Reef Ball updates. MBMP

[Lucky_Phill]

FISHING spots for Redland anglers have been extended after more than 224 concrete reef balls were tipped into waters off Peel and Coochiemudlo islands today.

(http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/advertise/)

A Stradbroke Ferries barge spent all day loading, transporting and then dropping the balls in to waters about 3Nm west of Peel Island and at the East Coochie Reef.
There are 11 reef ball clusters to the north-west of Peel Island and seven clusters off Coochiemudlo’s eastern shores.


A large crane hoisted the 600kg balls off the barge deck before they were lowered 14.5m into the water to settle on the seabed.


Today’s operation was to top-up Peel Island's existing reef with 128 extra concrete balls and add 96 to Coochie reef's existing 78 balls.


There are four other artificial reefs in the Moreton Bay Marine Park.


The North Moreton Artificial Reef, built in 2011, is about 3Nm off the northern tip of Moreton Island and was made of 25 fish boxes at a depth of 14m and is deep enough for spearfishermen.


Others are at Wild Banks, about 12Nm east of Bribie Island; the Harry Atkinson Artificial Reef, about 12Nm west of Amity Point and the South Stradbroke Artificial Reef, made of 20 concrete cubes covering 208ha at 23m to attract reef and larger pelagic fish.




cheers LP

[tunaticer]

I still reckon they should have whacked a string of arties in 8-10m of water about 2.5-3km out off Shorncliffe to Redcliffe to Skirmish point. Even if they are only 1 reef ball wide and 30 metres apart, they will become fish highways and refuges for bait. would also act as a permanent underwater fence to keep the trawlers away from the coast.

[Lucky_Phill]

Yes Jack.

We have not stopped in our efforts to get more artis underway.

LP

[Triple]

Have they released the gps marks for the new balls yet?

[Lucky_Phill]

Have they released the gps marks for the new balls yet?

I can't find the co-ords on the website, but the Redland Times nedwspaper will have them in Fridays edition.

I'll get onto DAFF.

[solemandownunder]

Phill....where is the South Stradbroke Artificial Reef, made of 20 concrete cubes covering 208ha at 23m to attract reef and larger pelagic fish ?

Thanks, Ray.

[Lucky_Phill]

All information is here:-

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/parks/moreton-bay/zoning/trial_artificial_reef_program.html

click on the South Stradbroke PDF for gps co-ords

LP

[Gazza]

is a reefball an economic or limiting factor...??...due to unit cost to deploy?
or an 'industry green solution'....??.. i.e. precluding cheaper solutions

[Lucky_Phill]

is a reefball an economic or limiting factor...??...due to unit cost to deploy?
or an 'industry green solution'....??.. i.e. precluding cheaper solutions

Sorry Gazza, no idea what you asked. :-? :-? :-?

I'll have a crack at it though. 8-)

Reefballs ( specific marine concrete blend ) are primairly used in shallow waters. They are inexpensive to produce.

The major economic factor in all artificial reefs programs is " deployment ".

An industry green solution is to utilise " materials of opportunity "... ie:- existing suitable materials that are donated by landbased industry.

The most expensive artie's are " ships "....... which in our working group discovered gets you bugger all " bang for buck ".

The ultimate material is bare steel due to it's ability to attract plant life in a very short space of time.

Purpose built steel structures offer the best practice solution to deep waters.

At all times many factors contribute to the artificial reef design, construction, materials and deployment. There is also a mountain of Government ( Federal and State and Local Council ) RED TAPE to get around, over and through. >:(

Hope that helps ?????

LP

[Mike Delisser]

I still reckon they should have whacked a string of arties in 8-10m of water about 2.5-3km out off Shorncliffe to Redcliffe to Skirmish point. Even if they are only 1 reef ball wide and 30 metres apart, they will become fish highways and refuges for bait. would also act as a permanent underwater fence to keep the trawlers away from the coast.

More southern bay shallow artis (which is good), but what about the off Redcliffe? We lost fishing spots to green zones too.

Perhaps the State member for Redcliffe could stick up for us. ::)

[Lucky_Phill]

Artificial Reefs do not necessarily have to be deployed in open water.

Things like Hervey Bays Urangan Peir are actually artificial reefs and so could be other " groins / rock walls ", that have their start on land and protrude into the briny.

The pipeline traversing the Seaway is also an Arti.

LP

[Nicko_Cairns]

Hi Phill,

As an interested onlooker from much further north, how did you start this project? Any tips?

Thanks mate,

Nick.

[Lucky_Phill]

Nick,

This project, IMO, was started and undertaken due to a couple of reasons.

First and only quantifiable one, being the then Labor Government were coping a flogging from the Rec Fishing industry in response to their Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning fiasco.

After protests by Rec Fishing Groups and losing a couple of seats and a minister, someone ( unknown which specific person ) promoted the idea of " dispersing recreational fishing presure " due to closures in relation to Green Zones, implimented within the MBMP.

The Government, through DERM sought out stakeholders, formed a working group and were allocated funds, initially $1 mill with NONE of those funds going to Government to " manage " the project. $1mill is pittance and that amount grew to $2 mill, but the Government syphoned off 10% for " management fees ".

The ship, Tiwi Pearl , cost nealry 200,000 smackers to drop into the bay, hence my sugestion that wrecks do not give us bang for buck as they need specific depths, deployment methods, cleaning etc and only cover a small seabed area. Probably good for divers, but that's it.

The Current Government have stashed $50 mill as part of the Marine Infrastructure Program and is earmarked for recreational activities / projects / programs. These funds are sitting there, waiting to be distributed to those that ask for them. There is criteria to be met and unfortunately, there is no organisation willing to or qualified, to submit a proposal to get funding for Artificial Reefs in Queensland.

Nick, if you'd like to get a hold of funding, I suggest you meet ( not email, call etc ), meet.... with your local LNP member and ask them the criteria needed to access this funding.

Tell them all management, design, construction and deployment data is established and at hand and you only need dollars.

Let's not forget we need part of that funding to be set aside for monitoring of all the artie's.

LP

[braders83]

Hi phil
Thanks for your very informative posts - much appreciated. Do you know where there are publicly available gps marks for the tiwi pearl? Are there any other largish ships that have been sunk as artis that are also publicly known?
Cheers phil.

[Lucky_Phill]

The link in post number 2 ( http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/parks/mo...f_program.html (http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/parks/moreton-bay/zoning/trial_artificial_reef_program.html) ) should have the marks, although I haven't checked, but Tiwi Pearl location is public record.

There are many wreck sites and most are public record.

Maybe in the " notice to mariners " Qld.... MSQ site. ????

Dive websites also have lots of listings for wrecks.

I also think if you do an " advanced Search " here on Ausfish, this subject may have been covered and data posted up.

Advanced Search icon at top right hand side of pages.

cheers

[Lucky_Phill]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-shipwrecks-expose-their-secrets-20111118-1nnd4.html


also on ausfish

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?64067-Ship-Wreck-locations-In-amp-Offshore-Moreton-Isl

[braders83]

Thanks phil really appreciate it. I'm from cockroach country and planning a trip to the bay second week of July. Might have a poke around some of these if I get the chance.

[Nicko_Cairns]

Ok gold thank you Phill,

I'll do exactly that, I emailed the Minister a couple of nights ago but will meet with my local rep. I guess you're helping me on the "all management, design, construction and deployment data is established and at hand?" :)

Mate I'll flick you a PM, think this needs a lot more discussion as I'll need to approach him with some ideas on the steel structures etc.. Thanks.

Cheers.


Nick,

This project, IMO, was started and undertaken due to a couple of reasons.

First and only quantifiable one, being the then Labor Government were coping a flogging from the Rec Fishing industry in response to their Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning fiasco.

After protests by Rec Fishing Groups and losing a couple of seats and a minister, someone ( unknown which specific person ) promoted the idea of " dispersing recreational fishing presure " due to closures in relation to Green Zones, implimented within the MBMP.

The Government, through DERM sought out stakeholders, formed a working group and were allocated funds, initially $1 mill with NONE of those funds going to Government to " manage " the project. $1mill is pittance and that amount grew to $2 mill, but the Government syphoned off 10% for " management fees ".

The ship, Tiwi Pearl , cost nealry 200,000 smackers to drop into the bay, hence my sugestion that wrecks do not give us bang for buck as they need specific depths, deployment methods, cleaning etc and only cover a small seabed area. Probably good for divers, but that's it.

