Development of the SIRD Bank Restoration & Armoring Project
September 5th thru October 27th 2004 – Periodic Observations
with
Daily observations and contract compliance reports – starting October 30, 2004

Saturday/Sunday, September 04/05 – Hurricane Frances Makes a “Dead Center Strike”

Rainfall total = 6.25” (1.17” – 4th, 3.43” – 5th, 1.65 “ 6th)
HC Strength – Cat 1, winds 90 – 100 MPH, Gusts 110-120 MPH
Central Pressure – 27.52 In. Hg.

The South end of SIRD is overtopped and essentially destroyed from the County Line Northward thru and past the Eden Lawn Plantation (13377 SIRD) where the road starts to rise to the high bank of the Indian River Ridge.  Along the Indian River Ridge’s sector, roughly from the Between Waters Trailer Park (~ 13179 SIRD) into the Ft. Pierce section of SIRD, many sections of The Drive were compromised by river bank failure into the SIRD R/W and in some instances also impacting the Roadbed.  The Area South of Walton Road was immediately closed and only residents in that area allowed access.  Due to lines down in the road immediately South of Walton Rd. and SIRD’s R/W and/or pavement being compromised in this stretch immediately South of Walton Rd, temporary access was via the Railroad R/W North of  Riverside Drive.  From Walton Rd to Midway Rd, I estimate that a total of 1500’ to 2500’ of SIRD was compromised, in numerous scattered locations, with the longest single failure section of 500 - 600’ near the “6000 block” of SIRD.  North of Midway Rd to Downtown Ft. Pierce, I estimate a total of 500 – 1000’ of failure, also in scattered locations along this length.

Doug Anderson, County Administrator hired Ranger Construction to immediately start restoration of the roadway in the extreme Southern section, the low stretch, and to make immediate, expedient repairs to washed out sections of SIRD northward by dumping fill to restore the bank within the SIRD R/W and deep patching locations where the roadbed itself had been compromised.

Thursday, September 16 –

I observed (and obtained field notes) from a “DOT hired survey crew” which was making a cross section survey adjacent to my home.  This x-section location was identified as “MP 6.0” at 9009 SIRD (based on odometer readings – with “MP 0” being the roundabout at the Stuart Bridge and proceeding North along the drive).  They were making assessment cross sections at 0.2 Mi (approximately 1000’ intervals) for the full length of The Drive.  

Also in this week, I had observed and talked with a member of the Co. Engineers staff who was making an inventory of culverts along the drive and stated to him that dad had lived here for nearly 30 years and had lost 10 to 16 ft of bank over that period, which we attribute largely to the culverts which have been dumping onto our land and washing away our bank.  Also that for at least the past 10 years both dad and I have approached Road & Bridge with requests to replace this culvert with a bottom discharging culvert.  They would respond by coming out to “investigate” and we’d be assured that a work order had been entered, several times, and yet no action has come from these repeated requests.  Sometime, dad thinks it was in their first 10 years here, the present culvert was replaced because the older one (also a CMP culvert) had “rusted out”.  However, the replacement was a “replacement in kind” with the addition of a poured concrete headwall and an “H” style culvert end support frame made from sign posts.  It didn’t take very long, as the bank continued to be eroded at the culvert outfall for this support frame to work it’s way out from it support position and travel down slope to it’s present position about 6’ out and down from the cantilevered end of the culvert.

Also about this time, in speaking with one of Ranger’s supervisors/foreman working with the expedient fill operations – he’d indicated that they did not have firm direction as to what would and what would not be filled but generally washouts and bank failures would be filled if the bank had failed to within 10’ of the pavement.  He also stated that a “fly-by, assessment survey” was scheduled to film the entire length of the drive and riverbank the next day.

Tuesday/Wednesday, September 21/22 – The Remnants of Hurricane Ivan pass thru this area

Additional rainfall total - 4.93” ( 3.22” on the 21st and 0.99” on the 22nd).  This additional rain caused severe damage to the expedient fill which had been placed and was in an unprotected condition.  I would estimate that 30 to 40% of the fill placed was washed into the Indian River Lagoon.

September 22/24 –

Ranger makes a serious push to add sandbag protection along filled sections in preparation for the arrival of Hurricane Frances.

