sign in sign up
<<
Home , Magnetic Island, Townsville

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350892666

2020 Site Assessment of (Yunbenun) for a proposed Museum of Underwater Art (MOUA)

Technical Report · April 2021 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18623.84644

CITATIONS READS 0 172

5 authors, including:

Al Songcuan Gemma Molinaro Reef Ecologic University

14 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nathan Cook Adam Smith Reef Ecologic Reef Ecologic

28 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS 82 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leadership and management View project

Citizen science View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Al Songcuan on 16 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

2020 Site Assessment of Magnetic Island (Yunbenun) for a proposed Museum of Underwater Art (MOUA)

A report for the Museum of Underwater Art Pty Ltd c\PVW Partners, 52 Walker Street, , QLD 4810

Report prepared by Al Songcuan, Gemma Molinaro, Nathan Cook, Adam Smith & Rachelle Brown Reef Ecologic 15 April 2021

1

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Table of Contents 1. Acknowledgements 3 2. Executive summary 4 3. Background 4 4. Environmental assessment and approvals 4 5. Site Scoping 5 6. Environmental Assessment 6 Site 1. 6 Site 2. Picnic Bay 9 7. Discussion and recommendations 11 8. References 14 9. Appendices 16 Appendix 1. Details of site assessments at Geoffrey Bay, Magnetic Islands. 16 Appendix 2. Details of site assessments at Picnic Bay, Magnetic Islands. 17 Appendix 3. Mosaic drone photo of Geoffrey Bay with MOUA site scoping coordinates. 19

2

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

1. Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Museum of Underwater Art.

We acknowledge the leadership and support from the MOUA Board, stakeholders at Magnetic Island and particularly Sunferries , Magnetic Island Ferries and Pleasure Divers.

We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the country in the Townsville region, the Wulgurukaba people and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters, and culture. We pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.

Disclaimer While all efforts have been made to verify facts, this report is not a published scientific paper.

Comments regarding this document are welcome and should be addressed to:

Reef Ecologic Pty Ltd Townsville, QLD, 4810 Phone: +617 4724 5047 Email: [email protected] www.reefecologic.org

Certified

3

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

2. Executive summary In August 2020 and April 2021, Reef Ecologic conducted environmental site assessments of potential intertidal and subtidal sites for underwater sculptures adjacent to Magnetic Island. The team obtained aerial drone and underwater photographs and surveyed the sites for benthic cover. The 2021 site assessment builds on the previous 2017 site assessment, and collectively four potential locations at Magnetic Island have now been assessed: Geoffrey Bay, Nelly Bay, Picnic Bay, and Horseshoe Bay. Live coral cover varied with an average of 20.9% at Geoffrey Bay and 2.2% at Picnic Bay. Water visibility varied with an average of 4-8m at Geoffrey Bay and 2-3m at Picnic Bay.

The purpose of this report is to share knowledge with the Magnetic Island and broader community, MOUA Board, artist Jason deCaires Taylor and stakeholders to discuss and agree on the preferred areas, number of sites, and artworks. When the MOUA Board recommends the final location, it will facilitate detailed site assessments, engineering, logistics, and application for permits.

3. Background The Museum of Underwater Art (MOUA) Project has been developed to raise awareness about the state of the reef, emphasize the need to reduce our impact, implement positive actions, and tell indigenous stories. The project’s environmental, socio-cultural and economic objectives will benefit Townsville and the Region. The MOUA Project has three stages, with stage 1 completed in 2020 and stage 2 planned in 2021. Stage 1 of the Museum of Underwater Art involves the Ocean Siren sculpture located at the Strand and the Coral Greenhouse sculpture at John Brewer Reef. Stage 2 & 3 of the Museum of Underwater Art proposes artwork at Palm Island, an Aboriginal community also known as “Bwgcolman”, and at Magnetic Island, also called by the Aboriginal name “Yunbenun”. Both locations are part of the in North Queensland, Australia.