The Current Government have stashed $50 mill as part of the Marine Infrastructure Program and is earmarked for recreational activities / projects / programs. These funds are sitting there, waiting to be distributed to those that ask for them. There is criteria to be met and unfortunately, there is no organisation willing to or qualified, to submit a proposal to get funding for Artificial Reefs in Queensland.

Nick, if you'd like to get a hold of funding, I suggest you meet ( not email, call etc ), meet.... with your local LNP member and ask them the criteria needed to access this funding.

Tell them all management, design, construction and deployment data is established and at hand and you only need dollars.

Let's not forget we need part of that funding to be set aside for monitoring of all the artie's.

LP

[Lucky_Phill]

Nick........ have emailed you.


cheers LP

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks phil really appreciate it. I'm from cockroach country and planning a trip to the bay second week of July. Might have a poke around some of these if I get the chance.


If you are heading out to Harry Atkinson arti and looking for the Tiwi Pearl, it will be under all the other fishing boats out there :-?

= popular place.


LP

[Moonlighter]

I'll just add a bit to Phill's comments about how the artificial reef program began as I have first hand knowledge of this matter.

As some of you may know, I was heavily involved with the main resistance group to the Moreton Bay Marine Park rezoning, which was the Moreton Bay Access Alliance. Ended up as deputy chairman to Bruce Alvey, and fronted many meetings, workshops and discussions with the Ministers, the EPA and stakeholders reference group members.

Spent a couple of years of my life fighting for recreational fishing interests in this debacle of a process. Along with some other very dedicated and committed people from the other sectors.

Because the MBAA for the first time presented the State Govt with a unified group representing the recreational, commercial, seafood retail and seafood lovers sectors, all lined up and united together take them on, it scared the bejesus out of them. Why? Simply, for once, their normal tactic of divide and conquer between the sectors wouldn't work. A lesson not to be forgotten.

When it became obvious to everyone that no matter what, the Labor Govt. of Captain Bligh was going to take somewhere up to 20% of the Bay in green zones, apart from doing our best by putting up and advocating hard for them to be put the areas which would have least impact on fishing, we also negotiated hard for compensation for the recreational sector.

Never before had the rec sector anywhere in Australia, or possibly the world, been able to get any kind of compensation for the loss of fishing areas to green zones. We succeeded in achieving that.

The compensation was agreed to be be in the form of artificial reefs. We secured a commitment from Bligh for them to fund the program of artis. This has subsequently been developed and expanded and rolled out with people like Phill stepping up into the advisory group.

Thats how it all started.

Cheers
Grant

[netmaker]

the first reef balls were only 800mm high and with sinkage and silting appear as only a tiny blip on the sounder. without the marks you wouldn't give them a second glance. 600kg balls sound a lot beefier. anyone got any idea of the size of them?

[Lucky_Phill]

Probably have photos in Fridays Redland Times ...Dave.

Maybe there is a media release on the NPWS website ?

Nope... nothing there... must have been Secret Squirell stuff.

http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/mediareleases/index.php



LP

[Mark Robinson MP]

More southern bay shallow artis (which is good), but what about the off Redcliffe? We lost fishing spots to green zones too.

Perhaps the State member for Redcliffe could stick up for us. ::)

Mike,
Try Member for Sandgate, Kerry Millard. I have raised this with her before. The marine infrastructure fund includes artis. A local consortium needs to put together a proposal. Eg rec fishing club

[Mark Robinson MP]

Hi Phill,

As an interested onlooker from much further north, how did you start this project? Any tips?

Thanks mate,

Nick.

Nick,
Try contacting Gavin King, LNP member for Cairns, Michael Trout, LNP member for Barron River or Curtis Pitt, ALP member for Mulgrave. A proposal needs to be put forward by a local consortium of rec fishers etc - to the marine infrastructure fund (TMR). Gavin King is on the Govt Tourism backbencher committee that is looking at rec fishing tourism. Hope that helps. Mark

[Mark Robinson MP]

the first reef balls were only 800mm high and with sinkage and silting appear as only a tiny blip on the sounder. without the marks you wouldn't give them a second glance. 600kg balls sound a lot beefier. anyone got any idea of the size of them?

Net maker,
The link has a photo gallery.
Mark

http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/story/1565168/gallery-reef-balls-hook-anglers-at-peel-and-coochie/?cs=212

[Si]

I still reckon they should have whacked a string of arties in 8-10m of water about 2.5-3km out off Shorncliffe to Redcliffe to Skirmish point. Even if they are only 1 reef ball wide and 30 metres apart, they will become fish highways and refuges for bait. would also act as a permanent underwater fence to keep the trawlers away from the coast.

you beat me to it Jack. I was just about to say that northern and nw bay seems to get overlooked for artis.

[TREVELLY]

Yep these would make a good trawler fence 93671

I understand red-tape and deployment are the biggest cost but these things could so easily be made by concrete batch plants with the waste they return to the depot with rather than dumping it.

[Moonlighter]

Actually Trev, while that sounds like a good idea, i understand that they are actually made out of a special concrete blend that attracts and supports marine growth. Not all concrete is suitable.

Like a lot of things, what looks simple on the surface has a fair bit more in the detail when you get into it.

Actually, here, i found a brochure for you all. Says they require special marine grade concrete free from toxic additives:

http://www.reefballaustralia.com.au/reef_ball_aust_2011.pdf

[Lucky_Phill]

Mark.

I have contacted the ministers office to get details on how to access funding.

So far you have said it requires.

Local consortium of rec fishers

Local fishing club

Fishing groups


I was of the understanding that any group / entity that wanted to apply for funding had to be a not-for-profit, registered organisation. I hope to hear back from DAFF and TPT soon with exact submission details.

Ausfish is a Fishing Group and a Consortium and a Club....... :) :) :)

cheers

[Gazza]

Actually Trev, while that sounds like a good idea, i understand that they are actually made out of a special concrete blend that attracts and supports marine growth. Not all concrete is suitable.

Like a lot of things, what looks simple on the surface has a fair bit more in the detail when you get into it.

Actually, here, i found a brochure for you all. Says they require special marine grade concrete free from toxic additives:

http://www.reefballaustralia.com.au/reef_ball_aust_2011.pdfI agree with Trev , no special expensive ingredient involved , that couldn't be added/or removed in the initial batch-mixing...
Moonlighter don't fall for the "special shit" needed crap ,and THANKYOU for your previous efforts 4 RecFishos

[manta man]

AH MR ROBINSON LOOKING FOR BROWNIE POINTS HEY MMM INTERESTING. Why has the Reef Deployment program started down there. MMM just coincidence it"s in your ELECTORATE.

[TREVELLY]

I would say that a concrete batching plant would have 99% of it's concrete non-toxic - I can only imagine the concrete could be toxic if you added things to it like plasticiser etc - which are generally not in usual concrete.

Yes most concrete is 25, 32 or 40MPa not the 60MPa they use - but as a reef ball you only need additional strength to lift it - once in place it is no advantage over 25MPa and yes the ball can be made to be easily lifted into place with a 25MPa mix.

I read the notes - sounds a bit over the top to me. You can be sure they don't write stuff like that for jetty, bridge pylons, piers etc.

As for making the outside rough - yes that is how it lands if you don't touch it with a trowel.

Anyway with my limited knowledge of 30 years in the industry and a structural engineer - I think they are nothing special really - just more expensive.

Thanks for posting it though - was a bit funny

[snapperdan]

Reefball australia seems to be a business that makes money off making reef balls for the govt and doing tenders for other countries. reefballs.org is a non profit that provides concrete molds for a small cost and the concrete recipe for free. reefball.org would have licensed reefball australia but i wonder if all projects downunder have to go through them. Here is the recipe for concrete and the reinforcements. They have many styles. With out a doubt i believe the bigger the ball the better.

Reefball.org has a suggested retail price when dealing with a contractor of $200 us per ball (for the same size ball deployed). QLD cost is $1086 aud per ball including deployment. Fair bit of profit margin there and alot of wiggle room for a non profit or fishing club to get involved and get funding from the govt and get some bang for the buck. As reefball.org is a non profit i doubt that they would care that another non profit is competing with a for profit contractor.
Concrete recipe

PART I - GENERAL

1.01 Section Includes

A. Concrete proportioning and products to be used to secure concrete, which when hardened will produce a required strength, permeability, and resistance to weathering in a reef environment.

