open the door for expansion across the South Coast

This cumulative impact risk has not been adequately addressed and is a critical planning consideration under State Significant Development assessment.

⸻

3.6 Socio-Economic Claims Are Unsubstantiated

The proposal promotes:

* Economic growth
* A “new industry”

However:

* No clear, evidence-based local economic benefit has been demonstrated
* Risks to existing industries (tourism, fishing, amenity value) are not fully assessed

Economic justification must be balanced against environmental cost, which in this case is substantial and potentially irreversible.

⸻

3.7 Inadequate Consideration of Alternatives

There is insufficient evidence that:

* Alternative, less sensitive sites were rigorously assessed
* Smaller-scale pilot projects were considered

This undermines the site selection process and suggests a failure to properly apply avoidance and minimisation principles.

⸻

4. Conclusion

The Eden-1 kelp farm proposal represents:

* A large-scale industrial development in a high-value natural environment
* A first-of-its-kind project lacking sufficient scientific validation
* A development with unacceptable ecological risk and uncertain long-term impacts

Based on the above, the proposal is inconsistent with:

* The precautionary principle
* Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles
* Sound coastal zone planning practice

⸻

5. Recommendation

I strongly recommend that the NSW Department of Planning:

Reject the Eden-1 Kelp Aquaculture Project in its current form.

Submission Opposing Eden1 Auskelp Proposal
Introduction

I am a local resident/business operator in the Wonboyn–Eden region and wish to formally object to the proposed Eden1/Auskelp seaweed aquaculture development in Disaster Bay / Twofold Bay waters.

This coastline is one of the most visually pristine and environmentally significant areas on the NSW South Coast. The proposal represents a substantial industrialisation of a natural marine environment and raises serious concerns regarding visual amenity, tourism impacts, environmental uncertainty, and long-term cumulative expansion.

1. Visual and Wilderness Impact

The proposed kelp farm would alter the character of an otherwise natural and undeveloped coastline visible from areas including:

Greenglades Beach
Disaster Bay
Green Cape region
surrounding lookouts and coastal waters

The South Coast wilderness experience is a key reason visitors travel to this area. Even low-profile infrastructure such as buoys, lines, vessel activity and surface equipment can significantly affect the perception of remoteness and natural beauty.

The assessment appears to understate the real-world visual impact, particularly under varying light and sea conditions.

2. Tourism and Local Economy

Tourism is a primary economic driver in the region. Businesses including caravan parks, accommodation providers, fishing charters and eco-tourism operators rely heavily on the area’s unspoilt coastal identity.

Industrial marine infrastructure risks:

reducing the natural appeal of the coastline
impacting visitor perception
affecting repeat visitation
undermining the “wilderness coast” branding of the region

Once industrial aquaculture becomes established offshore, the reputational effect on the region may be difficult to reverse.

3. Precedent and Expansion Concerns

A major concern is that approval of this project may establish precedent for:

expansion of the existing farm footprint
additional aquaculture leases
increased vessel activity and infrastructure
further industrialisation of coastal waters

The cumulative impact of future expansion must be properly considered rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.

4. Environmental Uncertainty

While seaweed farming is often presented as environmentally beneficial, there remains uncertainty regarding:

impacts on local marine ecosystems
interactions with wildlife and migratory species
biofouling and marine debris
navigation and recreational fishing impacts
long-term operational and maintenance impacts

The precautionary principle should apply in an environmentally sensitive coastal area.

5. Incompatibility With Area Character

Disaster Bay and the surrounding coastline are valued because they remain relatively undeveloped compared with many other coastal regions.

The proposal is inconsistent with:

the wilderness and scenic character of the area
community expectations regarding coastal protection
the long-term preservation of natural marine landscapes

There are many coastal locations where industrial aquaculture may be more appropriate. This coastline is not one of them.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I object to the Eden1/Auskelp proposal and request that the application be refused.

At minimum, a significantly more rigorous assessment of:

visual impacts
tourism impacts
cumulative expansion risks
environmental uncertainty
need for proper open consultation to local community
should be required before any approval is considered.

One of the most beautiful, pristine areas on the East Coast of Australia, Disaster Bay, is under threat from developers.

One of the most beautiful, pristine areas on the East Coast of Australia, Disaster Bay, is under threat from developers.

I object to the project because of its potential to negatively impact on the pristine environment of the coastal wilderness, marine life could get entangled in ropes, the potential for noise and waste pollution and the lease could be sold to foreign entities.

The seaweed industry isn’t worth the damage to the environment. There are many alternatives provided and this is mainly a commercial opportunity. Ultimately, this feels rushed and the subsequent damage to this area is not worth the ROI.

Thanks, Nicholas Taylor

I have been coming to Wonboyn Lake for 57 years, spending my time on the lake and beaches of Disaster Bay. I have always enjoyed the pristine nature of the area and the unspoilt beaches, which are becoming a rarity in Australia. In April 2025 we visited the northern end of the Greenglades beach at Bay Cliff. The beach was no longer pristine, rather it was covered in kelp and difficult to walk to the waters edge. In all my time coming to Wonboyn Lake this was the first time I had ever seen the beach covered in kelp. This only occurred after the trial kelp farm had been established in Disaster Bay. I have attached photos I took on the 18th of April 2025 showing the magnitude of kelp washed up on the beach.

If the pristine nature of the area can be damaged from one small trial kelp farm, then the damage caused from a 200 hectare kelp farm would be catastrophic. Over the last 20 years we have seen a significant increase in east coast lows, bringing with them significant swell and onshore winds. With the effects of global warming increasing at a rapid rate, these swell and wind events will occur more frequently and with more intensity. The risk of 12,000+ plastic floats and 500+ km of synthetic rope washing up on the beaches of Disaster Bay is incredibly high. If this project is to proceed it is a natural disaster waiting to happen. Being the first lease of it's kind globally, there is no evidence to show the infrastructure will remain in place over an extended period.

I strongly object to the granting of the Seaweed Aquaculture Lease in Disaster Bay.

The proposed project would necessitate at least some visual degradation of the adjacent coast in this beautiful area. There is also the issue of the enormous natural value of what is at present a pristine area. People use this area for enjoyment of the natural landscape and any development would destroy its wilderness value. This is apart from any environmental damage that could be caused by any current or future development. The sea area and the adjacent coast line cannot in any way be disturbed or altered, which is impossible. Of course it goes without saying that, if it went ahead, it should under no circumstances prevent any member of the public from using the the same area for recreation.
Whilst I am not against aquaculture projects in general, it is clear that the scale and extent of this project is far too large. A 2 Ha area is sufficient for a modest operation and income, and I cannot help but thinking there is a hidden agenda here on the part of the developer to secure ownership of a much larger area and make money by "subdiving" the lease in the future. .

As a landscape architect and artist with a long history of visiting and understanding the value of biodiverse environments I was astonished at the significance of Disaster Bay when I had the opportunity to visit recently. The Eden 1 Seaweed Aquacultural lease is at odd's with the environmental values of this rare and critically important environment,

I am familiar with and have visited this unique and special environment that should be preserved at all cost, and want to assure that it's environmental diversity and integrity is nurtured, maintained, restored and consolidated. I see that the proposed seaweed farm would jeopodise and compromise this fragile and rare ecosystem.