g e o r g i A
ENGINEER
NATURAL RESOURCES & THE ENVIRONMENT ®
Volume 20, Issue 4 AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
CleAning up: AtlAntA’s CompliAnCe with FederAl Consent deCrees eArns extrA time
2
GeorGia enGineer
g e o r g i A
ENGINEER Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com Editor-in-Chief: Roland Petersen-Frey Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons Art Direction/Design: Pamela PetersenFrey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404-521-2324 • Fax: 404-521-0283 The Georgia Engineer Editorial Board Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Chair Michael L. (Sully) Sullivan, ACEC Georgia, President Gwen D. Brandon, CAE, ACEC Georgia, Chief Operating Officer GSPE Representatives Tim Glover, PE
Lee Philips ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE John Edwards, PE ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells, PE Shaun Green, PE Kay Wolfe, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Jenny Jenkins, PE SEAOG Representative Rob Wellacher, PE
ACEC/Georgia Representatives B.J. Martin, PE
The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
3
Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . 11 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Eco-Wise Civil Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Facility Design Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Kennedy Engineering ~ KEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS & H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4
GeorGia enGineer
t a b l e
o f
CONTENTS 7
Sustainability & Value Engineering
9
The Case for Infrastructure Investment in 2013
10
Tackling Our Nation’s Fiscal Crisis
12
Atlanta Before Real Sewers
15
Micro-contaminants in Georgia Waters
17
Technology Enhancements and
GEORGIA ENGINEER August | September 2013
22
Traffic Management
22
Cleaning Up: Atlanta’s Compliance with Federal Consent Decrees Earns Extra Time
26
Georgia’s Forests: Providing Trees for the EU and Sustainability for the US
28
Teamwork Tackles Challenging Riverbank Restoration
30
Highway Engineering, Plantations, and Archaeology Where the Present Intersects the Past
12 34
Damming the Great Falls of the Chattahoochee River
36
Georgia Engineering News
37
ACEC Georgia News
40
ASCE Georgia News
41
ASHE Georgia News
43
GSPE Georgia News
44
ITE Georgia News
46
ITS Georgia News
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
33
First Leg in 98-mile Regional Trail System Opens to Public
28 5
Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com
6
GeorGia enGineer
Sustainability & Value Engineering By Lenor M. Bromberg, PE, AVS, LEED® AP BD+C
T
he World Commission on Environment and Development (a part of the United Nations) published Our Common Future in 1987 and defined sustainable as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs,” and in 1994, John Elkington coined the phrase “triple bottom line”, which refers to the consideration of the value of social (people), environmental (planet), and economic (money) resources. Value engineering, also referred to as value analysis or value methodology, is generally defined as a structured approach to evaluating and optimizing projects and processes by cutting costs, increasing profits, improving quality, and enhancing performance. SAVE International® states that value methodology helps achieve balance between required functions, performance, quality, safety, and scope with the cost and other resources necessary to accomplish those requirements. At first glance, it would seem that protection of resources and value engineering are at odds with each other. Although economic resources are in the obvious forefront of this methodology, there is no apparent consideration of impacts to or value of social and environmental resources. With diminishing funding sources, increased demand for infrastructure quality and capacity by a continually expanding population, more stringent environmental regulations and requirements, as well as growing understanding by the general public that our environmental resources are being depleted, the need to incorporate sustainable value into project and process development grows more imperative. A value engineering workshop utilizes a six phase job plan and seeks to find a balance in function and cost in order to proAUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
vide maximum value to a project or process. The SAVE International® standard job plan includes the Information, Function Analysis, Creative, Evaluation, Development, and Presentation Phases, which allow a multidisciplinary team to gain a project or process understanding, identify and analyze required project or process functions, generate ideas on all possible ways to accomplish the identified functions, select feasible ideas for further development, prepare documentation on the selected ideas for improving value, and finally to present the recommendations to stakeholders. There are opportunities to gain an understanding of and evaluate the value of social, environmental, and economic resources during a value engineering workshop. Information Phase ~ Gaining an understanding of the project or process generally includes prior development history, analysis or engineering tasks completed to date, descriptions of alternatives considered, proposed project or process implementation costs, as well as what is commonly referred to as constraints. Constraints may include budgets, design standards and specifications, and environmental regulations (local, state ,and federal). In addition, it is important for the team to understand the context, especially for a construction project, within which the project would exist. This context could include social resources such as local residents and business owners, community centers, parks, fire and police stations, churches or schools, and environmental resources such as wetlands, streams, threatened or endangered plants and animals, or cultural (historic or archaeological) sites. Additional information about other environmental resources, such as hazardous waste sites, area utilities, and noise or air quality sensitive lo-
cations could also be provided to establish the project context. A clear picture of the context enables the value engineering team to more completely consider the value of social and environmental resources, as well as how impacts and benefits to these resources could affect economic resources, such as costs or profit. Function Analysis Phase ~ Intended project or process functions are identified and analyzed to understand the project from a functional perspective; what must the project do, rather than how the project is currently conceived (SAVE International® Value Methodology Standard and Body of Knowledge, 2007 edition). The intent of this phase is not only to identify the functions, but to also determine how they are related to each other. Focusing on the need and purpose of
7
the project, including applicable social, environmental, and economic resources, through a functional analysis, the value engineering team can confirm that the project or process meets the objectives of the stakeholders. By assigning material or implementation costs, performance attributes or user preferences to each function during the analysis, the team can identify ‘value-mismatched functions’ to consider during the Creative Phase. For example, there may be low-value functions that have a high cost. Creative Phase ~ Once the functions of the project or process are identified and how each are related to the other is understood, the value engineering team brainstorms to generate ideas for all possible ways (regardless of constraints or the probability of implementation) each function could be performed and add value to the project or process. Working in a creative environment where the team is not boxed in by constraints may generate ideas that seem impossible to implement, but may also lead to break-through ideas that not only add value to the project or process, but yield great benefits to the associated social, environmental, and economic resources. These ideas may involve suggestions of sustainable materials or alternative construction or implementation methods that have reduced environmental impacts. Other ideas may be associated with efficient operations and low maintenance costs.