September 25/26 – Hurricane Jeanne Makes a “Dead Center Strike”

Rainfall total = 4.80” (4.65” – 26th, 0.15” 27th)
HC Strength – Cat 3, winds ~ 110 - 120 MPH, Gusts 120-140 MPH
Central Pressure – 27.20 In. Hg.

This second direct hurricane hit in three weeks caused additional damage and bank failure along SIRD.  I estimate that between Walton Rd. and Midway Rd bank failure to within the SIRD R/W now totals 4000 - 4500', and in the Midway Rd to Ft. Pierce sector is now 2000 - 2500'.  I have not yet been South of Walton Rd it remains closed and guarded by the Sherriff.  This only  reinforces the Counties need to “do something” to protect the counties roadway – South Indian River Drive.

Friday, October 1 –

St. Lucie County sent out a very simple, one sentence, “License to Access” to property owners along SIRD which would grant the owners permission to St. Lucie County for access to their property in order to “stabilize the roadbed of South Indian River Drive at that address”.

Thursday, October 14 –

Mike Powley, St. Lucie county Engineer sent out a letter to Indian River Drive Residents advising of a public informational meeting to be held on October 22nd concerning the IRD Bank stabilization Project.

Monday, October 18 –

I met with some people from Hubbard Construction who had stopped at 9009 SIRD / MP 6.0 and were discussing the repairs that were slated to be made.  They shared a view of the typical repair cross section detail indicating a rebuilding of the bank with regrassing (sodding) and an armoring of the bank toe with one of 3 revetment options – rock rubble rip rap, crushed concrete rubble rip rap, or a manufactured concrete block revetment mat.  They also shared the information that the length of SIRD had been split into 3 roughly 4 miles work sections and  Hubbard had been notified that they were the successful bidder for the South section – with Ranger being the successful bidder for the middle section, and Dickerson the successful bidder for the North section.  Also, that the contract’s were to be awarded at the County Commission meeting the next day (Tuesday, Oct 19th).  This contract award vote was postponed to Friday, October 22nd.

Note:  at some time between Oct 14th and Oct 20th, Roger Sharp – President of the IRDFH, Inc. had spoken with Commissioner Barnes about the Freeholders concerns for project input and particularily about homeowner concerns about clearing on our riverbanks.  This did result in an October 20th change in the project plans from general clearing and grubbing to select clearing and grubbing.


Thursday, October 21 –

At the IRDFH quarterly meeting, Commissioner Barnes and County Engineer Mike Powley were present and delivered a presentation on the proposed project – essentially as I’ve described above from what the Hubbard Contractor had shared, with the addition of the clearing and grubbing note change..  Extensive discussion followed by the membership which resulted, basically, in a vote of support that “something” needed to be done and an endorsement of a letter stating several concerns and suggestions for inclusion in the project dated October 18 by (?), from the Florida DEP (?).

Friday, October 22 –

County Commission (special) meeting held Re. the IRD Project.  Lengthy public comments were heard and the vote to award the contracts was postponed to Tuesday October 26th to give the County engineer time to poll the contractors about additional changes requested by the public.

NOTE:  I went to the County Engineers Office ~ 7:30AM, requested and received copies of the Project plan sets.
1.    South Project, Hubbard – 5.1 Mi less 0.8 Mi = 4.3 Mi (MP 1.7 – MP 6.0)
2.    Middle Project, Ranger – 4.6 Mi (MP 6.0 – MP 10.6)
3.    North Project, Dickerson – 4.0 Mi (MP 10.6 – MP 14.6)

Tuesday, October 26 –

County Commission (regular) Meeting held with the IRD Project added to the scheduled agenda.  Commissioner Barnes moves on 5 Items to move this project forward and award the contracts, all pass on 5-0 vote of the Commissioners.

1.    An Emergency Joint Participation Agreement (Resolution 04-304) between SLC and FDOT
2.    Award South Project to Hubbard - $6,937,205.95 (Budget - $7,631,000.00) …
3.    Award Middle project to Ranger - $8,944,151.47 (Budget - $9.839,999.00)
4.    Award North project to Dickerson - $9,134,025.89 (Budget $10,047,500.00)
5.    Award (Field) Engineering & Testing to Dunkleberger - $1,139,939.44

In making the motion for item 1, Commissioner Barns also included an additional provision that a “Citizens AD HOC Committee” be formed to coordinate citizen concerns on this project (at least that was “my” impression of the addition to the published agenda item).