1.04 References

A. ACI-211.191-Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete.
B. ASTM C 260- Standard Specifications for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete.
C. ASTM-C 1116 Type III- Standard Specifications for Fiber Reinforced Concrete or Shotcrete.
D. ACI - 305R -91- Hot Weather Concreting.
E. ACI - 306R -88- Cold Weather Concreting.
F. ACI - 308- Standard Practice for Curing Concrete.
G. ASTM C 618-Fly Ash For Use As A Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete.
H. ASTM C 494-92- Standard Specifications for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete.
I. ASTM C 1202-91- Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
J. ASTM C 33- Concrete Aggregates.
K. ASTM C 94- Ready Mix Concrete.
L. ASTM C 150-Portland Cement.
M. ACI 304- Recommended Practice For Measuring, Mixing, Transporting and Placing concrete.
N. ASTM C 39 (Standard Specifications For Compressive Testing)
O. ASTM C-1240-93 (Standard Specifications for Silica Fume Concrete)

PART II PRODUCTS

2.01 Portland Cement: Shall be Type II and conform to ASTM C-150

2.02 Fly Ash: Shall meet requirements of ASTM C-618, Type F. And must be proven to be non-toxic as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers General Artificial Reef Permits. Fly Ash is not permitted in the State of Georgia and in most Atlantic States. (In October, 1991, The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission adopted a resolution that opposes the use of fly ash in artificial reefs other than for experimental applications until the Army Corps of Engineers develop and adopt guidelines and standards for use.)

2.03 Water: Shall be potable and free from deleterious substances and shall not contain more that 1000 parts per million of chlorides or sulfates and shall not contain more than 5 parts per million of lead, copper or zinc salts and shall not contain more than 10 parts per million of phosphates.

2.04 Fine Aggregate: Shall be in compliance with ASTM C-33.

2.05 Coarse Aggregate: Shall be in compliance with ASTM C-33 #8 (pea gravel). (Up to 1 inch aggregate can be substituted with permission from the mold user.) Limestone aggregate is preferred if the finished modules are to be used in tropical waters.

2.06 Concrete Admixtures: Shall be in compliance with ASTM C-494.

2.07 Required Additives: The following additives shall be used in all concrete mix designs when producing the Reef Ball Development Group's product line:

A. High Range Water Reducer: Shall be ADVA Flow 120 or 140.

B. Silica Fume: Shall be Force 10,000 Densified in Concrete Ready Bags as manf. by W.R. Grace. (ASTM C-1240-93) or any of the permitted equivalent silica fume Brands as defined in the training manual Appendix K

C. Air-Entrainer: ONLY IF ADVA is not used: Shall be Darex II as manf. by W.R. Grace (ASTM C-260)

2.08 Optional Additives: The following additives may be used in concrete mix designs when producing Reef Ball Development's product line.

A. Fibers. Shall be either Microfibers as manf. by W.R. Grace, or Fibermesh Fibers (1 1/2 inches or longer) as manf. by Fibermesh. EitherNovember 1, 2007ators: Any Non- Calcium Chloride or Daracell as manf. by W.R. Grace may be used. (ASTM C-494 Type C or E)

C. Retarders: Shall be in compliance with ASTM-C-494-Type D as in Daratard 17 manf. by W.R. Grace

2.09 Prohibited Admixtures: All other admixtures are prohibited. Other admixtures can be submitted for approval by the Reef Ball Foundation Inc. Services Division by sending enough sample to produce five yards of concrete, the current MSDS, and chemical composition (which will be kept confidential by RBDG Ltd.) A testing fee of $2,500 must accompany the sample. Temporary approval will be granted or denied within 10 days based on chemical composition, but final approval may take up to 3 months since samples must be introduced in a controlled aquarium environment to assess impacts on marine and freshwater species.

PART III Concrete Proportioning:

A. General: The intent of the following proportions is to secure concrete of homogeneous structure which will have required strength and resistance to weathering.

B. Proportions:



One Cubic Yard

One Cubic Meter

Cement:

600 lbs. (Min.)

356 kg

Aggregate:

1800 lbs.

1068 kg

Sand:

1160 lbs

688 kg

Water:

240 1bs. (Max.)

142 kg

Force 10K:

50 lbs

30 kg

Grace Microfibers

.25 bag

.3 bag

*Adva Flow 120 or

Adva Flow 140

3.5-5 ounces per 100 lbs cement
or
6-10 ounces per 100 lbs cement

1

*NOTE: Adjust Adva dosage as needed to obtain workable, placeable mix (170-250mm / 7-10 inch slump), and to achieve .40 w/c ratio.

Fibers: 0-3# (Max.) as needed to reduce micro cracking 1# (Min.) required if Silica Fume exceeds 50#

Accelerator: As needed to achieve de-molding no sooner than: 3-4 hours for heavy duty molds (All Polyform side balls) 6-7 hours for standard molds (Molds with any tether balls)



NOTE: Silica Fume or Force 10K shall be dosed at a 10# minimum in Bay Balls and Pallet Balls while Ultra & Reef Balls shall require a minimum of 25#. All molds must use at least 50# for floating deployments. All mold sizes must use at least 50# for use in tropical waters unless special curing procedures are followed.* This product is being specified not only for strength, but also to reduce pH to spur coral growth, to reduce calcium hydroxide, and to increase sulfate resistance. It is a non-toxic pozzalan.

* Special curing procedures for tropical waters without 50# of Silica Fume per yard should include storage in a fresh water or high humidity environment for a minimum of 60 days or less with higher temperatures, or until the surface pH of the modules is below 9.5 pH when placed in seawater.

NOTE: End of day concrete may be used, but follow these additional requirements.

-Do not use concrete that has a temperature of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit -The original mix must have been at least 3,500 PSI -50# of added microsilica or more is required unless microsilica at that dose was already in the starting mix -Add additional Portland if needed to achieve a .4 w/c ratio. Take into account water added on site -Advise mold user to allow extra time for curing to achieve minimum de-molding strength. -Mold or module user must be notified that EOD waste was used.

NOTE: Fly Ash, when permitted, may be used as a substitution for cement up to a maximum replacement of 15% and as an additional substitute for microsilica at 30% to 40% of cementitious material. (Call RBDG for details.)

Part IV Concrete Testing Requirements:

A. Compressive strengths shall be tested in accordance with ASTM C 39. Compressive strengths shall reach a minimum of the following table at the time of use of at least:





Super/Ultra/Reef Ball

Pallet Ball

Bay Ball and all smaller sizes

Floating Deployment

8,500+

7,000+

6,000+

Barge Deployment

7,000+

5,500+

4,000+

To remove from mold

750+

750+

750+

To lift from base

1,500+

1,200+

1,000+

B. Permeability of concrete shall be tested in accordance with ASTM C 1202-91. Coulomb requirement shall be 2500 coulombs or less at 90 days. End of day waste shall be 3000 coulombs or less at 90 days.

THIS SPECIFICATION SHEET IS ONLY A SAMPLE. CONTACT RBDG FOR CUSTOM SPECIFICATIONS.

Minimum Standards for Reef Ball Foundation Authorized Contractors
1) All deployments made by authorized contractors must have at least 90% of modules upright and intact or they must supply free deployed replacement to purchaser. This is REGARDLESS of what the customer says is acceptable.

2) All new construction after Jan. 1, 1998 must use ADVA Flow superplastisizer rather than WRD-19, Reduce the amount of air entrainment by 35-50% so that entrainment remains at 6% +/- 2%. (This will not impact your costs).

2a) All new construction after July 2002 must have Attachment Adapter Plug system installed and at least 50% of the recommended number of attachment adapters for the particular sized Reef Ball must be usable.

3) All Reef Balls must be constructed with a "wavy" bottom formed by adding sand in the mold before inserting center bladder.

4) The rinsing of the outside layer of concrete is not optional to expose the surface texture due to the pH rise on the surface of the poorly set concrete. (If rinsing is impractical, use a non-oil based biodegradable mold-releasing compound instead of sugar water. Increase air entrainment to 8% and do not tap the concrete into the mold heavily to create as much "honeycombing" as you can.)

5) The following are MINIMUM guidelines for microsilica use, primarily for pH reduction. Again, these are REGARDLESS of what the customer says is acceptable.