value to the project, benefits or impacts social and environmental resources, and effects on the economic resources (project costs). Typical initial project costs could include engineering efforts, right-of-way, construction materials and labor, and environmental permits and mitigation. Long term costs would be related to life-cycle costs such as operations, maintenance, and material replacement. In addition, costs associated with impacts to social resources, such as changes in access to community facilities, property impacts to disadvantaged populations (low income or minority populations, also referred to as Environmental Justice populations), other local residents or business owners, and costs associated with impacts to environmental resources, such as wetlands, streams, protected plant and animal species, cultural resources, would also be provided in the idea documentation.
neering job plan, it is possible to bring sustainable value-added ideas to projects and processes. To be sustainable - to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs - we must approach the development and implementation of projects and processes with a balanced understanding of the current and future needs of our society, impacts or benefits to our environmental resources, and available economic resources required for implementation, operation, and maintenance. v
Presentation Phase ~ At the conclusion of the value engineering workshop, the value ideas that were brought into the Development Phase are presented to the project owners, decisions makers, and stakeholders. This presentation time allows an overview discussion of each idea so that the decision-making team can gain an understanding of the steps the team completes during the workshop, as well as the ideas that are recommended for consideration. By considering social, environmental, and economic resources during the value engi-
Evaluation Phase ~ Each of the creative ideas generated are reviewed individually to assess how each idea might affect project or process implementation costs (economic resources) or identified performance measures. During this evaluation, the effects of the ideas on social and environmental resources can also be assessed. Those ideas having a higher likelihood to improve or add value to the project or process, as well as the social, environmental, and economic resources would move into the Development Phase. Development Phase ~ Documentation is prepared for each of the value ideas that are brought forward into the Development Phase, which describe the idea, how it adds 8
GeorGia enGineer
The Case for Infrastructure Investment in 2013 By Thomas C. Leslie
I
n the coming months, the debate over federal spending and debt will surely accelerate in Congress and many other places. The economy seems to be improving and unemployment is slowly declining, and it remains true that the economy is better, but not good. How will infrastructure investment fare in this political climate? I suspect that infrastructure will be viewed by some as just more government spending. In fact, not all government spending is equal in its impact on nation income—or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) So here is my case for infrastructure investment. The economic multiplier is the increase in GDP for $1 of financial ‘injection’ (government spending, capital investment, tax cuts, and such). Calculating a multiplier is complex. An econometric model at Moody’s Economy.com estimated a multiplier for infrastructure spending of 1.44 in late 2011 $1 spent on infrastructure results in $1.44 increase of GDP. A few years earlier when the economy was less robust, the multiplier was 1.59 - you get a larger punch when there is excess capacity in the economy. For comparison purposes, the same 2011 report calculated much lower multipliers for certain permanent tax cuts (0.32 to 0.53) and much higher for temporary unemployment insurance and food stamps (1.55 and 1.71 respectively). Reducing financial injections (as in cutting government spending, less capital investment, or raising taxes) has the result of decreasing GDP. A San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank report in November 2012 summarized research on the multiplier for federal grants to states for highways over a 20 year period, 1990 to 2010. During that time, the average multiplier was about 2.0. Strikingly, they found that the multiplier for highway projects in the 2009 federal stimulus program was about four times that multiplier. This seems to confirm that the multiplier is higher when there is excess capacity in the economy, as there certainly was in 2009. AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
It is clear that investing in infrastructure will increase GDP and employment. Sometimes short-term budget issues are put in the same mix with long-term financial problems, which confuses the analysis and solutions. It seems clear to me that there is a long-term financial problem with entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security (time will tell with Obamacare). Currently, the Medicare trust fund is forecast to become insolvent in 13 years and Social Security in 20 years. Both programs need structural reform, such as increasing the retirement age, means-testing benefits, and/or increasing premium rates. This will be a very difficult political task, but if changes are phased in over many years the impact on individuals will be small. Somehow, annual appropriations and budget ceilings are separate and apart from the systemic reform needed in the entitlement programs—maybe it is just too hot to handle. If anything is going to ‘leave our children with a huge debt to pay down’ (as some are wont to say), it is the entitlements, where plenty of time remains to ‘fix the problem.’ At the same time, infrastructure investment, with its high economic multiplier, is held hostage by budget hawks. Our infrastructure needs are urgent and immediate. This is certainly clear to anyone who must drive in the Atlanta region. The national 2013 ASCE Infrastructure Report Card provides a clear, concise summary of the problem through the grades given several categories of public works:
crease. Infrastructure investment is directed at real needs, with real consequences. The total national debt is astronomical. It is commonly discussed in terms of percentage of GDP. To provide perspective, the national debt spiked at 35 percent of GDP as a consequence of World War I and at 122 percent, following World War II. It hit a trough in 1974 of 32 percent and has peaked at 101 percent in 2012, as a consequence of the Great Recession and two wars. Because of budget cuts, additional cuts as part of the ‘sequester,’ and the growth in the GDP as the economy has improved, it seems like the 2012 peak will not be exceeded. Since infrastructure has a high economic multiplier, $1 spent on this investment, even if it is entirely debt, raises the GDP by $1.40, or so. This results in a declining debt to GDP ratio. There is another aspect of this type of investment. The country’s capacity for supporting more efficient business is enhanced. This increases the country’s long-term competitiveness in the global economy. In budget and debt debates, it is all about ‘whose ox is gored.’ Nonetheless, it seems clear that infrastructure investment has a beneficial impact on GDP and employment, and affirmatively addresses a demonstrable problem for America citizens. v
Not only is there a need for more capacity in Airports Schools Ports Water Supply Roads Wastewater Transit
D D C D D D D
these categories, but inadequate maintenance is causing the ultimate cost of repair to in9
Tackling Our Nation’s Fiscal Crisis By Johnny Isakson Thank you to the publisher and readers for allowing me to contribute to Georgia Engineer once again, with an update on some of the latest issues I’m working on in Washington, D.C. There has been no shortage of news coming out of Washington lately with the IRS scandal, the NSA leaks, the problems implementing Obamacare, and the tensions in Syria and Egypt. As we address all of these, we also must continue to tackle the biggest challenge facing our country and our economy—our skyrocketing debt and deficits. Early this year, I was placed on the Senate Finance Committee, where I am now better positioned to implement meaningful solutions on tax reform, Medicare, and Social Security. These issues affect every American and every business, and they must be part of addressing our debt and deficit problems. I have found that working across party lines is the most effective way to move legislation forward, and I am happy to work with anyone willing to sit down at the table to reduce our nation’s crippling debt and deficits.
10
The spending habits of Washington and the method by which Congress appropriates federal dollars also are major contributors to our nation’s fiscal crisis. That’s why Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and I reintroduced bipartisan, commonsense legislation that would fundamentally reform Congress’ broken budgeting process. Our Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act would
convert the annual spending process to a two-year budget cycle, forcing Congress to become better stewards of the taxpayers' money by placing Congress on a two-year budget cycle with one year for appropriating federal dollars and the other year devoted to oversight of federal programs. I am proud to report that our biennial budget legislation is gaining momentum. On March 22, the Senate passed our legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget resolution with 68 votes, more than two-thirds of the Senate. Although the budget resolution is a non-binding blueprint, the vote on our amendment signals that there is broad bipartisan support for biennial budgeting and appropriations and that our standalone legislation that would have the effect of law has a good chance of passing in the Senate. The passage of this amendment signaled a big win for the taxpayers of Georgia and the nation. I will continue to work to ensure that this legislation passes the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, and goes to the president’s desk to be signed into law.
GeorGia enGineer
Tackling our fiscal crisis is critical to ensuring the success of American businesses and job providers. The number one thing the federal government can do to create private sector jobs in the United States is to stop imposing burdensome regulations on businesses. Existing overreaching regulations and the threat of more regulations in the future are leaving businesses on the sidelines as they wait for a more predictable regulatory environment in which to invest their capital. The current regulatory environment is preventing a robust recovery of our economy. Last fall, I co-sponsored legislation that would impose a one-year moratorium on all new federal regulations to give businesses a break from costly, job-killing regulations and provide a more predictable environment to foster expansion and growth. Specifically, the legislation imposes a one-year moratorium on ‘significant’ new federal rules and regulations from going into effect if those rules would have an adverse impact on jobs, the economy, or our international competitiveness. ‘Significant’ rules include those costing more than $100 million per year. Exempt from the ‘time-out’ are rules that foster private sector job creation.
