Eden 1 is a kelp farm that is planned to be established in a magnificent coastal area of Disaster Bay adjoining national parks and indigenous lands. Other places were rejected as those sites were polluted with agricultural runoff or nutrient loading. Thus, Disaster Bay has been targeted for the precise reason that it is a pristine area. Glorious spots like this are more valuable for their visual amenity than other reasons and that value will increase in this century as pressures grown on our coastlines and marine environments. The kelp farm will impact marine animals and whale migration in this area.
A kelp farm might seem a small decision but it is small decisions that lead to other small decisions and in the end lead to the destruction of the beauty of a region and the loss of ecological function. This has happened many times globally. such as the loss of wetlands in the USA.
More thought needs to be put into allowing this disturbance in this lovely bay, or it will indeed be a disaster. Once altered, the bay will decline as other additions and visual changes inevitably come.
I am an ecologist and landscape architect with a research interest in wetlands and the history of the Australian coastlines.
Assoc Prof Margaret Grose

I object to the kelp farm in Disaster bay. This project will be an ecological disaster for all the eco systems that use the kelp for coverage and protection from predators. Kelp is also used by local crabs and other crustaceans for shelter and feed. Also the detriment for the whales using this corridor for their annual migration. For many years the whale population was is dire straits now that the population has partially recovered, to subject them to this contraption that they have to navigate around is just asking for a disaster. This is their natural migration path!
The coast line is in great condition and a credit to the local government and local community for keeping it in good condition for all tourists that visit the area and them selves who value this natural wilderness.
I believe the tourists population will diminish with this project taking over a large portion of the natural coastline which will be detrimental for local businesses .
I look forward to hearing this project has been rejected and the coastline can remain in pristine condition for many generations to come.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my views on this project.
Jeffrey R Young

Whilst the proposal appears to be substantiated, close inspection of supporting documents suggests otherwise. Of particular concern is the intimation that the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA) Report is fully supportive of the project whereas in reality it is a desktop review, with minimal input from relevant Aboriginal stakeholders. Only 18 parties registered interest out of at least 47 identified relevant stakeholders, ‘none of the RAPs were able to attend the meeting dates proposed’ and only 1no. response was received for the invitation for feedback to the methodology, and 1no. response to the request to review the draft ACHA report (the same respondent for both). Given the importance of the intangible historical aspects of the site, the known cultural relationship with fishing and ocean related activity, and the unknown effects of extensive aquaculture on sand deposition and other long term effects on the ecosystem, the proponent needs to obtain genuine interaction with relevant Aboriginal stakeholders to receive effective and convincing feedback prior to any approvals being issued.
It is noted that p.30 of the ACHA Report provided states high ranking significant assessment criteria to be ‘Cultural – Determinations made during the background research identify coastal sites along the NSW far south coast as holding great importance to saltwater people, as can be observed in Section 3.3. While no specific comments were received from RAPs during consultation, it has been assumed that the study area is of high cultural significance based on the wider cultural landscape context.’
In addition, it would appear that even though it is directly adjacent to the site, Beowa National Park was not consulted with regards to the ACHA Report. Whilst this may be due to the ‘ownership’ definition of interested parties, it indicates a lack of creativity and motivation in the search for relevant stakeholders. Having been camping almost annually for approximately 20 years in this area, my personal experience has been that National Parks have a strong connection to First Nations priorities of land, sea and sky Countries. Proper and balanced research in all of these domains will elaborate on other concerns regarding the project, including effects on flora and fauna, as well as negative visual impact in such a significant coastal location.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Disaster Bay Seaweed Aquaculture Lease.
Approval of this project would give new meaning to the title of ‘Disaster Bay’, without question.
I object to the approval of this proposal for the following reasons:
* it is industrial scale proposal in one of the last remaining pristine landscapes on the Far SouthCoast of New South Wales
* the proposed area adjoins the Nadgee Wilderness Area, Nadgee National Park and Beowa National Park. Beautiful areas of our region that will be spoilt by the presence of a kelp farm, an industrial landscape.
*there are no guarantees, regardless of conditions that may be placed on this proposal if approved, that would protect Disaster Bay from further damage caused by this kelp farm. Plus, there is little if no enforcement of the conditions if the project were approved
* there are no guarantees that Disaster Bay would be protected from future harm caused by the kelp farm and climate change
* I am concerned about the impact of this industrial project on the presence and migration of humpback whales in the bay. The bay is a much visited area by whales and calves seeking shelter during inclement storms, providing calmer waters for whale calves to survive. The bay is also much visited by whales at any time of the season. Any whale caught in the kelp farm is totally unacceptable
* the economic benefits of the kelp farm to the surrounding region are minimal at best, providing few jobs and most product being exported
* the visual impact on the surrounding landscape is totally unacceptable, especially the national parks.
*

Refer to the attatchment for my objection

Thank you

Objection to Seaweed Aquaculture Lease, Disaster Bay – Eden 1

I object to the proposed kelp farm in Disaster Bay.