Hard Corralled Waters (Florida border & south on East Coast, Hernando County and south on Gulf.) (Anywhere near the Flower Gardens of Texas, anywhere near Grey's Reef in SC)

Deployed less than 45 days from casting = 50 lbs/yard
Deployed > 45 days < 90 days from casting = 45 lbs/yard
Deployed > 91 days < 120 days from casting = 40 lbs/yard
Deployed > 121 days < 150 days from casting = 35 lbs/yard
Deployed > 151 days < 180 days from casting = 30 lbs/yard
Deployed > 181 days < 210 days from casting = 25 lbs/yard
Deployed > 211 days < 240 days from casting = 20 lbs/yard
Deployed > 240 from casting = 15 lbs/yard

Temperate / Cool Waters (North of above & all of West Coast)

Deployed less than 29 days from casting = 50 lbs/yard
Deployed > 30 days < 90 days from casting = 30 lbs/yard
Deployed > 91 days < 120 days from casting = 25 lbs/yard
Deployed > 121 days < 150 days from casting = 20 lbs/yard
Deployed > 151 days < 180 days from casting = 15 lbs/yard
Deployed > 181 days < 210 days from casting = 10 lbs/yard
Deployed > 211 days < 240 days from casting = 5 lbs/yard
Deployed > 240 from casting = not required

6) End of day waste still requires full 50 lbs/yard of Mircosilica regardless of location/time

7) All other proprietary standards, including an approved mix design must be upheld.





FIbermess Product Guide Specifications
SI Concrete Systems
4019 Industry Drive
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416
Toll Free (800) 621-1273
Phone (423) 892-8080
Fax (423) 892-0157
Website www.siconcretesystems.com
E-mail fibermesh@sind.com

Specifier Notes: This product guide specification is written according to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 3-Part Format as described in The Project Resource Manual—CSI Manual of Practice. The section must be carefully reviewed and edited by the Architect or Engineer to meet the requirements of the project and local building code. Coordinate this section with other specification sections and the Drawings. Delete all “Specifier Notes” when editing this section.

Section numbers are from MasterFormat 1995 Edition, with numbers from MasterFormat 2004 Edition in parentheses. Delete version not required.



SECTION 03240 (03 24 00)

SYNTHETIC FIBER REINFORCEMENT



Specifier Notes: This section covers SI Concrete Systems Fibermesh® 150 polypropylene fibers for use as concrete secondary reinforcement. Consult SI Concrete Systems for assistance in editing this section for the specific application.



PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Polypropylene fibers used as concrete secondary reinforcement.

1.2 RELATED SECTIONS

Specifier Notes: Edit the following list of related sections as required for the project. List other sections with work directly related to this section.

A. Section 02750 (32 13 00) - Rigid Paving.

B. Section 03210 (03 21 00) - Reinforcing Steel.

C. Section 03300 (03 30 00) - Cast-in-Place Concrete.

D. Section 03370 (03 37 13) - Shotcrete.

E. Section 03500 (03 50 00) - Cementitious Decks and Toppings.

1.3 REFERENCES

Specifier Notes: List standards referenced in this section, complete with designations and titles. This article does not require compliance with standards, but is merely a listing of those used.

A. ASTM C 94 - Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete.

B. ASTM C 1116 - Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete.

C. Southwest Certification Services (SWCS), Omega Point Laboratories No. 8662-1.

D. UL Report File No. R8534-11.

1.4 SUBMITTALS

A. Comply with Section 01330 (01 33 00) - Submittal Procedures.

B. Product Data: Submit manufacturer’s product data, including application rate and mixing instructions.

Specifier Notes: Delete samples if not required.

C. Samples: Submit manufacturer’s sample of synthetic fiber reinforcement.

D. Manufacturer’s Certification:
1. Submit manufacturer’s certification that synthetic fiber reinforcement complies with specified requirements.
2. Submit evidence of manufacturer’s ISO 9001:2000 certification.
3. Submit evidence of satisfactory performance history of synthetic fiber reinforcement.

1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE

A. Manufacturer’s Qualifications:
1. Synthetic fiber reinforcement manufactured in ISO 9001:2000 certified facility.
2. Minimum 10-year satisfactory performance history of specified synthetic fiber reinforcement.

1.6 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING

A. Delivery: Deliver synthetic fiber reinforcement in manufacturer’s original, unopened, undamaged containers and packaging, with labels clearly identifying product name, unique identification number, code approvals, directions for use, manufacturer, and weight of fibers.

B. Storage:
1. Store synthetic fiber reinforcement in clean, dry area indoors in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.
2. Keep packaging sealed until ready for use.

C. Handling: Protect synthetic fiber reinforcement during handling to prevent contamination.



PART 2 PRODUCTS

2.1 MANUFACTURER

A. SI Concrete Systems, 4019 Industry Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416. Toll Free (800) 621-1273. Phone (423) 892-8080. Fax (423) 892-0157. Website www.siconcretesystems.com. E-mail fibermesh@sind.com.

2.2 SYNTHETIC FIBER REINFORCEMENT

A. Synthetic Fiber Reinforcement: Fibermesh 150.
1. Material: 100 percent virgin homopolymer polypropylene multifilament fibers, containing no reprocessed olefin materials.
2. Conformance: ASTM C 1116, Type III.
3. Fire Classifications:
a. UL Report File No. R8534-11.
b. Southwest Certification Services (SWCS), Omega Point Laboratories No. 8662-1.

Specifier Notes: Specify graded or single-cut lengths.

4. Fiber Length: [Graded] [Single-cut lengths].
5. Alkali Resistance: Alkali proof.
6. Absorption: Nil.
7. Specific Gravity: 0.91.
8. Melt Point: 324 degrees F (162 degrees C).



PART 3 EXECUTION

3.1 MIXING

A. Add synthetic fiber reinforcement to concrete mixture in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

B. Add synthetic fiber reinforcement into concrete mixer before, during, or after batching other concrete materials.

Specifier Notes: Lower application rates may be acceptable depending upon local building codes. Consult SI Concrete Systems for more information.

C. Application Rate: Add synthetic fiber reinforcement at standard application rate of 1.5 pounds per cubic yard (0.90 kg/m3) of concrete.

D. Mix synthetic fiber reinforcement in concrete mixer in accordance with mixing time and speed of ASTM C 94 to ensure uniform distribution and random orientation of fibers throughout concrete.

Force 10,000 Specifications (Microsilica)
Concrete Products
Technical Guide Specification
Microsilica Concrete
SECTION 03320
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.01 SUMMARY
A. This section specifies microsilica (silica fume) admixture for the reduction of concrete permeability to protect against intrusion by chlorides and other aggressive chemicals, and for the production of high-strength concrete.
B. Related Sections: Other specification sections which directly relate to the work of this Section include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Section 03300 - Cast-In-Place Concrete.
2. Section 03365 - Post-Tensioned Concrete.
3. Section 03400 - Precast Concrete.
1.02 SUBMITTALS
A. Product Data: Submit manufacturer’s product data, installation instructions, use limitations and recommendations for each material.
B. Test and Performance Data: Submit independent test data substantiating the product’s ability to reduce concrete permeability by chlorides and other aggressive chemicals.
1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Manufacturer: Concrete admixture shall be manufactured by a firm with a minimum of 5 years experience in the production of similar products. Manufacturers proposed for use but not named in these specifications shall submit evidence of ability to meet all requirements specified, and include a list of projects of similar design and complexity completed within the past five years.
B. Materials: For each type of material required for the work of this Section, provide primary materials which are the products of one manufacturer.
C. Pre-Construction Conference: A pre-construction conference shall be held two weeks prior to commencement of field operations to install the specified product in order to establish procedures to maintain optimum working conditions and to coordinate this work with related and adjacent work. Agenda for meeting shall include concrete and admixture handling, placing, finishing, and curing.
D. Manufacturer’s Representative: A representative of the manufacturer shall be present for project start-up during initial concrete placement. Engineer may waive requirement for manufacturer’s representative if Contractor provides sufficient evidence that producer and finisher have adequate experience with admixtures required.
E. Trial Mix: Provide a minimum 4 cubic yard (3 m3) trial mix containing proposed concrete design mix placed at the job site in location acceptable to the Engineer. Engineer may waive requirement for trial mix if Contractor provides sufficient evidence that producer and finisher have adequate experience with low water cement ratio mixes.
1.04 PROJECT CONDITIONS
A. Perform work only when existing and forecasted weather conditions are within the limits established by the manufacturer of the materials and products used.
PART 2 - PRODUCTS
2.01 MANUFACTURER
A. Provide Force 10,000® microsilica concrete admixtures by Grace Construction Products meeting specified requirements. For customer service in North America:
Call toll free: 877-4AD-MIX1 (877-423-6491)
Fax toll free: 877-4AD-MIX2 (877-423-6492)
2.02 MATERIALS
A. Microsilica Admixture: Provide Force 10,000 concrete admixture by Grace Construction Products complying with ASTM C 1240.
2.03 CONCRETE MIXES
A. Application Rate:
NTS This section may be used for concrete permeability requirements or high-strength concrete. Application rate (dosage rate) of microsilica may vary depending on individual project requirements. Application rates may be stated in dry pounds per cubic yard, percent of weight of cement, or as required to meet a performance criteria. Typical application rates for low permeability concrete varies from 30 to 60 lbs/cy. Specifier should use only one of the three sections which follow for A. Application Rate.