Magnetic Island is a substantial tourist destination in Townsville. Because of its accessibility and fringing reefs, the island is one of the top destinations for adventure seekers and nature lovers. The Museum of Underwater Art aims to add value to the Island’s natural beauty through an art- science installation that connects Magnetic Island’s cultural story to the land and sea. Extensive consultation and engagement around the concept designs and location are ongoing with the Magnetic Island community and Traditional Owners. Magnetic Island sculptures are expected to be installed by December 2021.

4. Environmental assessment and approvals

Reef Ecologic Pty Ltd has been sub-contracted by the Museum of Underwater Art Pty Ltd to collect baseline environmental surveys and prepare key documents for the environmental assessment and permitting process for Magnetic Island from regulatory agencies. These include: 1. Baseline environmental surveys of sites 2. Permit applications (GBRMP Act, Sea Dumping Act) 3. Public Information Package

4

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

4. Environmental Management Plan 5. Risk assessment

Indicative key dates from the environmental assessment process are: Aug 2020 Site inspection(s) Nov 2020 All statutory approvals have been lodged. Sep/Dec 2021 All approvals required to enable public access and use of the facility have been met (pending decisions by GBRMPA). Dec 2021 The project is fully operational.

5. Site Scoping

In July 2017, a team composed of Jason deCaires Taylor, Reef Ecologic, Sealink Queensland, Adrenalin Dive, and community stakeholders conducted site scoping to investigate three sites: Horseshoe Bay, Geoffrey Bay, and Nelly Bay. In 2020 and 2021 additional sites were added as potential locations: Florence Bay, Arthur Bay, and Picnic Bay (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The six sites, Horseshoe Bay, Geoffrey Bay, Nelly Bay, Florence Bay, Arthur Bay, and Picnic Bay investigated in 2017 and 2020.

Horseshoe Bay is a commercial center and a tourist hub situated on the north end of Magnetic Island. The bay is enclosed by headlands at each end, making it a natural harbour for sailboats. Average water visibility on the site is 1-3m with depths of 0-6m. The site is accessible by boat, private or public transportation. Geoffrey Bay is a shallow water fringing reef enclosed by a headland on Magnetic Island’s southern leeward side. It is very accessible via walking, boat, private or public transportation. Nelly Bay is situated on the southern leeward side of Magnetic Island. Nelly Bay is close to the Ferry Terminal and the adjacent beach has an existing snorkeling trail and offers opportunities for intertidal, 5

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART above-water works; however, potential for storm surge due to its exposed location. Picnic Bay is located in the southernmost part of Magnetic Island. It is accessible via private or public vehicle and by boat. The bay features a jetty used by recreational fishers. Water visibility ranges from 1-5m with benthic substrate composed mostly of sand and rubble in shallow areas. Site scoping in Alma, Arthur and Florence Bays has been preliminary and has not involved environmental surveys.

After several consultations with community stakeholders and the MOUA Board, Geoffrey Bay and Picnic Bay were selected for further environmental assessment. In August 2020, Reef Ecologic conducted environmental assessment, and underwater surveys adjacent to the Magnetic Island Ferries barge ramp in Geoffrey Bay and on either side of the jetty in Picnic Bay on Magnetic Island. The team conducted 26 GBRMPA - Reef Health Impact Surveys (RHIS) using five benthic categories were completed at Geoffrey Bay and Picnic Bay. RHIS surveys involve a diver or a snorkeler assessing the reef health of a five-meter radius circle per site. Benthic cover was assessed, and dominant coral cover growth form and algae were recorded. We also collected water visibility data from local dive shops, Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), and field assessments to compare conditions on different locations at Magnetic Island (i.e., Geoffrey Bay, Picnic Bay, Middle Reef, and Florence Bay). Existing infrastructures, attractions, mooring and reef protection marker buoys in each site were noted and mapped.

6. Environmental Assessment Site 1. Geoffrey Bay

Figure 2. Aerial photo (left) and from shore (right) of Geoffrey Bay.