My connection to Wonboyn spans my lifetime, and now extends to my own young
family. I have a home in Wonboyn & a deep personal connection to this landscape.
It is not just somewhere I visit — it is part of my life, and part of what I value most
about living in Australia.What makes this place extraordinary is not just its beauty,
but its continuity — a rare coastal environment that has remained largely
unchanged across generations. That continuity reflects not only environmental
value, but deep cultural and historical significance that cannot be replaced once
lost.

Only recently I saw reporting that NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service recorded
a record 65.5 million visits to national parks in the past year — contributing over
$19 billion annually and supporting 62,000 jobs. That reinforces something simple:
people are drawn to places like this because they remain unspoilt. Destroying that
quality for industrial development is short-sighted and irreversible.

The broader implications of this proposal must also be considered. Nadgee is
internationally valued for its untouched character and ecotourism appeal.
Industrialising this landscape risks long-term damage to that reputation. It also sets
a concerning precedent for further commercial development in one of the last
remaining pristine coastal wilderness areas in the state.

This coastline also carries deep cultural and historical significance. It sits alongside
the Nadgee Nature Reserve, the only declared coastal wilderness in New South
Wales, and forms part of a much larger, living cultural landscape. This area has
been occupied and cared for over thousands of years, evidenced by extensive
Aboriginal middens along the coast. These sites reflect the enduring presence and
custodianship of the Bidawal, Dtharwa, and Monaroo peoples, whose connection to
this Country continues today. This is not just history — it is living heritage, a place
of ongoing cultural responsibility.

Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, Aboriginal objects and places are
protected, recognising that their significance extends beyond isolated sites to the
broader landscape and environmental systems that sustain them. In this context,
the waters, beaches, and coastal processes of Disaster Bay are inseparable from
the cultural integrity of Country. Disturbing these systems is not simply an
environmental impact — it is a disruption to a living cultural landscape.

The scale of the proposed development is fundamentally inappropriate for this
location. Expanding from a 50 x 50 metre trial site to a 200-hectare industrial
operation introduces risks that cannot be reliably predicted or justified. The
environmental conditions of Disaster Bay are highly dynamic and exposed, and
there is insufficient evidence that small-scale trial data can be meaningfully applied
to a project of this magnitude.

Disaster Bay itself reflects this reality. Its name originates from a history of
shipwrecks on and near Green Cape, a direct result of extreme and unpredictable
ocean conditions. These are not occasional events, but defining characteristics of
the coastline. If the site cannot be safely accessed during these conditions, there is
a real risk that operational pressures will shift to Wonboyn Lake — a small,
low-impact community village with infrastructure that is not designed to support
industrial-scale marine activity & commercial enterprises.

This leads directly to concerns about plastic pollution. A development of this scale
relies on thousands of synthetic components exposed to constant wave action, UV
degradation, and mechanical stress. In heavy seas, large numbers of buoys, ropes,
and plastic components will inevitably break free. Where do they go? Into Nadgee.
Into the remote beaches. Into the protected wilderness that is difficult to access
and even harder to clean up. There is no clear, enforceable explanation of how this
material would be recovered or even if it would be recovered, or who would be
responsible when it inevitably disperses across kilometres of this pristine &
protected coastline. The risk is not theoretical — it is predictable.

The proposed development would also have a significant visual impact. A
200-hectare grid of buoys, ropes, and infrastructure would fundamentally alter the
character of this coastline, replacing a pristine, undeveloped seascape with an
industrial presence. This directly conflicts with the area’s value as a place of natural
beauty, tranquility, and wilderness.

There are also serious ecological risks. The introduction of extensive ropes and
infrastructure creates entanglement hazards for marine mammals including whales,
dolphins, and seals, as well as seabirds. The use of large volumes of synthetic
materials also raises concerns about microplastic pollution, with degradation over
time contributing to contamination of the marine environment and food chain,
eventually contaminating the pure waters of this pristine environment.