NTS Force 10,000 Sample Specification For Permeability Requirements
This sample specification may be used by the design engineer when specifying Force 10,000 microsilica for the reduction of concrete permeability to protect against intrusion by chlorides or other aggressive chemicals. Force 10,000 is a microsilica-based admixture manufactured by Grace Construction Products of W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn.
The high silicon dioxide content of microsilica combines with the excess calcium hydroxide in the concrete to form more calcium silicate hydrate “glue.” This chemical reaction plus its fine particle size allows Force 10,000 to fill in the voids between the cement grains and aggregate to deliver less permeable concrete. When chlorides migrate through the concrete and attack the steel reinforcing, corrosion occurs. By reducing the permeability of the concrete, chlorides take much longer to reach the steel which extends the service life of the structure considerably. Chlorides are typically present from deicing salts or from a marine environment. Structure applications of Force 10,000 include parking garages, bridge decks and overlays, reinforced pavements, and all structures in a marine environment. Structural concrete design criteria shall follow ACI 318, 357 and 201 guidelines. Parameters used in this sample specification, such as water/cementitious ratio and concrete cover over reinforcing steel, are taken from these guidelines and are conservative values.
There are two ways to specify microsilica concrete for permeability requirements: by prescription or by performance. The prescription method mandates the number of pounds of microsilica per cubic yard to be used while the performance method uses ASTM C 1202 test method to measure “coulombs.” Please use one method (prescription or performance) but not both. If the “performance method” is the preferred choice, use ASTM C1202 for mix design purposes only, not as a mix acceptance or rejection criteria during the construction phase. Since the chloride’s loading rate and final concrete quality are unknown factors, W. R. Grace cannot guarantee the longevity of the protection offered by Force 10,000. Quality concrete as recommended by ACI and the addition of Force 10,000 will slow the ingress of chlorides into the concrete. Neither quality concrete nor Force 10,000 will stop corrosion forever, but both will retard the onset of corrosion.
Prescription Method
1. Provide microsilica admixture Force 10,000 as manufactured by Grace Construction Products.
2. Microsilica shall be added at a rate of (50) pounds dry weight of microsilica per cubic yard [(30) kg/m3] of concrete.
3. Compressive strength shall be a minimum of (5,000) psi [35 MPa] at 28 days as measured using (4” x 8”) (100 mm x 200 mm) cylinder specimens.
4. A maximum water-to-cementitious ratio of 0.40 is required.
5. Microsilica may be counted as cementitious material in calculations.
6. Add microsilica as a liquid slurry or in dry densified form in 25 lb (11.4 kg) Concrete Ready BagsTM packaging.
7. Blended cements with interground microsilica will not be allowed.
Performance Method
1. Provide microsilica admixture Force 10,000 as manufactured by Grace Construction Products.
2. Microsilica shall have a minimum of (5,000) psi [35 MPa] at 28 days as measured using (4” x 8”) (100 mm x 200 mm) cylinders.
3. Permeability of microsilica concrete shall be tested by ASTM C 1202. Results of tests shall be expressed in electrical units of coulombs. Coulomb tests shall be made on two (4” x 8”) (100 mm x 200 mm) representative samples, moist cured for 56 days. Test cylinders shall be made according to ASTM C 31. Coulomb requirement shall be (_____) coulombs or less at 56 days. ASTM C 1202 testing shall be used as an indicator of concrete permeability at mix design submittal only.
4. A maximum water-to-cementitious ratio of 0.40 is required.
5. Microsilica may be counted as cementitious material in calculations.
6. Add microsilica as a liquid slurry or in dry densified form in 25 lb (11.4 kg) Concrete Ready Bags packaging.
7. Blended cements with interground microsilica will not be allowed.
NTS: Force 10,000 Sample Specification For High-Strength Concrete Requirements
This sample specification may be used by the design engineer when specifying Force 10,000 microsilica for the production of high-strength concrete. The design engineer should fill in the compressive strength required. Force 10,000 is a microsilica-based admixture manufactured by Grace Construction Products of W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. The high silicon dioxide content of microsilica combines with the excess calcium hydroxide in the concrete to form more calcium silicate hydrate “glue.” This produces a stronger, tighter bonding paste structure. Additionally, the extreme fineness of the microsilica enables it a less permeable paste. These two factors contribute to providing higher strength, more durable concrete.
Structural applications for high strength Force 10,000 concrete are broad, but include usage in structural columns, beams and girders. Structural concrete design criteria shall follow ACI 318, 357 and 201 guidelines. Parameters used in this sample specification, such as water-to-cementitious ratio are taken from these guidelines and are conservative values. This sample specification is based on the performance method, whereby the compressive strength of the concrete is mandated by the design engineer.
High-Strength Concrete Requirements
1. Provide microsilica admixture Force 10,000 as manufactured by Grace Construction Products.
2. Microsilica high-strength concrete shall have a minimum of (____) psi [(___) MPa] at 28 days.
3. Test cylinders shall be 4” x 8” (100 mm x 200 mm).
4. A maximum water-to-cementitious ratio of 0.40 is required.
5. Microsilica may be counted as cementitious material in calculations.
6. Add microsilica as a liquid slurry or in dry densified form in 25 lb. (11.4 kg) Concrete Ready Bags packaging.
7. Blended cements with interground microsilica will not be allowed.
B. Concrete Cover Over Reinforcement: Minimum concrete cover over reinforcement shall be (____) inches [(____) mm].
NTS: Follow ACI 318 recommendations for concrete cover over reinforcement. For deicing salt and marine environments, ACI 318-89, section R7.7.5, requires 2 inches (50 mm) for walls and slabs and 2-1/2 inches (64 mm) for other members. For marine environments, ACI 357 recommends 2-1/2 inches (64 mm).
C. Air Entrainment: For freeze-thaw durability comply with ACI 318 freezing and thawing exposure requirements, as determined by ASTM C 173 or ASTM C 281.
D. Water-to-Cementitious Ratio: Provide 0.40 maximum. Microsilica, fly ash, blast furnace slag and cement are considered cementitious materials. The water content of Force 10,000 slurry shall be included as mix design water.
E. Recommended Cementitious Content for Workability:
Maximum Aggregate Minimum Cementitious
3/8” (10 mm) 700 pounds/cu.yd. (415 kg/m3)
1/2” (13 mm) 680 pounds/cu.yd. (400 kg/m3)
3/4” (20 mm) 650 pounds/cu.yd. (385 kg/m3)
1” (25 mm) 630 pounds/cu.yd. (375 kg/m3)
F. Compressive Strength: Minimum 28 day compressive strength for microsilica concrete shall be (5,000) psi [(35) MPa] unless stated otherwise in Section 2.03 A. Application Rate.
G. Concrete Slump for Flatwork: 5 to 8 inches (125 to 200 mm). Concrete slump may be 2 inches (50 mm) over normal concrete slumps as microsilica concrete can be sticky and has a surface that is harder to close than normal concrete.
H. Concrete Admixtures: High-range water reducers are mandatory to control slump, mixing, cementitious ratio and proper distribution of the microsilica, and shall be plant added. Additional water reducers may be added at the job site when required.
I. Additional Concrete Admixtures: Additional concrete admixtures conforming to ASTM C 494 or equivalent CSA 266 standards may be used as required including the following:
1. Type A: Water-reducing admixture, WRDA® series or Daracem®-55 by Grace Construction Products.
2. Type D: Water-reducing and retarding admixture, Daratard®-17 by Grace Construction Products.
3. Type F or G: Water-reducing, high-range admixture, WRDA-19, Daracem-100 by Grace Construction Products. This type of admixture must be included in all Force 10,000 concrete.
4. Type C: Accelerating admixture, PolarSet® by Grace Construction Products.
5. Grace MicroFibers® for flatwork, at 1 pound per cubic yard (600 grams/m3) addition rate.
6. DCI® or DCI-S Corrosion Inhibitor by Grace Construction Products may also be used if required at rate recommended by manufacturer.
J. Special Mixing Requirements for Densified Microsilica: Densified microsilica requires enhanced mixing to ensure full dispersion. The following mix requirements shall be adhered to:
1. For all types of mixing equipment, mix times shall be increased by 40% over the minimum mix time required to achieve mix uniformity as defined by ASTM C 94.
2. For truck-mixed and central mixed concrete, maximum allowable batch size shall be 80% of the maximum as called out by ASTM C 94.
PART 3 - EXECUTION
3.01 EXAMINATION
A. Examine conditions of substrates and other conditions under which work is to be performed and notify Owner, in writing, of circumstances detrimental to the proper completion of the work. Do not proceed until unsatisfactory conditions are corrected.
3.02 CONCRETE PLACEMENT, FINISHING AND CURING
A. Concrete Finishing and Curing: Microsilica concrete typically exhibits little or no bleeding. To reduce plastic or drying shrinkage cracks, comply with ACI 302 “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction”, ACI 308 “Standard Practice for Curing Concrete”, ACI 306 “Standard Practice for Cold Weather Concreting”, and ACI 305 “Hot Weather Concreting.”
1. Underfinish microsilica concrete by limiting finishing operation to screeding, bull-float, and broom finish. Curing shall be initiated within one hour of concrete placement.
2. The use of wind breaks, sun shades, and fog misting are recommended to minimize the rate of evaporation at the concrete surface.
3. Light fog misting above the concrete to keep the environment above the concrete surface at high humidity is recommended during the placing and finish operations.