On exiting this meeting, I voluntered my services to Roger Sharp to represent the IRDFH, Inc. to this Citizens AD HOC Committee, and this was accepted pending a polling or special meeting of our Board of Directors.

>>> The “bottom line” is … this project has gone to contract, as designed.  <<<
(with the exception of a change from general to select clearing and grubbing)

The impact of 3 major storms in a three week period did cause significant damage to the public roadway that is CR 707 / South Indian River Drive.  This threat to the public property was recognized by the County and action was initiated to mitigate the threat.  An offer of $25 million in Federal Highway Administration Emergency Funding was extended.  Within approximately a four week period, under the County Administrator and County Engineers direction, in cooperation with the FDOT, the project was scoped, designed, submitted to prequalified FDOT contractors, bids returned – which exceeded $25 Million, $5 million of additional funding was requested and granted, and the work scheduled for award.  

These results are, in my opinion – extraordinary!  Is “the project” the best possible (under normal circumstance) solution?  No.  Is it the “best possible” engineering solution?   No.  Is it the “best possible” solution, given the constraints of budget and time?  I believe it is.  Plus, we do have, in the commission record, direction to start preliminary work on a “phase 2”, revegatation project component, in additional to this project’s structural solution.

Wednesday, October 27 –

The County Engineer writes a letter to Indian River Drive residents advising of an informational meeting to be held in the commission chambers on November 3rd Re. this project (postmarked October 29th).

Saturday, October 30 –

Dickerson commences earth work in the North Sector.  I meet with them, and “remind” them of the Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) requirement that off duty officers be used for traffic control at two-way / one lane locations.  (A floating turbidity barrier with approximately a 3' curtain is being installed for erosion control ... in lieu  of a Type IV silt fence as shown on the plans. (?)

Sunday, October 31 –

No work observed in any work segment.

Monday,  November 1 –

Ranger and Hubbard commence earth work in the Middle and South Sectors.

I met Mike Powley, Craig Dunkleberger, and others in the North sector and express again that MOT and protection of the Lagoon will be a major Freeholder concerns – and that the presence of uniformed officers just might provide an additional benefit in the form of potential “incident control” given the fact that this project has raised a considerable degree of passion and concerns re. the counties ability to take title to our lands.  Travel end to end and see that signage and MOT requirements are not being enforced by the Dunkleberger field engineers.  I was informed that this project is scheduled to be run on a 2 – 12 hour shift basis, 7 days per week to completion.

Middle sector (Ranger) delayed in starting because MHW survey staking which had been set to aid in the location and erection of silt barrier  – had been removed and had to be reset.

Tuesday, November 2 –

Got Business Card Stock, made a card to hand out to DET inspectors and contractor supervisors introducing myself as the representative to this projects AD HOC Citizens committee from the IRDFH, Inc.  I also wrote an email letter of introduction to Craig Dunkleberger (with a request it also be forwarded to Mike Powley) and copied the Board of Directors of the IRDFH, Inc.

Travel end to end observing and attempting to introduce myself to Dunklebergers “field engineers” /  the project inspectors contracted to be the County Engineers “eyes and ears” at the project.  I am met with some reluctance and apparent suspision.  

Wednesday, November 3 –

I stayed up until 3AM assembling a set of DOT specifications pertinent to this project from the FDOT web site, and go to the County office at 6:30 AM to wait and try to catch the County Engineer to discuss my letter to Dunkleberger and what I’ve encountered when introducing myself to the field engineers who he’s hired to enforce the provisions of the contracts and project plans.  He arrived shortly after 8 and we had, what I feel is a “good meeting” for about 35 – 40 minutes.

Inquired about an apparent changes to the plans because I was aware that preconstruction x-sections were not being done, and was informed of 2 changes -
1.    Embankment fill, will now be paid on a truck count/delivered basis rather than based on 100’ interval pre and post construction cross sections.
2.  The County has asked contractors for a change order quote to remove and truck to a “tree hospital” at the fairgrounds “selected” trees in the down bank area which would otherwise be removed and hauled to the landfill as clearing and grubbing debris.  Surviving trees would then be potentially available for replanting in the “phase 2” - revegetation project.

Again challenged the Field inspectors to enforce the MOT requirements as required – signage & lane separation cones, use of off duty officers where two way/one lane traffic operations were required and inquired about the promise of closing SIRD to local traffic only and posting law enforcement at SIRD access points to enforce this road’s closing.

