Forest Hill Road in Macon, GA Flawed Environmental Assessment

**Problems with the (EA) Environmental Assesment**
Our original concerns are posted here - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_EAisFlawed.htm The EA for Forest Hill Road contains Serious Flaws as outlined below:
1- The Accident data is wrong: http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/AccidentAnalysis.htm 2- the Traffic Projections are based "on faulty data. The projected traffic counts, the number of cars expected to use the road by 2024, are pure fantasy. - Telegraph Editors 11-5-07 here" http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/traffic.htm 3- The Needs and Purpose Statement used to justify and launch this project is no longer applicable. . . So they changed the N+P. - The newest version is here: - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_NeedsPurposeTableContents.pdf - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_NeedsPurpose1-10p.pdf - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_NeedsPurpose11-49p.pdf 4- The Hydrology study is flawed. http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/TelegraphRunoffTraffic.htm This creek is incorrectly categorized as intermittent. But it is perennial. So mitigation formula is also in error. 5- A county commissioner (Elmo Richardson) who has consistently voted to pursue the project and is still drawing a salary from his company, Stantec, who designed the project has had a professional engineering complaint filed against him with the Professional Surveying and Licensing Board. http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/13WMAZ_Savage1.htm 6- Citizens have not seen the final plan for the road. Example: Dr Ron Lemon was twice rebuffed when requesting a copy of the plan. Finally he paid $30 for a copy which he later learned was not the "current plan"! 7- Citizens have not seen landscaping plan. What we have learned, however, is that the wrong kinds of trees and shrubs are being planted. Native trees were requested by the stakeholder's group, but the trees listed to be planted are Ginkos which are not native, may include some female trees which drop very smelly seed balls in the fall, and do not offer a "canopy" shape which was requested, and desired by the stakeholder's group. The American Beauty bushes, although native, are deciduous.

2- the Traffic Projections are based "on faulty data. The projected traffic counts, the number of cars expected to use the road by 2024, are pure fantasy. - Telegraph Editors 11-5-07 here"
http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/traffic.htm

3- The Needs and Purpose Statement used to justify and launch this project is no longer applicable. . . So they changed the N+P.
    - The newest version is here:
   - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_NeedsPurposeTableContents.pdf
   - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_NeedsPurpose1-10p.pdf
   - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_NeedsPurpose11-49p.pdf

4- The Hydrology study is flawed.
http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/TelegraphRunoffTraffic.htm

This creek is incorrectly categorized as intermittent. But it is perennial. So mitigation formula is also in error.

5- A county commissioner (Elmo Richardson) who has consistently voted to pursue the project and is still drawing a salary from his company, Stantec, who designed the project has had a professional engineering complaint filed against him with the Professional Surveying and Licensing Board.
http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/13WMAZ_Savage1.htm

6- Citizens have not seen the final plan for the road. Example: Dr Ron Lemon was twice rebuffed when requesting a copy of the plan. Finally he paid $30 for a copy which he later learned was not the "current plan"!

7- Citizens have not seen landscaping plan. What we have learned, however, is that the wrong kinds of trees and shrubs are being planted. Native trees were requested by the stakeholder's group, but the trees listed to be planted are Ginkos which are not native, may include some female trees which drop very smelly seed balls in the fall, and do not offer a "canopy" shape which was requested, and desired by the stakeholder's group. The American Beauty bushes, although native, are deciduous.