4. Fog misting is required when the rate of evaporation at the concrete surface exceeds 0.1 pound per square foot per hour as determined by ACI 308 Section 1.2.1. Fogging shall continue after the finishing operation until prewetted burlap or other approved curing material is placed over the concrete. When fog misting is not available or possible, an evaporation retarder shall be applied before and after bull-floating and during final finish to protect the concrete.
5. Wet curing is the preferred method for curing. Use prewetted burlap to cover all flatwork and keep wet for a minimum of seven days or until the time necessary to attain 70 percent of the specified compressive strength, as recommended by ACI 308 Section 3.1.3.
3.03 PROTECTION
A. Protect completed work from damage and construction operations throughout finishing and curing operations.

[snapperdan]

Mark i asked this on the other thread and i thought i would put this here to double my chances of a response.


HI mark. Is the data that your govt has used to evaluate the value, viability and effect on the environment (and other things boffins think of) available for perusal ie enviromental impact statements and the like . I would think there are quite a few groups south of the border who would love to see a few hundred reef balls placed in spots around NSW. The pittwater / hawkesbury/ broken bay area comes to mind as an area that would benefit greatly from reef balls. Was the cost of the balls at $265k including installation and management and other stuff only public servants think of.
IF you could provide the information for us south of the border so we may try and grab some funds from the NSW rec fishing trust.

Kind regards

Snapper Dan

[netmaker]

geez, they must have stacked 'em high. beware of prop damage at the following marks...
the Redlands times advises: "The coordinates for west peel artificial reef are 27.29.880 S 153.18.725 E. Go to 27.34.106 S 153.21.094 E for the east coochie artificial reef".

[Mark Robinson MP]

AH MR ROBINSON LOOKING FOR BROWNIE POINTS HEY MMM INTERESTING. Why has the Reef Deployment program started down there. MMM just coincidence it"s in your ELECTORATE.

Manta man. I'm always looking for opportunities for rec fishers in Moreton Bay. And let's face it, Moreton bay fishers were ripped off by Labor. I certainly commend Moon lighter for getting some compensation for the green zones in the form of artificial reefs, but it is not a fair deal to lock rec fishers out. So I am looking for everything I can get that improves the situation for rec fishers, including increased access to MNPs. Do you think I should stop trying?

[Mark Robinson MP]

Mark i asked this on the other thread and i thought i would put this here to double my chances of a response.


HI mark. Is the data that your govt has used to evaluate the value, viability and effect on the environment (and other things boffins think of) available for perusal ie enviromental impact statements and the like . I would think there are quite a few groups south of the border who would love to see a few hundred reef balls placed in spots around NSW. The pittwater / hawkesbury/ broken bay area comes to mind as an area that would benefit greatly from reef balls. Was the cost of the balls at $265k including installation and management and other stuff only public servants think of.
IF you could provide the information for us south of the border so we may try and grab some funds from the NSW rec fishing trust.

Kind regards

Snapper Dan

Hey Snapper Dan. Sorry, wasn't ignoring you, just didn't get time. I often find I can chat for short bursts so if a few questions I dont get to them all. Sometimes I am accused of 'ducking' questions - fair enough, but it is a time thing. Not my jurisdiction outside Southern Moreton Bay (Cleveland), so is more out of my own interest to try to chat further abroad as I can.

[Mark Robinson MP]

And now part 2 - sorry again Dan, the email went before it was sent.
Re the environmental process, I don't have specific details at hand, so suggest you google the Qld govt website. If you have no luck come back to me and I will try. Perhaps get onto your state MP and find out what they are doing if you haven't already.
Re costing, while I don't have the full details i believe the $265k for the 224 reef balls was all inclusive. Hope that helps.

[Mike Delisser]

And let's face it, Moreton bay fishers were ripped off by Labor. I certainly commend Moon lighter for getting some compensation for the green zones in the form of artificial reefs, but it is not a fair deal to lock rec fishers out.

Those of us who backed Timmi's and your e-petition on this subject received a quite different claim from Steve Dickson MP, the LNP's Minister for Nation Parks, Sport and Recreation.
It including these gems
"Science played a key role in determining the marine park zoning."

"Recreational fishing interests were consulted on the current MBMP zoning arrangements and recreational fishing data was considered in the planning process. This ensured that the most popular recreational fishing areas of the Bay were excluded from green zones."

The Minister's full statement http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2012/5412T1858.pdf

Many of us here backed you and Timmi, the least you could have done was explain what the hell happened.
The Minister's response appears to indicate that now the LNP is in power, they suddenly agree that Labor got the green zones right. And with a majority like the LNP have in parliament at the moment, if there was any will at all to unlock the green zones and allow more access for rec-anglers, it could easily be done.
The LNP have been in power well over 12 months now but the green zones and the snapper regs that you and your party complained so loudly about before the election are still in place, and it appears you have not moved 1 inch on the, what's it take?. I was at the Tinny n Tackle Show that day Mark, I and plenty of others heard what you and Campbell said would happen for rec-anglers when the the LNP got in. I understand the political system and I do realize you're trying but aren't able to bring about the changes yourself, but how about acknowledging the current green zone situation is the current Government's responsibility. After 12 months you own it, not Labor. And while your at it, how about taking some responsibility for your pre-election statements too, you're still yet to do that.

And please please please explain that e-petition debacle Mark.

Cheers
Mike D

[braders83]

I don't live in QLD but at least your MP is out there having some sort of crack and also communicating with you - for the good of fisho's in general. Come to NSW and you won't be complaining I can assure you. Well done Mark for at least having a go - and on a positive side you seem to try and take on board the feedback that many experienced fisho's here seem to give you but alas not all people will fully appreciate resource constraints and political pressures - it can all seem very easy from an armchair! Cheers, braders.

[Mike Delisser]

I don't live in QLD but at least your MP is out there having some sort of crack and also communicating with you - for the good of fisho's in general. Come to NSW and you won't be complaining I can assure you. Well done Mark for at least having a go - and on a positive side you seem to try and take on board the feedback that many experienced fisho's here seem to give you but alas not all people will fully appreciate resource constraints and political pressures - it can all seem very easy from an armchair! Cheers, braders.