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
In addition to tackling the negative regulatory climate in Washington, I am also addressing many of the labor issues that also thwart job creation in this country. As the ranking Republican on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, I am concerned about the new Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez and concerned about the numerous rulings issued by the National Labor Relations Board in the wake of a federal appeals court ruling in January 2013 that two Obama appointees to the Board were unconstitutional. Additionally, I recently reintroduced legislation that would reverse the National Labor Relation Board’s 2011 decision allowing as few as two or three employees to form micro bargaining units, or ‘micro unions,’ to engage in collective bargaining with employers. My legislation, the Representation Fairness Restoration Act, would reinstate the traditional standard for determining which employees will constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, a standard that has been developed through years of careful consideration and Congressional guidance. When it comes to confronting our fiscal
crisis and turning around our economy so that small businesses can create jobs again, Washington cannot continue to do things the same way or pretend we do not have problems staring us in the face. We do, plain and simple, and we must act decisively to send each other and the world the clear message that we are serious about tackling them. I am grateful that I have been elected to represent our great state, and I will continue to serve you as I always have—by calling it like I see it and making the tough choices today because we don’t have the luxury of more time. We simply cannot leave today’s burdens to future generations.v
11
Atlanta Night-Soil and Garbage Collection Wagons, 1893
By Thomas C. Leslie
Atlanta, Before Real Sewers
A
t its beginning, Atlanta was a very small settlement at a future railroad junction in a vast, inland wilderness. In 1850, the population of Atlanta was 2,572, and the city limit was a one-mile circle with its center at the junction of three railroads. No specifics are recorded about Atlanta’s earliest water and sewer system, but it seems safe to surmise that each dwelling had, at best, a dug well—shallow and rock lined for at least some of its depth—and a privy. I would think that most people today associate a privy with an “outhouse”. To be clear on terms, ‘night-soil’ means the material that accumulates in a privy pit and that is periodically removed and taken to a dumping ground. The removal of excrement was usually limited to nighttime because of the offensive nature of the material, hence the 12
Table 1. Population of Atlanta Year Population 1850 2,572 1860 9,554 1870 21,789 1880 37,409 1890 65,533 Inman Park annexed 1900 89,872 City of West End annexed 1894
Notes on City Limits 1 mile radius 1.5 mile radius in 1866 1.75 mile radius in 1889, Source: U.S. Census population for the City of Atlanta. Downloaded as Demographics of Atlanta from Wikipedia, May 25, 2013
GeorGia enGineer
In 1879, city council approved a ‘saniterm ‘night-soil.’ Undoubtedly, a portion of locity. Sewer grades were set without the adthe night-soil was simply dumped on vacant vantage of knowing the end point. Atlanta’s tary tax’ to fund enforcement of ordinances land or in drainage ditches. sewers in the early 1870s have been described related to “the health, cleanliness, and saniDuring its early years, Atlanta was surely as “mostly rock culverts, which carried fecal tary conditions.” In 1881, this tax was raised a dirty, smelly town. There was no running matter, industrial by-products, and rainwa- to $3 per year for all lots in a designated sanwater nor an organized way to collect and ter away from hotels and factories near the itary district, which in 1885 was described as dispose of night-soil. Very few roads were center toward the outskirts of Atlanta.” “comprising (the city’s) central and most densely populated portions and the waterpaved, and they were dusty when it was dry (James Russell, Atlanta 1847 – 1890). and muddy when it rained. Horses, mules, ‘Public health’ was a relatively new no- shed.” The city removed night-soil and cows, pigs, and chickens were common, and tion in the mid-1870s that came to embrace garbage from lots in the district. Although their excreta was mostly left to nature. both the medical and engineering profes- the watershed tributary to the city’s Poole As early as 1860, the city’s wastewater sions. The Atlanta Board of Health was cre- Creek water supply reservoir was largely outmanagement strategy consisted of a light- ated to focus on this new discipline. It had side the city limits and residents were not handed ordinance to regulate privies, “All no real authority, but was appointed by city charged the sanitary tax, night-soil removal privies . . . shall have vaults three feet deep council and provided advice on sanitary mat- service was provided. Clearly the city had from the surface of the ground and shall be ters. The Board’s 1882 annual report to City concerns over an unprotected water supply kept well limed and walled, or weather- Council found that a “system of removing the reservoir where water treatment was not proboarded to the ground . . . “. By the early- night-soil from the city, inaugurated a few vided. As shown in Table 2, the total number 1870s, the ordinance was expanded to hold years ago, has steadily increased in popularof lots in the sanitary district expanded over “the actual tenant or occupant” liable for ity, despite some minor objections . . .” compliance and subject to a $100 fine or 30 While some residents began connect- the 19-year period beginning with 1882; in days “in the calaboose.” ing directly to the city’s primitive sewer sys- 1893, the district was expanded to encomAs more residents connected to the city’s tem, far more did not and relied upon pass the entire city. It was not until 1900 central water system after 1875, they in- privies to receive human excreta. Periodi- that the percentage of lots receiving nightstalled more and more water closets (think cally, city workers would empty the privy soil removal service had declined to about bathrooms with a sink, tub, and toilet). vaults using hand tools and pails. The half of the total city. In 1882, night-soil was removed by A sewer system began to evolve in a hap- waste would be transferred to barrels on hazard way. Drainage ditches allowed horse-drawn wagons and taken to a dump- “four, two-horse dumping wagons with a capacity of forty bushels each.” Lots were servstormwater to be channeled away from ing ground. iced “weekly, semi-weekly or homes, buildings, roads, and Table 2. Lots in Sanitary District oftener.” The Board of Health calother structures. As Atlanta grew, Lots receiving culated that 75,000 bushels of these drainage ways were lined Year Total Lots Night-Soil Service % without Sewer human excrement were “collected with rough stone, and many had 1882 1,979 1,336 67.5% and withdrawn from the city durflat bottoms. Some residents built 1883 3,025 2,067 68.3% ing (1882)” and that twice that sewer connections to these 1884 4,341 3,278 75.5% amount of garbage was collected. drainage ditches from their 1885 4,735 3,616 76.4% With what seems to be some pride homes. Others simply directed 1886 5,211 4,256 81.7% in this accomplishment, the Board the flow from their water closet to 1887 5,634 4,679 83.0% of Health observes in its annual restreet gutters or low land away 1888 6,544 4,746 72.6% port to City Council, “A few years from the house. During the sev1889 8,394 5,865 68.7% ago this service was not know (in eral decades after the Civil War, 1890 9,338 6,428 68.8% Atlanta), and even now it is by no the drainage ditches evolved into 1891 9,897 6,509 65.8% means as extensive as it should be combined sewers, which carried 1892 10,379 6,340 61.1% . . . but the beneficial influence exstormwater and human waste. 