Forest Hill Road in Macon, GA Flawed Environmental Assessment

FHR (Forest Hill Road) GDOT-projects: STP-3213(1,3)/BRMLB-3213(5), Bibb County.
P.I.No. 350520 & 351130/351135

MAAI signs in and Up
to Privilidged Rooms

MAAI (Moreland-Altobelli Assoc. Inc) signs in before us (click for more signatures)

click above for You Tube video of officials forcing the meeting closed...
or download the MPEG file (here)


	draft minutes
	Meeting started with Mr Steve Luxenberg, AICP. Director of Program Development for FHWA (404) 562-3650 - steve.luxenberg@dot.gov, declaring himself as the facilitator and handing out an agenda of topics. He then asked for everyone to ID themselves by name and position. Around the room we went. Next, he asked for any attorneys in the room to ID themselves, because GDOT "did not prepare or plan to have any attorneys in the room" Then he asked that all recording devices be turned off. I objected to this, and I objected to government secrecy in general - Secrecy often results in poor and inaccurate intelligence. This results in stupid government actions. I videotaped the room (and the attendees) and asked for him to repeat this requirement; which he did. I put my recorder away - in my pocket. Ken Sheets asked that all cameras and recorders be placed outside the room; I raised his demand by asking that all cell phones (which can be used as A/V recorders) be placed outside too. About 8 people placed the cell phones on the table in a pile... still in the room... and occasionally during the 2 hour meeting, a cell phone would buzz or vibrate which shows that a number of these devices were left "on" and could have been recording the meeting. As he started into the agenda, I suggested that we 1st review the PPP the citizens brought, and then use the agenda to followup with any topics not covered in the PPP. Without any objections, I began the PPP. Susan recited an intro-overview "we want a better design", and we also praised GDOT and FHWA for the recent progressive policies on Roundabouts and other traffic calming promotions. Several officials were taking notes during the PP Presentation; so I offered that I would email this to Ms Poon-Atkins and she could make it available to the others. I also offered to send the link to my rough-notes about the EA which is posted here: http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR_EA_FHWA_20110228.htm Tom spoke to traffic counts, projections and accident data. He passed around a few printouts of spread sheets showing GDOT data. We brought attention to the letter from GaDOT's Harvey Keepler which is a significant basis for our distrust of GDOT accuracy in their conclusions. http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/traffic.htm Tom asked "how can FHWA look at 5-10 years of flat-traffic-volumes and yet agree to a miraculous 2% growth rate in the projections?" Luxenberg said there were a lot of parameters that FHWA looked at, and that he (not his area of expertise) personally could not quote the guidelines at this time. They really couldn't say much about the traffic counts, and didn't dispute them nor did they dispute crash data. We talked about speed and safety several times. Chuck Hasty said we may lose Funding if the project is delayed. MAY not WILL. They also stated that the funding was in place for the southern section and that they would begin buying ROW in Nov. EA purpose and need Katy Allen (FHWA signature) said that the p and n was not revisited each time the EA is updated because it is assumed that it will always stand for project. ... asked how we get errors corrected in the p and n, and she said it was correct when she signed off on the FONSI, and I tried to say something like of course that is true, and [you] were operating on the information you were given, but this project has gone on for so long that many things have changed, and some of the assumptions in the p and n are no longer correct. We asked when the EA would be updated again and they said Nov. 2011 when the funds for buying ROW in the southern section are approved. Logical Termini Ben Buchan and Steve Luenberg both entered the discussion. Ben claimed that Vineville WAS a logical terminus for FHR even at capacity because presumable the project would relieve congestion on FHR, whether or not it added to Vineville, and this meets the definition. Each section does not have to stand alone, the termini can be at either end of the whole project. Does this make sense? If each SEGMENT can have its own purpose without regard to the NETWORK? And relieivng "congestion on FHR" can be accomplished by merely improving the 3 intersections where it occurs! Traffic Calming in Bibb may be limited to only neighborhood roads with max of 25mph traffic - speed bumps or tables according to Ken Sheets. I am to followup with a request to view protocol and maybe to request Traffic Calming protocols for faster traffic in minor arterials, neighborhood collectors, etc... Protocols are needed for roundabouts, trees, geometry, chicanes, etc... I showed the 2002 Traffic Calming article published in the paper - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/Traffic-Calming-20020114.jpg I showed where the RIP paid $80,000 for this, I pointed out where Van Etheridge was quoted in the article. Then Van spoke up to say that there is now a policy for speed bumps. I did not go into the minor detail that this policy was developed just a few years ago as a separate impetus by Macon City Council. EA misrepresents the perennial stream: I showed pictures on the PPP and additional photos of the ROW plat which shows major and incompletely mapped disturbances in ROW at 744 inside of 25 foot stream buffer: http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR-744-ROWs.jpg http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/ROW-744-Buffer-Stream.GIF after we ended the meeting, one of the attendees said he was from California and he was impressed at how prepared we were compared to meetings he had attended out West.

**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. or they are proceeding on an outdated 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.

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. or they are proceeding on an outdated 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.