Braders, I believe I have acknowledged Marks efforts, but how long would you wait for a government elected with a 78 to 9 seat majority, to deliver on things they claimed they do for rec-anglers as soon as they were elected? Some at very little cost too.
Braders, after 12 months in power and with the current 74 to 15 majority, is it still plausible for Mark to blame the previous government for a situation, especially after he identified it in Parliament but his party decided to drop it like a lead balloon (unlike their previous stated position).
Cheers

[braders83]

HI Mike - Yes your comments and arguments are very much valid. 78 to 9 and now 74 to 15 yes I do understand where you're coming from. I don't want to turn this post into a political football, but I have seen first hand the other side of politics and in particular the health and education industries. I can understand how (and why) political priorities change before and after elections (and i don't agree with why / how that is the case) - but I do understand. Sometimes, there's more important things in life than an extra reef in wherever - and regardless of whoever promised who - what, where and when. I've got a finance background - and when the numbers don't add up, they simply don't add up. Sacrifices have to be made and people inevitably disappointed (i'm usually one of them!). All levels of government (local, state and federal) are under increasing pressure from us (as ratepayers / taxpayers etc) to do more with their money than what they have. All I was saying in my original post is that this Mark Robinson guy (who i don't know from a bar of soap) at least seems to be on here having a go - albeit doing the best (or what appears to be his best from my view) with what resources he has available. As i said, don't want to turn this into a political football - i think it's great that blokes like you are out there keeping the pollies honest and doing the best you can for us and our kids fishing interests. Not many of the public take the time to do that. Cheers for that and keep fighting mate! - braders.

[Lucky_Phill]

I do believe that there is a continuing roll out of Arti Reefs for Queensland.

$2 mill has been earmarked for a program over 4 years.

IMO........... that is better than nothing but way too little for a serious program. We splashed $2 mill in little over 12 months and got 6 ( 5 new and 1 extension ) in the MBMP.

My calculations and proposal is a $5 mill initial first year dollop and then $2 mill a year thereafter. We need ongoing monitoring and this does not come cheap. $500,000 per year.

Let's not chuck all the $'s at SEQ, but spread it to all population heavy coastal communities.

Materials of opportunity must be a priority in terms of Bang for Buck.

Cheers LP

[Mark Robinson MP]

I do believe that there is a continuing roll out of Arti Reefs for Queensland.

$2 mill has been earmarked for a program over 4 years.

IMO........... that is better than nothing but way too little for a serious program. We splashed $2 mill in little over 12 months and got 6 ( 5 new and 1 extension ) in the MBMP.

My calculations and proposal is a $5 mill initial first year dollop and then $2 mill a year thereafter. We need ongoing monitoring and this does not come cheap. $500,000 per year.

Let's not chuck all the $'s at SEQ, but spread it to all population heavy coastal communities.

Materials of opportunity must be a priority in terms of Bang for Buck.

Cheers LP

Phiil. I agree with what you have said about artis. As I have said there is opportunity with the marine infrastructure fund with $50 million for ramps, pontoons, artis etc

[Mark Robinson MP]

Mike. Too much misunderstanding for one post but I will try to explain it.
1. The LNP govts position is the same after the 2012 election as it was before. As I said we would do, once the election was called we would put out our fishing policies. And that is what we did ( see below) so your footer quoting me only re-affirms that we would put our policies out, and we did.
2. The policies that we announced were a) net licence buyback $9 million b) the marine infrastructure fund $120 million (including dredging) and c) more access for rec fishers

In our first year, a & b are well underway. I think that's good. And i am working with my colleagues wrt c. - just need to be a little patient - we still have time to make good on this but what we implement must be the best practice for rec fishing within MNPs.

3. Re the answer to the petition, it does not represent a change in the govts position, rather one expression that did not in my view articulate our position in sufficient depth.

[BC....]

Hi Mark,

Just wanted to check if any current research, such as diving the existing reef balls west of Peel was conducted before spending more money on new ones. I have sounded over and fished the balls many times since they were first placed. Unfortunately, from my experience, they are not big enough. Initially when they were placed there was a bit of bait starting to appear, which in turn brings larger fish. However, since they are very small (80cm high in up to 15m of water) they are easily silted up, rendering them ineffective. It is great to see something being done, but I just think we could have got a lot more bang from the dollars spent. Reef balls twice or even three times the size should have been used - even if this meant there were fewer of them. History tells us that structure holds fish. Just look at the HMAS Brisbane. Now I'm not suggesting we need to put something that large west of Peel, but substantial structure would be many time more valuable in creating a new ecosystem and not little dots of concrete all over the place.

Cheers,

Ben

[WalrusLike]

80 cm!?!? Bloody hell. Who thinks that's going to work?

I mean, I hope it does, but it seems too insignificant.

I went sounding for them and couldn't work out why I couldn't find em.

I did see tiny bottom bumps but I was expecting 3 metre high pipe size things not little ball bearings. When I read their size on the scale I wrote those little bumps off as not a arti....

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drop those underground tunnel one fifth segments that are made by the thousands at wacol onto the bottom in a jumble?

It won't shift and settle for ever... Sooner or later it will consolidate and be reef.


(Using Tapatalk on iPhone so can't easily 'thank' or 'like')

[snapperbasher]

Totally agree Walrus!

Although you will be surprised at how little it takes to hold fish. I think its the boat traffic that keeps the fish away. if you get there midweek with no other boats around there will be fish on it.

The problem is that to keep the greens happy they needed to be made from approved materials and a whole pile of other things to get through the red tape.
Its funny how this is the case to make a reef but if they want to build a bridge or put in a pontoon there is no hoops to jump through for the materials used for that??

[Lucky_Phill]

The biggest issue we had to deal with in the case of theses Arti's was the fact they were being placed in a Marine Park. Government red tape and many departments.

EPA, ( DEEDI ), Harbours and Marine, FQ, NPWS as well as Federal issues ( marine transport , international shipping lanes ) and more.

The only concern brought up by the " green " member of the working group was " won't these reefs drag fish away from natural reefs ? " The response from a particular member of the group was............. well.... let's just say... You had to be there :-X;D

cheers LP

[Gazza]

take 2 , the LNP efforts to date , are less than satisfactory , ~13% approval , if the ausfish "poll" represents QUEENSLAND

[Gon Fishun]

The biggest issue we had to deal with in the case of theses Arti's was the fact they were being placed in a Marine Park. Government red tape and many departments.

EPA, ( DEEDI ), Harbours and Marine, FQ, NPWS as well as Federal issues ( marine transport , international shipping lanes ) and more.

The only concern brought up by the " green " member of the working group was " won't these reefs drag fish away from natural reefs ? " The response from a particular member of the group was............. well.... let's just say... You had to be there :-X;D

cheers LP

Here fishy fishy, Ball park play ground. Pole dancing, love you long time.

[WalrusLike]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just drop those underground tunnel one fifth segments that are made by the thousands at wacol onto the bottom in a jumble?


Phil you are the guru on this..... Do you know what I mean when I mention the tunnel segments?

I think that's what they are.... A curved strip of concrete probably 200mm thick about 2 metres wide representing about one 5th or 6th of a circle. (Ie lay it on its 2metre edge and its part of a circle.... Get 5 more and they come round and would join the initial one.).

I think they are what they use to make the underground road tunnels.

They would make a great reef jumble if just dropped on top of one another.

Eco friendly reef? And cheap compared to custom designed stuff?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Mark Robinson MP]

Phil you are the guru on this..... Do you know what I mean when I mention the tunnel segments?

I think that's what they are.... A curved strip of concrete probably 200mm thick about 2 metres wide representing about one 5th or 6th of a circle. (Ie lay it on its 2metre edge and its part of a circle.... Get 5 more and they come round and would join the initial one.).

I think they are what they use to make the underground road tunnels.

They would make a great reef jumble if just dropped on top of one another.

Eco friendly reef? And cheap compared to custom designed stuff?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Walrus like,
Yes, Phill is an authority in this area, recognized by former and current state govts, so I certainly defer to his knowledge.
What you are referring to is described as "materials of opportunity", like the Hornibrook pylons that I had hoped to get the previous govt to use towards additional arti reef material that could have created 2 new arti reefs for the Northern part of Moreton Bay.
Whether those specific materials are ok to be used needs to be investigated by fisheries or marine scientists
Regards,
Mark

[Triple]

So when are they going to update the PDF with the new GPS marks?
http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/parks/moreton-bay/zoning/trial_artificial_reef_program.html#West_Peel

Something as easy and important as this should be done within a few days shouldn't it? It's been a month.

