Development of the SIRD Bank Restoration & Armoring
September 5th thru October 27th 2004 – Periodic Observations
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
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
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
>>> 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
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
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” -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
been identified. Second, I will work thru and with your field
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
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 --