Geoffrey Bay consists of a broad intertidal area that extends 300-400m from the shore to the surrounding fringing reef (Figure 2 & 3). Geoffrey Bay is a green zone prohibiting any form of extractive activity such as fishing. It is also a popular snorkeling and diving site at Magnetic Island, particularly because of the snorkel trail, healthy reefs, and the Molte Wreck.

6

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Figure 3. Aerial image of the barge channel located next to the fringing reef at Geoffrey Bay.

Reef Ecologic conducted site scoping on 28 different locations at Geoffrey Bay. All coordinates were captured and mapped with the hydrographic surveys obtained from Magnetic Island Ferries (Figure 4). Existing features at Geoffrey Bay include a pylon near shore, a boat ramp, four snorkeling trail buoys, a public mooring, and the Moltke Wreck. We narrowed down feasible locations to 14 sites due to limitations with visibility, depth, artwork installation logistics, and potential hazards (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Site scoping locations at Geoffrey Bay showing locations relative to the hydrographic map near the ferry barge. 7

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Reef Health Impact Surveys (RHIS) were conducted on 14 sites at Geoffrey Bay (Figure 5). RHIS 1-3 were conducted directly on the snorkeling trail markers, RHIS 4-6 along the fringing reef, and RHIS 7-14 on sand patches nearest to each snorkeling buoys. Coral cover ranges from 1 to 60% across 14 locations dominated by encrusting and foliose corals, and approximately 20% macroalgae cover, mostly Sargassum, was found on multiple sites. A summary is that 45.9% of habitat was sand, 20.9% was live coral, 19.8% was macroalgae, 9.1% rubble and 4.1% rock (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Map of Geoffrey Bay highlighting surveyed locations during site assessments.

Figure 6. Assessed benthos at Geoffrey Bay, Magnetic Island, from 14 RHIS surveys along the snorkel trail in 1.5m to 4.0m depth (left) and the summary average for the site (right).

8

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Approximately 300 water visibility records from 2019-2021 dive logs acquired from Pleasure Divers Magnetic Island also showed that Geoffrey Bay has a consistently higher average visibility of 4- 6m than in Alma Bay at 3-4m over three years (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Average visibility between 2019 and 2021 at Alma and Geoffrey Bays, Magnetic Island.

Site 2. Picnic Bay

Picnic Bay is a south-facing bay and site of a jetty formerly used as the primary transit point for Magnetic Island. Picnic Bay is in a designated Conservation Park Zone and a popular fishing spot for recreational fishers. Reef Ecologic conducted site scoping on 12 different shallow water locations at Picnic Bay parallel to the coast. All coordinates were captured and mapped, showing existing features such as reef protection markers, boat ramp, jetty, and stinger net (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Map of Picnic Bay highlighting surveyed locations during site assessments. 9

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Reef Health Impact Surveys conducted at 12 locations in shallow areas surrounding the jetty showed that the benthic cover was dominated by sand (43.6%), rubble (27.3%) and macroalgae (25%) (Figure 9). Live coral cover represented only an average of 2.2% cover with assessed sites ranging from a low of 1% to a high of 10%. Nine different coral genera were observed at Picnic Bay dominated by bushy or massive growth forms (Figure 10).

Figure 9. Assessed benthos at Picnic Bay from 12 RHIS surveys conducted on either side of the jetty in 0.5m to 3.0m depth (left) and the summary average for the site (right).

Figure 10. Corals present at underwater sites at Picnic Bay. Images of corals from diverse genera (left to right) a) Acropora, b) Montipora sp, c) Favia sp, d) Hydnophora sp, e) Lobophyllia sp, f) Turbinaria sp, g) Porites sp, h) Acropora sp i) Porites sp. 10

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Field assessment of water visibility at four locations in Magnetic Island showed that Picnic Bay has an average of 2-3m water visibility from January to March (Figure 11). This is consistently lower than Geoffrey Bay and Florence Bay, with water visibility of 5-8m (Figure 11). Long-term water visibility records from dive logs are not available for Picnic Bay since it is not a popular dive site.