[Shark Poker]

Mark,
Good Evening. Thank You for being so approachable and being able to discuss this with us.
I am a long time admirer of artificial reefs. Used to fish reefs in Darwin Harbour made from what were former refugee boats.
These artificial reefs being discussed locally are one of the only positive, proactive and contributing projects towards rec fishing. For we always take, but never put anything into the equation. But we could do better.
In my opinion these reefs do not need to be so elaborate as a sunken ship or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hundred reef balls.
While there has been study into what works to form a visually successful or biologically prosperous reef, before the reef balls were chosen, there are other ideas.
Much less expensive ones. (Not talking tyres!)
While you are open and available to this subject, could you please tell us who and where we should enquire to find out how another project with approved materials could be raised and implemented in Moreton Bay without 6 figure plus red tape?
Surely the findings of the previous work that you guys were involved in could be released into a positive education program for the future?

[Lucky_Phill]

Phil you are the guru on this..... Do you know what I mean when I mention the tunnel segments?

I think that's what they are.... A curved strip of concrete probably 200mm thick about 2 metres wide representing about one 5th or 6th of a circle. (Ie lay it on its 2metre edge and its part of a circle.... Get 5 more and they come round and would join the initial one.).

I think they are what they use to make the underground road tunnels.

They would make a great reef jumble if just dropped on top of one another.

Eco friendly reef? And cheap compared to custom designed stuff?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Thanks.

I am aware of the materials. And as Mark Robinson stated, these are classified as Materials of Opportunity.

As a major priority of the working group deploying the Artificial Reefs in the MBMP, Materials of Opportunity were number one for " shallow " waters as most of these items were not " high " as in the purpose built structures we put in place in the deeper waters.

The " expensive " part of materials of opportunity is the transportation and deployment. I would love nothing more than the State Govt funding a dedicated deployment barge, which could also be used in Disaster Relief etc. It would literally save us ( Rec fishos and taxpayers , hundreds of thousands of dollars ), money that could be spent on enhancing the reefs.


Mark,
Good Evening. Thank You for being so approachable and being able to discuss this with us.
I am a long time admirer of artificial reefs. Used to fish reefs in Darwin Harbour made from what were former refugee boats.
These artificial reefs being discussed locally are one of the only positive, proactive and contributing projects towards rec fishing. For we always take, but never put anything into the equation. But we could do better.
In my opinion these reefs do not need to be so elaborate as a sunken ship or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hundred reef balls.
While there has been study into what works to form a visually successful or biologically prosperous reef, before the reef balls were chosen, there are other ideas.
Much less expensive ones. (Not talking tyres!)
While you are open and available to this subject, could you please tell us who and where we should enquire to find out how another project with approved materials could be raised and implemented in Moreton Bay without 6 figure plus red tape?
Surely the findings of the previous work that you guys were involved in could be released into a positive education program for the future? Can an individual make a suggestion?

Thank You
Paul Preston
(Wakerley)
38907141 / 0409 530097

The Arti's in Moreton Bay come under the management of NPWS and Steve Hoseck is the man to speak to about this.

Below is some insight into the funding etc.

I have contacted the revelant authority in regard to specific details on funding submissions for Artificial Reefs....... all along the Queensland coast.

Department of Transport and Main Roads administers the Marine Infrastructure Capital and Maintenance Program (MICMP). The MICMP is operated in two parts.

1) an annual maintenance program for recreational boating infrastructure - including maintenance of designated channels, boat ramps, landings and associated infrastructure used by recreational fishers and boaties

Access to maintenance funding comes from known maintenance issues (asset condition inspections) and infrastructure monitoring (such as hydrographic surveys of channels) plus specific applications from appointed managers (councils and port authorities) for public marine facilities maintenance.

2) a four year program of capital works for new and upgraded recreational boating infrastructure known as the Newman Government's $50 million Marine Infrastructure Fund

The four year program of capital works has three components:

A) an allocation totalling $5.3 million over four years to the Gold Coast Waterways Authority (GCWA)

B) an allocation to the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) in the Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing totalling $2 million over four years ($500, 000 in each of the four years commencing 2012-13) for specific fishing infrastructure such as artificial reefs.

C) an allocation totalling $42.7 million over four years to the Department of Transport and Main Roads for the capital component of its Marine Infrastructure and Capital Maintenance Program for expenditure on marine infrastructure used by boating/fishing community

Administration of the GCWA allocation is with GCWA, which has representation by the Gold Coast City Council.

You can contact Mr Steve Hoseck from NPWS on steve.hoseck@nprsr.qld.gov.au or by phone on 07 3131 2851 for details of expenditure of the $2 million allocated to it.

The Marine Infrastructure Capital and Maintenance Fund (in TMR) has a four year program of capital works approved by government, based largely on the results of the 2011 Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecasting Study. There is a backlog of unfunded projects recommended for prioritised action in the out-years past the current four year approved program. Additional applications for TMR consideration in out-years are made by councils and port authorities. Individuals, clubs, and organisations need to lobby these councils or port authorities as their support is essential to any application. This is because new and upgraded boating facilities are constructed on a partnership basis with TMR providing the in-water components and councils or port authorities providing the land-side components (roads, car-parking, toilets, lighting, landscaping etc). Projects are being announced by government progressively after consultation and negotiation with the appropriate council or port authority on partnership funding and works programming has been achieved.

end:-

As you can see, there is no specific mention of artificial reefs and this funding has to be sourced from the MICMP through a submission. The submission will need the backing of recreational Fishing groups, clubs etc as well as council, State Govt and local MP's and the group or individual making the submission must have the revelent experience to manage the projects. The experience is at hand, by way of the MBMP working group program.

Hope this helps and be aware that the Artificial reef program for ALL Queensland is not sitting idle.

Cheers LP

[Horse]

The way I see it we are getting $500,000 a year being spent on artificial reef infrastructure. How much of this is going to NPWS internal cost and written off to monitoring of existing areas?
I am pretty embarrassed to see the programs initiated by the previous government grinding to a slow halt under the current regime (who I voted for). The $500,000 PA is about 1/2 of the pay increase Noddy and Seeny are set to receive. Its a bloody joke

[Shark Poker]

Mike,
Although you have acknowledged LP in this subject, I would really like to request an answer to my specific question from yourself.
Many Thanks,
Pauly

[Shark Poker]

Sorry Mark, (not Mike)! :)

[Lucky_Phill]

While you are open and available to this subject, could you please tell us who and where we should enquire to find out how another project with approved materials could be raised and implemented in Moreton Bay without 6 figure plus red tape?

The Arti's in Moreton Bay come under the management of NPWS and Steve Hoseck is the man to speak to about this.

You can contact Mr Steve Hoseck from NPWS on steve.hoseck@nprsr.qld.gov.au or by phone on 07 3131 2851

The reefs in the last program cost $2,000,000 and $200,000 went to " management "... NPWS.

No matter what project one gets invloved with, the Govt will always have Red Tape.. no avoiding that.
cheers LP

[WalrusLike]

Thanks Phil and Mark. I know one, and maybe both.... :) of you do a lot of work to further the interests of recreational fishers. Thanks again.

I remain unconvinced that a 80cm ball can do much good.... but I've been wrong lots of times before so maybe I am here too.

In any case it's good that artis are being produced and long may that continue.,.



(Using Tapatalk on iPhone so can't easily 'thank' or 'like')

[Lucky_Phill]

I am getting closer to the source of funding for the reefs.

Dear Mr Kliese

Thanks again for your reply.

TMR can't accept submissions for the artificial reef program. These should be sent to the Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing (NPRSR) per Mr Steve Hoseck of that department's National Parks and Wildlife Service (contact details provided in the earlier email). Mr Hoseck is included as a cc addressee so that he can take the matter of future artificial reef placements on the Queensland coast up with you directly.

Protocols preclude our team contacting MP's direct. MP's normally contact the appropriate minister (in this case Minister for NPRSR) whose ministerial staff request a briefing from departmental officers to enable the minister to respond to the MP.

We hope this helps and wish you success with pursuing your brief.

copyright........... TMR Qld. & me


LP

[Lucky_Phill]

FWIW,

I have had a brief discussion with a researcher / scientist from CSIRO in regard to Artificial Reefs and their many advantages. The position of this staffer lends itself to being in a ideal situation to evaluate my agenda.

If you want some light reading, pop into the website and look at vids and PDF's on ....... Megatrends.

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner/Futures.aspx

What they are doing will not necessarily be clear in relation to Artificial Reefs, but once they became aware of the potential and uses of these Reefs, their ears lifted up and the corolation could easily be drawn.

I believe the more I ( we ) spread the word, the more appropriate ears will hear it.

cheers LP