please see attached submission

I object to the proposed Seaweed Aquaculture Lease in Disaster Bay because this bay is special exactly as it is. Wild, quiet and untouched. Places like this are becoming rarer and rarer on the far south coast, and once industrial infrastructure is put into a bay like this, that wildnerness feeling is gone. Even if the farm is being presented as environmentally conscious, it still means ropes, lines, boats, charters, maintenance activity and ongoing disruption in a place that is currently home to whales, seabirds, marine life and people who value the area for its natural beauty and remoteness. Disaster Bay is not an industrial area, and I don’t believe commercial aquaculture belongs in a wilderness setting like this.
We should be protecting areas like Disaster Bay, not finding new ways to commercialise them.

See attached submission

Disaster Bay / Nadgee Nature Reserve is one of the last undisturbed, pristine coastal–marine systems in NSW. There is no existing aquaculture, minimal vessel traffic, no industrialized shoreline. The near-shore benthic environment is undisturbed by trawling,moorings, pipelines or boating infrastructure.
Introducing a 200-ha offshore longline aquaculture facility may cause ecological changes that have
negative impacts, even if Auskelp frames the impacts as “low” or “negligible”. Other impacts from operation of the kelp farm .
I also have concerns about entanglement during the whale migration , and dolphins and other sea creatures.
- Increased vessel traffic
- Regular harvesting operations
- Machinery noise
- Navigation buoys with night lighting
- Increase in human presence
- Ongoing maintenance operations
- Anchor impacts from third-party vessels
As a resident of Wonboyn I have concerns that this proposed Kelp Farm would also impact on the natural beauty of the area and there are already concerns that the existing "test area" is causing kelp to invade the oyster leases . Nobody should be allowed to industrialize this area for personal gain.

I strongly object to the proposed seaweed aquaculture project which will have significant detrimental effect on the pristine environment of Disaster Bay, impacting the sensitive marine ecosystem, including whale migratory routes.

My objection to this proposal focuses on the risk assessment applied to two whale species that use Disaster Bay as a refuge and rest area during migration. These are the protected Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae and the endangered Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis.

The EIS acknowledges the conservation status of the whales and the significance of the NSW South Coast during the winter migration of both species. The EIS then tries to establish that Disaster Bay is not used by whales and their preference is Twofold Bay. The EIS provides weak or unverifiable data to support this assertion which is then used in the risk analysis to claim that the project has no or limited impact.

The principal reference used in this Section of the EIS on whales is “McGovern et al. (2025)” and it is cited seven times. It claims to be a synthesis of all observational, ecological and behavioural information on migrating whales. The full reference is given as “McGovern, T., Ride, C., & Harrison, P. (2025). Whale Migration Patterns in Far South Coast NSW: A Comparative Study of Disaster and Twofold Bays. CSIRO Marine Research Series.”

A thorough search has been made online to locate this paper using Google Scholar, Researchgate and the CSIRO Publishing website. The search was extended to include any other papers from these authors, particularly CSIRO publications.

This significant reference in the EIS does not appear in the public domain. The second author is assumed to be Campbell Ride, the proponent for the kelp project and principal author of the EIS. He does not declare this conflict of interest. The other two authors were not identifiable as Australian marine scientists nor are they working for CSIRO Ocean and Coastal Research.

The publication the paper is purported to have appeared in, “CSIRO Marine Research Series”, ceased in 2010 and is only available as an archive on the CSIRO Publishing website.

If this key reference is not available publicly, no informed assessment can be made of the veracity of supporting claims made in the EIS. It is uncertain if the paper was peer reviewed as required for publication and how thorough it has been gathering information on whale migration. Has it considered recent observational data from the many citizen science databases such ORCA’s annual whale census, Atlas of Living Australia and iNaturalist?

The information that the risk assessments were based on is not credible unless the principal citation can be assed. The true affiliations of the authors need to be disclosed as much as the content of the paper.

Myself and my family have been visiting Wonboyn and Disaster Bay regularly for 20 years. It is a beautiful, natural, unspoiled place where visitors can immerse themselves in nature. We have always seen whales, dolphins and seals off Wonboyn, as well as many different types of birds and the fish varieties are many and varied. I am extremely concerned about the proposal to construct a 200ha aquiculture project off Wonboyn. It is difficult to imagine that this project will not damage the environment here. There are so few unspoilt environments left, I urge the authorities concerned here to reject this proposal so that Wonboyn and Disaster Bay can stay beautiful and natural for future generations and can continue to be a healthy natural wildlife habitat. I will never forget swimming at Wonboyn and being surrounded by Dolphins hunting a school of fish, pushing them along the beach and surfing in on the waves. Please keep this area natural and special . Regards Allison