Figure 11. Water visibility in metres across 4 sites at Magnetic Island on four dates in 2021 (n=12).

7. Discussion and recommendations

Coral cover on Magnetic Island’s fringing reefs has been relatively stable for the past 15 years, while the macroalgal cover has varied from 5 to 37% (Thompson et al. 2016). Anecdotal evidence suggests that Magnetic Island was once subject to significantly higher levels of water clarity, and coral reefs around Magnetic Island have, in the past, supported high coral cover, despite high turbidity. Shallow reef flats and reef slopes of Magnetic Island have always been subject to Sargassum stands, but mid and outer-shelf reefs are generally coral-dominated. Sargassum populations in Magnetic Island were observed to have seasonal variations with dense stands in warmer months and persist as basal algae during cooler months (Vuki and Price, 1994). Our research indicates that the average cover of Sargassum at Nelly Bay in 2016 was 30% and in 2017 was 53%, an apparent increase of 23%. The

11

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART average cover of macroalgae at Arthur Bay increased slightly from 45% to 46%; however, the average coral cover declined from 26 to 7% (Reef Ecologic 2017).

Figure 12. Healthy coral seascapes near the snorkel trail at Geoffrey Bay (left) and giant clams (right) make for an enjoyable snorkel experience.

The fringing reef at Geoffrey Bay offshore from proposed MOUA sites houses a snorkel trail and is home to healthy coral reef. It also has picturesque seascapes and several large giant clams (Figure 4). Long-term monitoring data from Reef Check Australia shows that Geoffrey Bay has an average of 40% coral cover in 2007 and over 55% in 2020, dominated by encrusting and foliose corals (Andrews et al. 2008, Cook et al. 2020). This is significantly higher than the <10% average coral cover observed near Picnic Bay jetty in 2007 (Andrews et al. 2008) and 2020. Corals at Geoffrey Bay reef flat are mostly encrusting and foliose, while reef slopes are dominated by table Acropora species (Bull, 1982). Our RHIS assessment results are consistent with previous literature showing higher coral cover in Geoffrey Bay than Picnic Bay. RHIS 7-14 conducted on sandy patches near the snorkeling trail at Geoffrey Bay offer potential locations for underwater art with minimal to no impact on the environment. Underwater art does not intend to be a standalone underwater attraction. The proposed artworks are designed to link nature, art and culture, and to add value to the natural beautiful reefs and existing attractions such as the snorkeling trail and Molte Wreck at Geoffrey Bay. Protection from fishing also provides an additional advantage for Geoffrey Bay, reducing potential interaction between swimmers and sharks. Our surveys indicate that Geoffrey Bay has consistently higher water visibility than Picnic Bay. This correlates with the long-term monitoring data from AIMS Secchi disk surveys showing an average of 4.5m water visibility in Nelly and Geoffrey Bay and 2.5m at Picnic Bay. Water visibility is an

12

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART important factor in site selection for underwater art. Poor visibility significantly affects visitor experience and appreciation of the site. Underwater visibility is measured in metres, and for inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef, the water visibility is generally much less than the outer Great Barrier Reef. Low visibility is regarded as a higher safety risk for snorkel activities. We anticipate that 5m water visibility will be adequate but that less than 3m visibility will not be suitable to view sculptures by snorkelers. See examples below of different horizontal underwater visibility at Magnetic Island.

Figure 13. Comparison of variable horizontal underwater visibility at Magnetic Island at 2-3m (left), 5-6m (middle) and 8-10m (right). Note that the water depth in these photos is 1.5-3m and this was a maximum depth for snorkelers participating in Reef Recovery activities.

During the past three years several sites in the intertidal and subtidal at Magnetic Island were assessed as the artist, MOUA Board and community considered intertidal and subtidal sculpture concepts (Appendix 4). Early intertidal sculpture concepts (Figure 13, Appendix 4) were not progressed due to community feedback, potential impacts on birds, potential impacts on visual amenity and preference for underwater sculptures.