1893 15,365* 10,266 66.8% erted upon the atmosphere of the Unfortunately, these sewers were 1894 16,476 10,338 62.7% city by the abstraction of this enornot part of a comprehensive sys1895 16,915 10,440 61.7% mous amount of putrid and detem, and most had functionally 1896 17,404 10,704 61.5% composing matter may be deficient design features. Many 1897 17,917 11,136 61.1% imagined. (To do this) the places were open channels. The rough 1898 18,395 10,797 58.7% of deposit should be visited and stone construction provided pock1899 19,276 11,191 58.1% the heterogeneous heaps inspected. ets for deposition of organic mat1900 19,801 10,073 50.9% The ocular as well as the olfactory ter that was malodorous. With a testimony will be convincing.” flat bottom, the flow seldom * Sanitary district expanded to include all lots in the entire city. Despite this stilted lanreached a self-cleaning scourer ve- Source: Annual Reports of the Atlanta Board of Health to the City Council. AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
13
guage, it is clear that piles of garbage and excrement were visually revolting and smelled dreadfully. The report for the following year (1883) describes this work as the “systematic withdrawal . . . of (an) enormous mass of decomposing and poisonous material. The noisome and disgusting odors which formerly pervaded some of our most prominent and fashionable thoroughfares have ceased to annoy and fret our fellow-citizens . . . .” Apparently some improvements were made to the night-soil collection wagons so that in 1885 the Board of Health reported that these wagons were “once a traveling cess-pool emitting the vilest of stenches in their passage through the streets . . . .” In quick succession, the city abandoned two ‘dumping grounds’ due to citizen objections and law suits. This confirms the aphorism, “Everybody wants you to pick up their waste, but nobody wants you to put it down.” By 1884 Atlanta had reached a deal with Fulton County to buy a 50-acre site it owned which was about three miles west of the city. The city considered this transaction as providing a solution for ‘many years.’ (The site is now encompassed in the city’s Maddox Park). At the disposal site, the night-soil was dumped/poured? into excavations four feet square and 16 inches deep and “immediately covered with dry soil.” As soon as practicable, the land was sown with grass and grain for feed for the mules drawing the wagons. At the same time that the Board of Health agitated for the expansion of night-soil removal services in the 1880s, they also urged city council to build proper sewers. The 1882 annual report of the Board of Health called for action: “Intelligent attention to the details of the whole question of sewerage is of vital importance. . . . in this city the importance of this subject is, year by year, assuming greater and more embarrassing proportions. . . Defective sewers are one of the certain sources of severe and fatal disease . . . .” The 1883 annual report to City Council found that “Atlanta has wofuly (sic) neglected her sewerage.” Additionally, “Many of the sewers laid prior to (1883) were entirely too small, and many others were built of bad materials, rendering them entirely 14
worthless to the city.” In short the sewers were a mess, and not very extensive. The City Council’s Committee on Sewers and Drains urged a comprehensive approach to the problem: “(T)here should be a more systematic method devised in the construction of our main sewers so as to avoid the mistakes of the past.” Additionally, the committee recommended preparation of a “contour” map and added, “ . . . had this been done at the close of the (Civil) war by competent engineers it would have saved many thousands of dollars . . . .” The 1884 Board of Health annual report recommended that the city: “ . . . secure the services of an expert and skillful sanitary engineer . . . to prepare a plan for the systematic sewerage of the city, based upon correct engineering and sanitary principles . . . .” The Board also declared, “Rough rock sewers are dangerous.” The city engineer expanded on this in his report, “I trust …that the day for rock culverts, especially dry, has passed; they hold all the filth which accumulates in the interstices and crevices . . . .” The 1885 Board of Health report repeated its unfavorable critique of Atlanta sewers, “Atlanta has never followed any system in constructing sewers. If for 20 years past the sewers built had been laid out and constructed according to a well devised plan, the condition of our city . . . would be far better than it is today.” The 1886 report of the city council’s Sanitary Committee included a proposal from a Mr. Ernest W. Bowditch, “an able, skillful and practical sanitary engineer, of
Boston, Massachusetts” to prepare a sewer plan for the city. The proposal was apparently bottled up in the finance committee and “has not come fairly before (city council) on its merits.” It was not until 1888 that the city hired Rudolph Herring, a highly regarded, New York sanitary engineer to assist the city in preparing a comprehensive plan for sewers for Atlanta. His report was issued in 1890. It is the beginning point for the next chapter in the story of Atlanta’s evolving wastewater management system.v
GeorGia enGineer
Micro-contaminants in Georgia Waters By Steven C. Seachrist, P.E. • Asset Optimization Engineer • Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources
W
ith the advent of high-tech instrumentation, scientists are now able to detect the presence of chemical compounds in water at concentrations in the nanogram per liter (ng/L) range. A nanogram is one billionth of a gram. In a liter of water, one billionth of a gram equates to one part per trillion. Most water contaminants (and disinfectants) are measured in terms of parts per million, a unit one million times larger than a part per trillion. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) sometimes appear in the environment in concentrations on the order of 10 to 10,000 ng/L. So, any discussion of PPCPs is in terms of extremely small concentrations. Let’s start with the overall good news. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to date there is no evidence that PPCPs in the environment cause adverse human health effects. These compounds have probably been present in the environment ever since they were first manufactured. However, effects on human health and on ecosystems are being carefully
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
studied. Some general sources of PPCPs include prescription and over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, cosmetics, and sun screen products. Because of the relatively new ability to measure them, many of these substances have now been detected in the environment. PPCPs arrive in the environment in various ways. They are excreted by humans and pets, they are flushed down toilets and washed off into showers and baths, and they are thrown away with household garbage.