Looked up and made a copy of S95.361 (Limitations of Actions:  Adverse Possession) Roads Presumed to be Dedicated.  Took it up to the County engineer around 3PM and advised him that this provision needed to be addressed and waived in the counties “License to Access” with each of the 1000 +/- individually effected property owners.  I also shared with Mike a comparison which I’d prepared concerning the optional revetment solutions included in the plans and my serious concern at the very significant difference in the mass (the Wt. per Sq. Ft.) of the accepted contractor bid option for the articulated block mat (45 to 53 #/SF vs an estimated 512 #/SF for the Rubble rip rap options).  Mike shared a draft of a letter which was being prepared for Doug Anderson’s signature which was intended to address property owners concerns in this area.  (I then went up to the Co. Attny’s office to inquire about the status of our own modified “License to Access” which we’d submitted on 27 October.)  Shortly after I sat down to wait, Mike came in to consult with the Co. Attny – carrying the copy of the State Statute – S95.361 – that I’d given him.

I attended the “public informational meeting” (my third trip to the County Offices today) concerning the IRD Bank Restoration project – scheduled and hosted by the County Engineer (Mike Powley) in the Comission chambers from roughly 6PM to 8:30 or 9PM.  This meeting was also attended by Doug Anderson, the County Administrator.  A supplemental “To Whom it may concern” letter, over Mr. Anderson’s signature was made available which intends to clarify some of the property owners concerns.  However, it does not specifically address the waiver of the Counties right to obtain title under the Adverse Possession Statute, 95.361

Some residents raise questions concerning the ability of the contracted armoring solution, the articulated block mat, to perform the function intended.  These concerns are similar to, but not as specific as, the section comparison which I’d prepared and discussed with Mike this morning.  Also, several residents expressed great concerns about traffic control, speeding and lane overlap by the construction trucks, and the use of private (west side of SIRD) lands for parking and turning around.  Doug Anderson called the sheriff’s Office and returned to assure the residents that effective Thursday we could expect to see increased patrols and strict enforcement of the 35 MPH speed limit.

Thursday, November 4 –

I observed significantly increased sheriff’s patrol on SIRD – both motorcycle patrols and squad car patrols.  Also, in the middle sector, off duty deputies were being used at locations of two way/ one lane operations as required by the plans.  (This was not observed in the North or South Contract sectors.)  Also, the few deputies who had been posted to control access to SIRD seem to have been removed and reposted.

I challenged the Field inspectors about the use of a floating turbidity barrier in place of the plan required Type IV Silt Fencing.  These two products are significantly different and serve different functions.  The floating turbidity barrier will not provide protection from the movement of silt from the construction zone into the Indian River Lagoon.  Silts will flow right under this barriers approximately 3’ long suspended curtain.

Friday, November 5 –

I was advised by the DET field inspector that the floating turbidity barrier was an approved substitution (change) in lieu of the Type IV Silt Fence shown on the plans.
I attended the “organizational” meeting of the Citizens AD HOC Committee hosted by the County Engineer in the Commission chambers.  It appears that the focus of this committee will not be coordination of problems encountered in this “phase I” / contracted structural solution, but rather a committee intended to focus on the “Phase 2” – the proposed revegetation project.

I inquired to Mike Powley if, in fact, he had authorized a change in the silt fence requirement and he said – yes, it was a pending change order.  I than challenged that it was hardly an “equal”, that the two products serve entirely different functions and that I would appreciate notice of any planned or issued changes to the project plans – as bid and contracted.  He informed me that I could have that information after the change orders were approved by the Commission.  I challenged him – that, based on what I’ve observed, these changes had been issued with notice to proceed and therefore I (representing the interests of the Indian River Drive Freeholders) should have a right to know, and not have to find out about these changes after the fact, or on my own.

Sunday, Nov 7 –

The only work observed was in the South sector where a Hubbard subcontractor had commenced the attempt to save “down bank” palm trees by trucking them to a County “Tree Hospital”.

Monday, Nov 8 –

I stopped to speak with Roger (who had been out of town much of last week) about S95.361 being the root of Freeholder concerns about the Counties right to take title to our riverfront lands by adverse possession and the Statutory assumption that “roadways are presumed to be dedicated”.  He placed a call to the County Attorney and was advised that either a Resolution of the BOCC or a local ordinance would be prepared for the Commission’s scheduled Tuesday meeting that would specifically address these concerns and waive the Counties right to acquire title to an expanded “roadway” under this statute.