13

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Figure 14. Concepts for intertidal sculptures that were considered but not progressed

This site assessment of Magnetic Island complements site assessments of Palm Island (Reef Ecologic 2019) and John Brewer Reef (Reef Ecologic 2018, 2020) and provides scientific information about the depth, water visibility, substrate, coral and algae communities. This report will be useful for the proposed community consultation on potential locations of underwater sculptures at Magnetic Island.

8. References

Andrews, Z., L. Hartley, J. Hill. (2008). Status of Reefs Around Magnetic Island: 2003-2007. Reef Check Australia.

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/data/data.html

Best of Magnetic (2021). Snorkeling and diving on Magnetic Island. https://www.bestofmagnetic.com/magnetic-island-things-to-do/arcadia/snorkeling-diving- magnetic-island

14

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Cook, N., J. Calcraft, A. Songcuan, A. Dean, R. Levin, J. Saper, K. Cook. A. Brown, I. Naschwitz, T. Alajo, E. Pratt, E. Gregory, B. Scrivener, A. Moran J. Schubert and J. Salmond (2020) Reef Check Australia Great Barrier Reef Season Summary Report 2019-2020. Reef Check Foundation Ltd.

Magnetic island Nature Care (2021). Life in the Ocean around Magnetic Island http://www.minca.org/ocean.html

North Queensland Underwater Explorers Club (2021). Dive Sites- Magnetic island. http://nquec.org.au/dive-sites-magnetic-island

Reef Check Australia (2020). Magnetic island Season Summary Report 2019 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rca/pages/105/attachments/original/1586754050/Magneti c_Island_Summary_Report_2019_Final_%28Updated_Picture%29.pdf?1586754050

Reef Ecologic (2017). Standard Operational Procedure-Reef Recovery Removal of macroalgae for reef recovery-Magnetic Island. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314347194_Standard_Operational_Procedure- Reef_Recovery_Removal_of_macroalgae_for_reef_recovery-Magnetic_Island

Reef Ecologic (2018). Site assessment of John Brewer Reef for a proposed Museum of Underwater Art (MoUA), Townsville. Authored by A Smith, P Marshall and N Cook. 20 pages.

Reef Ecologic (2019). 2019 Site Assessment of Palm Island for a proposed Museum of Underwater Art (MoUA). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339301627_2019_Site_Assessment_of_Palm_Island_for _a_proposed_Museum_of_Underwater_Art_MoU

Reef Ecologic (2020). 2020 post installation site assessment and monitoring of Coral Greenhouse, John Brewer Reef, Townsville. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343268856_2020_post_installation_site_assessment_an d_monitoring_of_Coral_greenhouse_John_Brewer_Reef_Townsville

Sealink Queensland (2021). Snorkelling magnetic island. https://www.sealinkqld.com.au/magnetic- island/magnetic-island-snorkel-trails

Thompson, A., P. Costello, J. Davidson, M. Logan, G. Coleman, K. Gunn, and B. Schaffelke. 2016. Marine Monitoring Program. Annual Report for inshore coral reef monitoring: 2014 to 2015. Report for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.133 pp.