Noise and light pollution are additional impacts that have not been adequately
addressed. Vessel activity, harvesting operations, and infrastructure movement in
turbulent conditions will generate both above and below-water noise & disturbance,
which is known to disrupt marine species, particularly cetaceans. Artificial lighting
from navigation buoys and servicing vessels will further impact both wildlife and the
natural experience of the area.

The physical presence of the farm also risks damaging the fragile ocean floor
through anchoring systems and shading effects, altering marine habitats. More
broadly, the scale of the infrastructure has the potential to interfere with wave
action across a large footprint, leading to unknown changes in sediment transport
and coastal processes. This may affect the formation and stability of beaches,
estuaries, and inlets, including the Wonboyn entrance and Merrica Inlet within the
Nadgee wilderness.

These coastal environments also provide critical habitat for threatened shorebirds
such as the Pied Oystercatcher, with fewer than 200 breeding pairs remaining in
New South Wales. These birds rely on undisturbed beaches and estuarine systems
to nest and feed, making them highly sensitive to changes in coastal processes,
human disturbance, and habitat degradation. Increased activity, altered sediment
movement, and environmental changes associated with this development pose a
direct risk to their already fragile population.

There are also unresolved questions around long-term accountability. If the project
were to fail or be abandoned, it is unclear what enforceable mechanisms exist to
ensure full removal of infrastructure across a 200-hectare site. Without strong
guarantees, there is a real risk of long-term environmental harm being left behind.

Finally, it is unclear what tangible benefit this project provides to the local
community. There is limited evidence of meaningful local return, while the
environmental, cultural, and social impacts will be borne locally.

At its core, this proposal is not simply about a kelp farm. It is about whether
industrial-scale development is appropriate in a place defined by its wilderness,
cultural significance, and ecological integrity.

This proposal risks setting a precedent. If industrial-scale development is allowed
here, in one of the last intact protected coastal wilderness areas in the state, where
does it stop?

This place is valuable because it has been protected — environmentally, culturally,
and socially. It should not now be exposed to industrial risk.

For all of these reasons, I strongly object to this proposal.

I was disgusted to learn of AusKelp’s proposed Eden-1 Kelp Aquaculture Farm at the beautiful Disaster Bay in NSW. I object to the proposal on a number of grounds.

Firstly, the ecological and geomorphological impacts horrify me. The presence of such a large-scale monoculture within this fragile and significant marine ecosystem will have a significant, negative impact. This is the repetition of a colonial agrarian practice we now recognise to be destructive on ecosystems on land – I don’t understand why we would continue to perpetrate this in a marine ecosystem, especially one that is adjacent to Nadgee Nature Reserve and Beowa National Park. The sheer scale of materials required and the destruction that construction is likely to have on the fragile seabead ecology just boggles my mind.

Honestly, I think anything that has the potential to ensnare mammalian and other marine life in this part of the world – of all places with its horrible connection to the whaling industry in this country – needs to be very carefully scrutinised. This stands to undermine the region in terms of ecotourism, not only because of the visual impact such an eyesore as this proposal will have on the paradise of Disaster Bay, but also through the international optics of allowing such a proposal. It’s a marketing disaster for NSW, and an embarrassment for Australia, particularly so given our international leadership when it comes to the advocacy for whales.

I think if this proposal was to go ahead unchallenged, this would reach international press very quickly. The economic impact this could have on the ecotourism of the region would be terrible. We need to be aiming to compete with similar marine eco tourist destinations such as that found across the ditch in New Zealand, where areas such as Kaikoura, which are similarly situated in relationship to distance from a large metropolitan centers and cruise ship ports, its success supported by rigorous protection of Environmental value.

I base my opinion in expertise as a landscape architecture and University educator. I have a PhD in Landscape Architecture and Architecture – my particular expertise lies in political ecology and the impact of policy decisions on the evolution of the built environment, inclusive of ecology, economics, culture and politics. This landscape holds a personal significance to me, as the environment of my fondest childhood memories. It should be protected so that future generations can share this same memory of this beautiful pristine Australian paradise.

I am writing to strngly object to the proposed kelp farm at Disaster bay, which would destroy one of the most beautiful areas in Australia and a natural enclave. The proposed farm is wrong on so many fronts - oversized, too close, and will be a visually dominant feature in an otherwise pristine location - for the benefit of one individual and their share holders. The test site was too small, and the data can't be reliably extrapolated or relied upon for this bigger proposal, and the side effects from a farm this big remain unknown. Caught debris, water circulation, not to mention the effect on the wildlife for an unnatural intervention of this size. It seems like all the issues of a tasmanian salmon farm but repeated again on a large scale. It is just wrong, and will destroy this beautiful part of the world.