I continued up to the Co. Attorney’s office to get copies of the contracts awarded for this project and the Resolution of the Board, the Emergency Joint Participation Agreement (Resolution 04-304) between SLC and FDOT.  Only the Ranger and Dickerson contracts were available.  I reviewed them and determined that they were “boiler plate” for the most part – with the exception of the specific contract quantity and payment page and requested that “most” of the Ranger contract be copied and the quantities page from the other construction contracts.  I also requested that the other documents be located and I be notified when I could review them to make a copy request.

On returning to The Drive, I met with Ned Gordon – a field archeologist hired by the County to survey the storm exposed coastal zones.  He’s surveying the Drive from South to North and had placed “site flags” in front of our place (9007/9009 SIRD) indicating a positive and significant archeological site.  So far, he’s located 8 “positive archeological sites, several isolated “surface finds”, and one historical site (a riverside “Ice House”) along The Drive.

Tuesday, November 9 –

I received a call from the County Attorney’s office that my contract copies were ready (still only Ranger’s and Dickerson’s) and went up to get them.

In the trip up, I did not observe any use of off duty officers at two way/one lane work locations as required by the plans.  Also, MOT required construction and work zone signage is still “hit and miss”.  (DET’s field engineers have not yet positively identified, by name, who is each construction contractors “Certified Maintenance of Traffic Supervisor” … who is required to be on site when work is in progress and available 24/7 for MOT issues otherwise.

Roger Sharp and I both attended the 6PM Commission meeting today and spoke in support of the Resolution (04-338) prepared to address, the S95.361 property acquisition issue which disclaims the counties interest in obtaining title to our riverbank property outside the R/W which currently exists.  I also spoke to our MOT concerns and the contractor’s failure to comply with their contract and plan requirements.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 –

Work today is somewhat limited, a “Nor’Easter” has blown in and displaced or destroyed better than 90% of the floating turbidity barrier that’s been staked to date.  
Possibly as a result of MOT comments made last night at the Commission meeting, there is increased use of law enforcement officers at work locations in the North and Middle sectors today.  Stopped by Rogers, left him a copy of this report thru the 9th, and discussed his desire to meet with the IRDFH Board and formally accept/appoint me as a technical advisor or consultant to the IRDFH.  He requested that I submit a brief proposal to support a motion to appoint.

Reviewed the contracts and FDOT specs that I’ve retrieved so far.

Thursday, November 11, 2004 –

Work resumed, the “Nor’Easter” that blew in yesterday was “only” a one day event.  In driving the 3 contract areas I observed that work had resumed prior to the turbidity barrier being restored  along the working faces.  I contacted Duane (DET) and advised him that the restoration of this barrier MUST be the first order of business in the resumption of work … within hours, this request was (for the most part) complied with.  

There is still a serious lack of conformity with FDOT MOT requirements … signage, flaggers, lane separation cones within the working zones, etc. or contract compliance with the requirement from the plans (Note 15 / Sheet 12) that “The contractor shall (emphasis added) use off duty law enforcement officers for control of traffic for two way, 1 lane operations.”  Also, there is only very limited use / posting of law enforcement at Drive Access points (or message boards or the  posting of signage) to advise of the “Road Closed / local traffic only” limitation for use of the drive by the public.

Friday, November 12, 2004 –

Went to The County Attorney’s office to get copies of the Hubbard and Dunkleberger contracts, and the BOCC Resolutions 04-304 and 04-338 which were not ready or located on my last visit (only the Hubbard contract was copied and ready to pick up.)  I then stopped at the County Engineers office to get copies of the contractors MOT Plans.  Mike Powley was not in but I was helped by Michael Harvey, Engineering Intern, who stated that these had been forwarded to DET “for Approval”.  However, he did state that they were all similar or identical in that they adopted the FDOT requirement for traffic control in the work zone.  He extracted and copied Sheet 604 (from the FDOT Traffic control design standards) from one contract file set and advised that the other contractors had committed to the same standards for MOT.

I reviewed this entire “600 Series” FDOT Design Standards on returning home and placed a call to Duane (DET) around 12:30 stating that we needed to get together to discuss the contractors noncompliance with this MOT issue again.  I did not get together with him Friday afternoon.

I met with Ned Gordon, the Archeologist, while they reviewed and profiled the AIS Indian site at our place (9007 SIRD).