Most of these waste streams are treated in some fashion. Of those treated in water reclamation and potable water treatment plants, the plant processes have varying effects on removal of the large array of PPCP chemicals. A study conducted at large Georgia water treatment systems in 2009 by the University of North Carolina (Singer, Weinberg, Yang & Flowers) measured concentrations of nineteen selected PPCPs in various stages of wastewater effluent, and in raw and finished water at a water treatment plant. Of all of these compounds, only two, an insect repellent (DEET), and caffeine were detected in the water treatment plant source (untreated) water at levels above 10 ng/L. After potable water treatment, only DEET occasionally remained at a detectable level, and this was at levels under 10 ng/L. This study measured the ability of various wastewater treatment processes to remove PPCPs. Biological treatment and membrane filtration were relatively effective at removing certain pharmaceuticals and caffeine. Granulated Activate Carbon (GAC) reduced the concentrations of a wide variety of PPCPs. Ozonation was effective at removing most of the remaining PPCPs. Although PPCPs apparently pose little risk to human health, the possible effect on
15
aquatic organisms is of some concern. Endocrine systems—which control metabolic activity in animals—are sensitive to low levels of various pollutants, and studies are underway to determine if PPCPs contribute to endocrine disruption in the environment. PPCPs are designed to interact with cellular receptors at low concentrations. Also, aquatic life is exposed continually to higher doses than those found in treated drinking water, and the exposure occurs over multiple generations. At the present time, no new regulations for water or wastewater treatment for PPCPs are on the horizon. Meanwhile, consumers should know that flushing excess
16
or out-dated drugs down the toilet could add to the presence of PPCPs in the environment. Septic systems and leaking sewer pipes allow some amount of untreated wastewater to enter the ground or surface waters. Similarly, throwing pharmaceuticals into the trash could result in environmental damage, depending on the ultimate fate of the waste stream. And as discussed above, not all PCCPs are removed by water and wastewater treatment systems. The best bet is to contact local waste management authorities to find out if there is a take-back program or other safe method of disposal. This goes for vitamins, cosmetics, and insect repellents as well. v
GeorGia enGineer
Technology Enhancements and Traffic Management By John D. Edwards | Contributing Authors: William Andrews, David Benevelli, Michael Robertson, Joe Thomas, Marion Waters
I
n the Atlanta Region today we have one of the most sophisticated traffic management systems in the United States, yet the most recent Texas Transportation Institute Mobility Report for 2012 shows the Atlanta metro region to be the seventh most congested urban traffic network in the country. That is looking at the dark side! This same report lists Atlanta at having one of the more reliable freeway systems, and this is no doubt due to the large emphasis on coordinated incident management. The bright side is how much we have grown in population and economic activity over the last thirty years. From 1982 to 2012, within the twenty-two county Atlanta region our population increased from 2,200,000 to 4,360,000 or almost 100 percent. As a result, the number of vehicular trips daily increased from 30,700,000 to 92,720,0002 or an increase of over 300 percent. So how are we doing in terms of congestion relief? There are many ways to look at congestion but the simplest measure is the delay on our existing freeways and arterial streets. In 1982 we had 4500 lane miles of freeway and arterial streets with 30,770,000 vehicle miles of travel daily. Thirty-three percent were operating in ‘congested conditions.’ Thirty years later in 2011, there were 9556 lane miles of freeways and arterial streets with 49,501,000 vehicle miles of travel daily. Fifty-nine percent were operating in ‘congested conditions.’ So the congestion levels on the major roadway networks in the peak hours have increased slightly over 100 percent while our vehicular travel has increased over 300 percent. How has technology helped to reduce congestion? There are several reasons why we have been able to have remarkable growth and still have a reasonable level of mobility. These reasons include technological advances in traffic management technology, increased roadway network, increased transit ridership, telecommuting, ride sharing, changes AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
in development patterns and changes in ‘lifestyle.’ This article will focus on changes in technology and traffic management. A Brief History of Traffic Management Technology At the end of the World War, our urban street infrastructure was worn out and in need of major enhancement. The city established a new Traffic Engineering Department and the Georgia State Highway Department formed a new Traffic and Safety Division. There was amazing growth in vehicles (and population) in the Atlanta region. Between 1947 and 1955, we were still trying to deal with traffic with fixed time signals, no interconnection of signals on arterial streets, and no ‘real-time’ surveillance of traffic conditions except what the citizens and police could provide by telephone and radio. Oneway streets were just beginning to be installed, and on-street parking was still allowed on arterial streets. By 1962, interconnected signal systems were beginning to appear on arterial streets