15

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

9. Appendices

Appendix 1. Details of site assessments at Geoffrey Bay, Magnetic Islands. Site Description Label Depth Habitat Latitude Longitude (m) Geoffrey Bay Moorings Public Mooring 3.7 Corals -19.15476 146.86847 Geoffrey Bay Snorkel Trail Buoys ST 4 2.2 Corals -19.15444 146.86867 Geoffrey Bay Snorkel Trail Buoys ST 3 1.9 Corals -19.15396 146.86880 Geoffrey Bay Snorkel Trail Buoys ST 2 1.4 Corals -19.15375 146.86853 Geoffrey Bay Snorkel Trail Buoys ST 1 1.1 Corals -19.15329 146.86829 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 3 0.6 Rubble -19.15269 146.86787 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 2 0.4 Rubble -19.15257 146.86784 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 1 0.2 Rubble/ -19.15243 146.86780 Rock Geoffrey Bay Pylon Pylon 0.0 Sand -19.15149 146.86748 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 0 0.0 Sand -19.15129 146.86739 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 5 0.2 Rubble -19.15250 146.86801 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 4 0.2 Rubble/ -19.15258 146.86766 Sand Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 7 1.0 Rubble -19.15280 146.86798 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 8 1.0 Rubble -19.15269 146.86813 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 6 1.1 Rubble/ -19.15283 146.86778 Coral Rock Geoffrey Bay Existing features Barge ramp 2.5 Sand -19.15289 146.86910 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 11 1.5 Coral/ -19.15322 146.86862 Rubble/ Sand Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 13 1.1 Coral/ -19.15352 146.86790 Rubble/ Sand Geoffrey Bay Molte Wreck Molte Wreck 0.5 Wreck -19.15477 146.86870 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 9 3.1 Sand -19.15330 146.86937 Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 10 3.2 Sand/ -19.15315 146.86893 Slope Geoffrey Bay MOUA Site Scoping GB 12 2.2 Sand -19.15327 146.86867 Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 1 2 Sand/C -19.1538 146.8686 Survey orals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 2 2 Corals -19.154 146.8688 Survey

16

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 3 3 Corals -19.1545 146.8686 Survey

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 4 2 Corals -19.1543 146.8682 Survey

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 5 2 Corals -19.1544 146.8678 Survey

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 6 2 Sand/ -19.1546 146.8674 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 7 1.5 Sand/ -19.1533 146.8684 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 8 1.5 Sand/ -19.1533 146.8682 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 9 2 Sand/ -19.1538 146.8685 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 10 2.5 Sand/ -19.1539 146.8685 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 11 3.5 Sand/ -19.154 146.8688 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 12 3.8 Sand/ -19.154 146.8687 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 13 3.8 Sand/ -19.1544 146.8686 Survey Corals

Geoffrey Bay Reef Health Impact RHIS 14 4 Sand/ -19.1545 146.8686 Survey Corals

Appendix 2. Details of site assessments at Picnic Bay, Magnetic Islands. Site Description Label Depth (m) Latitude Longitude Picnic Bay Reef Protection Marker RPM 1 2.7 -19.18159 146.84352 Picnic Bay Reef Protection Marker RPM 2 2.5 -19.18145 146.84172 Picnic Bay Reef Protection Marker RPM 3 2.6 -19.18143 146.84021 Picnic Bay Existing features Jetty 4.0 -19.18189 146.83894 Picnic Bay Existing features Stinger Net 1 1.1 -19.18120 146.83823 Picnic Bay Existing features Stinger Net 2 2.0 -19.18159 146.83777 Picnic Bay Existing features Boat Ramp 0.7 -19.18059 146.83816 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 1 1.3 -19.18100 146.83856 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 2 2.1 -19.18134 146.83871 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 3 2.2 -19.18126 146.83905 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 4 1.0 -19.18092 146.83885

17

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 5 0.7 -19.18075 146.83914 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 6 0.7 -19.18034 146.83990 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 7 0.4 -19.18030 146.84074 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 8 1.6 -19.18102 146.83943 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 9 1.1 -19.18074 146.84006 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 10 0.7 -19.18060 146.84087 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 11 0.7 -19.18054 146.84129 Picnic Bay Reef Health Impact Survey PB 12 0.4 -19.18027 146.84122

18

SITE ASSESSMENT OF MAGNETIC ISLAND FOR PROPOSED MUSEUM OF UNDERWATER ART

Appendix 3. Mosaic drone photo of Geoffrey Bay with MOUA site scoping coordinates.