Saturday, November 13, 2004 –

Work on the Projects is very “light” today, no photos taken.

Sunday, November 14, 2004 –

Overnight (about 3-4 AM) another “Nor’Easter” blew in.  This was accompanied by a major and intense rainfall to start it off (about 1 ¼ inches in this hour of rain).  Wind speed was measured at my location at 25-30 sustained, with gusts to 35/40 at 10:30AM.  Photos were taken of the erosion to fill dumped, or placed and compacted, at the South end of the middle contract as well as the failure (again) of the floating turbidity barrier.  Around Noon to 12:30 another set of photos were taken from my porch showing the turbidity in the lagoon extending past the end of the dock to our north … ~ 400 to 500’ out into the river.  After being advised by a neighbor that she’d been chased down and stopped by an officer posted near the intersection of Walton Rd. and The Drive on her way home from church, and she being advised that SIRD was “closed” between Walton and Midway due to Washouts … I drove the projects to investigate and photograph.

I found and photographed several areas of washouts that have again compromised SIRD.  The most significant today is a failure of the North Bound Lane in the vicinity of 5800 SIRD.  This area was one of the longest stretches of the bank failure (between Walton and Midway roads) “up to” the roadway edge during HC Frances which had received about 500’ of expedient / dumped fill.  In addition under the initial expedient repairs, roughly 8’ of the Northbound lane had been “deep patched”.  The rain this morning washed this expedient fill away (again) and in addition undermined the roadbed  - and this new deep patch – approximately 7’ into this eastern lane.  A second significant washout was found in the vicinity of 3421 SIRD, at an area of bank which had survived Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne intact … and which has now failed up to the edge of the northbound pavement.

The County’s fear for the safety of the SIRD roadway if another storm were to come in while the riverbank is in such a storm weakened state is proving well founded.  There’s no telling what the sunrise tomorrow morning will reveal … the winds have not let up all day or all evening.

I received CC’s of 5 emails today from Carl Flick.  As a property owner, he objects to the project at his address and the first two emails were directed to Comissioner Doug Coward.  The other three emails were follow-up’s to emails to various TV news outlets (WPBF. WPTV, and WPEC) that he’d contacted concerning “A rebellion along Indian River Drive”.   I called Roger and advised him that he needed to check his email as he, as well as most (or all) of the rest of the “Indian River Ridge Incorporation Committee” had been copied as well (CC’s also included Adam Locke and Julie Zahniser, the instigators of the legal efforts to block this project or obtain “compensation” for the county’s right to access private properties for this project).

I reviewed my “Indian River Ridge” Property maps and records and determined that approximately 640 properties (12 of which are within the PSL City Limits) fronting, or “backing”, on SIRD are directly effected by the work of this project.  In addition approximately 200 additional properties – on side streets off of SIRD, not directly effected by or “direct beneficiaries of” the work of this project are beneficiaries in the fact that the failure of SIRD would impact access to their property.  I also reviewed the property appraisers maps and determined that there are approximately 115 additional properties, within the City Limits of Ft. Pierce, which are directly effected by the project.  This “quick count” therefore yields 955 properties directly, or indirectly, effected by this project to protect the county’s road and provide continued use of the road to the public.

I drove the projects from South to North looking and tallying the properties where “Blue Paint” on the roadway had been sprayed indicating a written request to the county had be entered refusing access to the property for the project.  These property markings total 42 as of Sunday evening at dusk.

1.  South Contract Sector (County Line to 9009 SIRD) – 6 properties “blue marked”
2.  Middle Contract Sector (9009 – 4311 SIRD) -  21 properties “blue marked”
3.  North Contract Sector (4311 – St. Edwards School) – 15 properties “blue marked”

I also noted that several (8/42) of these properties “blue marked” were properties which had “legitimate” reasons to request to be excluded in that they – had already provided bank protection in the form of privately installed seawalls or retaining walls, were in areas of natural protection due to outcrops of the “Walton Rocks” Strata at river level, or were in areas of very low and extended bank slope which provides natural protection to SIRD.