but signal timing for each individual intersection had to be manually changed in the field and surveillance of intersection operation had to be done in the field by signal technicians. One-way streets were recognized as the way to move traffic, and we had finally removed on-street parking from arterial streets. In 1956, the Interstate Highway Act was passed by Congress and freeway design was beginning at the State Highway Department. Mid 1960s Atlanta’s ‘PR’ System In the late ’50s and early ’60s there was a move to apply computer technology to traffic management and control. The city of Atlanta installed its first computer-controlled system—the ‘PR’ system for signal operations on Ponce de Leon Avenue. The system featured an on-street master controller which controlled 30 local intersections using sensors that measured actual demand and allowed the adjustment of signal timing plans to best meet that need. Communication between the master and the local controller 17
were by hard wire connections. The ‘PR’ System was later applied to Peachtree Street resulting in increased capacity of up to 1200 vehicles per lane—very high for a surface street. Perhaps more important was the fact that a local staff of traffic engineers could successfully operate a computer controlled signal system. 1972 The Urban Traffic Control System (UTCS) In 1972, the Traffic Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety (TOPICS) was passed by Congress which provided funding to improve the application of new technologies to traffic engineering and management. This resulted in the rapid development of computerized signals and signal systems. The Urban Traffic Control System (UTCS) hardware and software was deployed in the city of Atlanta which allowed the remote control of the system and each intersection. The city of Atlanta begin to consider a centralized traffic control system which would allow: (1) real-time timing adjustment of local controllers; (2) monitoring traffic signals from a central location, and (3) reduced travel time and gas consumption by the traveling public. In 1973, the first real-time central control system came on-line in the Atlanta Stadium area. Northside Drive, Peachtree Street, the downtown area, and other areas of the city were to follow. 1981 The ‘Closed Loop Concept’ Another advancement in traffic management and control was the development of the
18
‘Closed Loop Concept’ which was pioneered by Joe Thomas and the Atlanta Traffic Engineering Staff. This control concept essentially used a ‘field-based master’ for individual systems monitoring and control, leaving the overall control of the regional system to a centralized master. This resulted in significant savings in costs for a computer controlled system.
ment Center and now, many traffic management centers are in operation in many of the local jurisdictions including Cobb
The 1996 Olympics Contribution to Technology Enhancements Georgia, and more specifically the Atlanta metro region, received a huge windfall for transportation operational improvements in the early 1990s. When Atlanta was selected for the site of the 1996 Olympic Games (in 1990), the national transportation funding bill passed in late 1991 (ISTEA) contained an extra designated funding set-aside of $58.1 million for an Advanced Transportation Management System for the Atlanta region. The staff of the city of Atlanta and Georgia DOT formulated a vision for the modernization of the existing signal control systems as an Advanced Freeway Management System to be maintained and operated by GDOT. NaviGAtor Intelligent Transportation System After the 1996 Olympics were over, the work on the ITS system did not cease. Through the continuing efforts of the DOT and city of Atlanta leaders, the NaviGAtor Intelligent Transportation System was expanded to include a DOT Traffic Manage-
GeorGia enGineer
County, Dekalb County, Sandy Springs, and others. The ATMS system includes 280 miles of continuous fiber optic cable coverage, 2000 plus Video Detection Cameras, 535 closed circuit television cameras (CCTV), 141 changeable message signs (CMS), and 165 ramp meters. The Transportation Management Center (TMC) serves not only Atlanta, but also the entire state of Georgia. It coordinates with all 159 Georgia counties across seven GDOT Districts to provide a statewide traveler information system to motorists. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure was also installed on I- 475 near Macon and is operated by a dedicated TMC in Macon. Information from the NaviGAtor system is disseminated to the public through messages placed on the CMSs, the www.511ga.org Web site, and the 511 Traveler Information Service, which provides real-time information about traffic conditions, incidents, lane closures, and travel times.