19

Appendix 4. MOUA Phase 3: Yunbenun, Magnetic Island sculpture concepts from Jason deCaires Taylor

SITE EVALUATION Potential Sites Magnetic Island

SITE 1.1 Geoffrey Bay

SITE 1.2 Picnic Bay SITE EVALUATION: SITE 1.2, Magnetic Island, Picnic Bay

Visibility: 5/10 Poor 2-7m GPS:

Reef Biomass: 6/10 Average Substrate Level: 5/10 Average

Depth: 0 - 6 meters Art Asthetics: 7/10 Average

Access: 8/10 Excellent Logistics Accessibility: 6/10

Storm Exposure 7/10 Medium Periodic Typhoons Community Engagement: 7/10

AnchoringSubstrate 5/10 Reef/ Rock/ Coral sand

SUMMARY

Shallow water fringing reef situated on southern leeward side of Magnetic island. Accessed via beach/boat. Pre existing terminal for island ferry.

Advantages - Excellent opportunities for inter tidal, above water works. - Ideal access - Existing Snorkel trail - Easier Permitting

Disadvantages - Average/low visibility - Swimming restrictions during Jelly fish season - Open fetch of sea, potential for storm surge - Uneven substrates at deeper areas SITE EVALUATION: SITE 2.2, Magnetic Island, Geoffrey Bay

Visibility: 5/10 3-8m GPS: -19.15311 146.868438

Reef Biomass: 5/10 Low Substrate Level: 5/10

Depth: 0 - 6 meters Art Asthetics: 8/10

Access: 8/10 Excellent Logistics Accessibility: 7/10

Storm Exposure 8/10 Medium Periodic Typhoons Community Engagement: 8/10

AnchoringSubstrate: 5/10 Reef/ Rock/ Coral sand

SUMMARY

Shallow water fringing reef enclosed by headland on southern leeward side of Magnetic island. Accessed via beach/boat and concrete jetty. Pre existing snorkel trail and large stretch of flat stable sand

Advantages - Excellent opportunities for inter tidal, above water works. - Ideal access - Opportunity to remove/upgrade disused facilities - Flat Substrate and large expanse for multiple works spread over large area - Existing Snorkel trail - High level of protection offered by headland

Disadvantages - Complex permitting - Low/average visibility - Shallow Reefs potentially complicated installations MARINE SCIENCE WALK SILOUETTES 1.5 MARINE SCIENCE WALK 1.5 MARINE SCIENCE WALK SILOUETTES Placed along the intertidal shore line a series of 6-8 large scale portraits of famous local and international marine scientists would be placed in a linear tour towards the fringing reefs.

Each sculpture would tell the story of reef science in the region both modern and traditional methods. A flat surface on one side of the portrait would recount the history of magnetic Island as a home for marine science and a biography of each of the scientists.

The works could be accessed either by a walk along the foreshore or by snorkelling.

Placed in the tidal zone varying degrees of colonisation will occur, from barnacles in the upper area, down to oysters, algae and corals in the lower regions.

The cut out silhouette of the sculpture would aim to connect land, sky, water and the human imagination. ALTERNATIVE PORTRAIT STYLE OF SCIENTIST ALTERNATIVE PORTRAIT STYLE OF SCIENTIST OCEAN PINNACLE (2)

Placed on the edge of the fringing reef to signal the existence of a snorkel trail a series of large scale sculptures surging up out of the ocean, a visible landmark beckoning visitors to explore the underwater realm.

The anthropomorphic forms combines a complex submerged structure for marine life to inhabit whilst providing a strong and stable platform to resist adverse weather conditions. The pinnacle aims to reference Australia’s famous coral pinnacles on the outer reefs. Roots provide a connection to the sea, symbolising a return to where we came from.

Mangrove trees are fundamental for the protection and development of reef ecosystems. Mangrove swamps defend the coast from erosion, reduce wave surge during storms and help to create suitable conditions for life in brackish waters.

Each works would be 4-5m high and each weigh between 30-50 ton in sections. 1.1 MANGROVE MAN 1 . 2

MANGROVE

MAN COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Over the past 3 year a series of community consultations have taken place on Magnetic Island. These have including a variety of stake holders and local residents.

A range of concept design have been shown to the community and feedback received. The designs set out in this document are the most popular designed presented so far. The process is ongoing.

View publication stats