Monday, November 15, 2004 –

Went up to see Mike Powley one final time to specifically (verbally) address noncompliance issues related to MOT and Erosion control.  Again Mike requested photographic record to support the noncompliance contention.  Came home, copied the 288 “Project Photos” taken to date and returned.  On the way home from meeting with Mike Powley, I met again with Duane (DET) about the MOT issue that we'd not gotten together on Friday.  His opinion is that we have a "difference of opinion" on what is required rather than a noncompliance issue.  I returned and hand delivered this photo CD to Michael Harvey, Mike’s Engineering Intern assistant.  I took several more photos today illustrative of our noncompliance concerns on these two aspects of the project and showing turbidity in The Lagoon now extending 600’ – 800’ (more or less) out from the West Bank.

Put these concerns in writing (email) this evening and sent it to Mike Powley.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 -

I "more or less" stayed off the road today, but - finally took a "look/see" ride to see if any changes had been made to MOT or if significant repositioning of the floating turbidity barrier had been accomplished.  Rode South to Jensen then covered the entire project(s) length to Ft. Pierce.  Unfortunately the answer is "no" to both issues.

Roger Sharp called to advise me of a special meeting of the IRDFH Board tomorrow at 7PM and requested again that I appear and bring with me a brief proposal for my "service".  

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 –

I still remained “more or less” in the background today, giving some “time” for Mike to issue compliance instructions to the contractors based on my Monday night email (I have not received a reply from him yet) and also waiting to see what the IRDFH Board does tonight. 

I did drive The Drive and perhaps observed some evidence of attempts to comply with the siltation/turbidity issue.  Hubbard (South Sector) was adding PVC “Staples” to retain their Turbidity Barrier.  However, these were being added to the barrier where it currently exists … on the shore … which doesn’t do much good.  In the Middle Sector I observed that Ranger’s erosion control sub had a truckload of Staked Silt Barrier which they may be adding to the erosion control mix.  Where Ranger was actively working the turbidity barrier had been repositioned – away from this active working face the Turbidity barrier remained for the most part, where and in the condition that the winds and blown it (providing no protection from the exposed, cleared and grubbed or partially filled embankment).  This observation, the failure to reposition the turbidity barrier (away from the actively working face), also holds for all contract sectors.

I did observe that Deputies were posted at the county line, Walton Rd, and Midway road and that a Ft. Pierce Officer was posted at Savannah Rd (all with “Road Closed – Local Traffic Only” Barrier signs.  I did not observe this at the Ft. Pierce entry to the project, the 5th entry point to The Drive Project area.  Within the three contract sectors I did not observe any significant change or improvements to comply with FDOT Index Sheet 604 requirements for MOT at the work zone(s) and no compliance with the requirement that law enforcement be used for traffic control at two way/single lane work areas.

At the North end of the North Sector (around 1709 SIRD) I did note the delivery of an entirely different fill material, one which much more closely “resembles” our native soil in color and composition.  I also examined (by feel) both soil types being delivered in the Dickerson Sector and they are both much more granular (non plastic) and are, most likely, similar to our native soils permeability characteristics – even if the original material did not come close to matching in “color”.

I wrote a PROPOSAL FOR SERVICE Letter to the IRDFH Board of Directors and delivered it to their meeting this evening.

Thursday, November 18, 2004 -

Jack Shelton, a  member of the IRDFH Board, came by this morning to advise me that the Board had rejected my proposal for services.  They insisted that if I was to continue, that I change the language of my proposal re. my "vision" -
I envision my role as a representative of the Freeholders to be twofold.
First, I will make myself available to Mike, you, and your Field
Engineers as a partner in educating the freeholders to the benefit and
necessity of this project - the "phase one" structural component as it's
been identified.  Second, I will work thru and with your field engineers
in the enforcement of the construction details and assist, if requested,
in the interpretation of "slope details".

Change the bolded section to read - "a project."

I refused to agree to the Boards proposed revision.  "This project" - is the only project that exists and the only one that "we'll" get despite the objections expressed by a distinct, but vocal, minority of Drive property owners.  Further, as stated in my "Proposal for Service", this vision had been conveyed to Mike Powley, The County Engineer - Craig Dunkelberger, VP of  Dunkelberger Engineering and Testing (the consultant awarded the contract for materials testing and engineering supervision for The Project - and the IRDFH Board members by email on November 2nd.  I wasn't about to go back on my word, and change my view or vision.

For my own interest, I'll continue following the progress and execution of the work, but not as a representative of - or in the interests of - the Drive's property Owners, in general, or the Freeholders Association - in particular.  The balance of this restoration project's observations will be only in the form of what future (dated) photographs I may take.

-- END OF REPORT --