to the common section through downtown Atlanta. Video Surveillance Cameras, changeable message signs, and vehicle detection was installed on approximately 48 miles of interstate freeways and made operational just two months ahead of the July 1996 Olympics. System expansion continued and still continues today. The current system provides full CCTV coverage on approximately 280 miles of freeways with more than 500 CCTV cameras in the metro region and about that same number of miles and cameras on arterial roadways that are operated and maintained by local governments. 2000-2012 Technology Improvements to Traffic Management
The story of technology did not end in 1996. While the implementation no longer proceeded at the pre-Olympic pace, much had been learned, and the benefits of the system had been well documented and proven under the pressure of actual operation. The original traffic management center for Georgia DOT was installed soon after the Olympics. This was soon expanded to local traffic management centers. Local Transportation Management Centers (TMC) Clayton, Cobb, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, and Gwinnett counties all have operating Transportation Management Centers. The cities of Alpharetta, Roswell, Sandy Springs, and Johns Creek have similar facilities. These
Traffic Signal Systems For the improvements that later became known as the NaviGAtor Intelligent Transportation System, more than 1000 traffic signals in the five metro counties were upgraded with more than 600 of these in the city of Atlanta. All 600 were interconnected using newly upgraded existing copper communications and new fiber optic cable where possible. Communications and Monitoring Cameras to monitor key arterials such as Northside Drive, Capitol Avenue, the Presidential Parkway, Ponce de Leon Avenue, and the downtown area surrounding the Georgia Dome were brought on-line to monitor traffic in real time. Four cameras mounted on the top of the Georgia Dome with large telephoto lenses were installed to monitor pedestrian and transit movements in the areas where the most concentrated pedestrian activities were anticipated. With the full anticipation that this system would become the foundation for a much larger system for freeway management and operations, fiber optic cable was designed and installed along most of I-75 and I-85 inside I-285 with special attention AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
19
transportation management centers provide 24 hour monitoring and control of freeways and arterial streets in the six counties. Communications Perhaps the greatest improvement in technology related to traffic management is not signals and signal equipment but in the ability to communicate data, video, and information from remote locations in the field to central office locations and the general public through ‘smart phones.’ This has been made possible through fiber optics, the interconnection of many local and state traffic control centers and ‘on-the-street’ hardware through standardized software. Now ‘Flipswitch Communications’ al-
lows persons in the talk group to easily communicate with other elements in the group. While separate groups are available for fire, police, and public works—the 800 mhz Trunk System is much better than the old 150 mhz band when everyone had their own frequency. Many city or county TMC’s have or will have a Navigator Station that can communicate with the GDOT Traffic Management Center - Cobb, Gwinnett, Clayton, and Dekalb already have an established station eliminating the need to go thru an external Web site to pan, tilt or zoom a video camera. With a Navigator Station, local TMC’s will have command and control of any asset on the system.
Signal Equipment and Systems Traffic Signal Coordination (TSC): Annual benefits grew at a fairly steady pace of about $70 million per year between 1997 and 2004, but have remained relatively constant in the years since. TSC technologies had high annual mobility benefit estimates of over $276.5 million, at 2007 deployment levels (2009 dollars). In the signal systems of the 1960s-1980s, there was limited access to an individual controller from a central location. Any timing and coordination changes had to be done by hand in the field. All of the ‘intelligence’ was concentrated in the central office. Three events occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s: (1) The ‘Closed Loop System’ idea by Joe Thomas and the Atlanta staff stimulated the thinking of the need for standardization in equipment specifications and manufacture; (2) The National Electrical Manufacturers Association began to standardize all traffic control equipment and to standardize control software and (3) CALTRANS began to standardize all equipment standards and purchase specifications. This led to the standardization of all signal systems and equipment and made the interconnection of systems more practical. Secondly, since the 1990s, local signal controllers have had coordination patterns, timing programs, detector inputs and other local intersection data stored in the local controller. Dynamic Message Signs Dynamic message signs allow the motorist to view estimated travel times to his/her destination and in the case of a travel incident, to divert to an alternative route. National studies indicate that annual benefits grew by roughly $100 million per year until 2003; growth has been far more modest since. At 2007 deployment levels (2009 dollars), these technologies had high annual mobility benefit estimates of over $543.1 million. Nearly a hundred message signs on the Atlanta freeway system provide motorists information about traffic conditions, incidents, and travel times. The variable message signs can provide motorists information on a real time basis and are invaluable in incident management. Video Surveillance Information and video is shared with other
20
GeorGia enGineer
agencies including many police departments and 911 centers. The information is also shared widely to virtually every news media organization. One of the major advantages in video surveillance is the ability to verify the need for first responders. In one city the use of video surveillance reduced the number of first responder calls by 86 percent. Video surveillance is invaluable in congestion management as well. Incident Management Several traffic management organizations have been created in the Atlanta area to reduce incident impacts on freeways and arterial streets. The Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME) task force is a coordinative inter-agency program, which includes the HERO program and the Towing and Recovery Incentive Program (TRIP) to reduce the time for clearing accidents on freeways and arterial streets. Prior to TRIP, it required an average of 283 minutes from the beginning of an incident to open the roadway. During the first year of TRIP (2008), the average clearance time dropped 58 percent to 118 minutes. In 2009, the roadway was opened in 97 minutes, a 66 percent improvement. A study calculated the value of TRIP by calculating the actual cost of each TRIP incident in 2008 and 2009. TRIP saved more than 165 minutes. Assuming a 60-minute savings, the value of TRIP is $9,154,431, giving a benefit-to-cost ratio of 10.98 to one. In addition to the monetary benefits of the program, TRIP ensures that qualified operators respond to the incident scene with trained staff, the appropriate equipment, and a desire to do the job right and open the road quickly. The value of these other benefits should not be overlooked when reviewing the benefits of the program
Navigator Intelligent Transportation System program. The HERO unit’s primary purpose is to minimize traffic congestion by clearing wrecked or disabled vehicles from the roadway lanes and providing traffic control at incident scenes. The program operates on 31
routes covering 310 miles of freeway in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The program operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Typically, HERO’s work over 100,000 incidents per year.v
References and Sources of Information The Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO), within the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT's) Research and Innovative Technology Administration, is responsible for conducting research on behalf of the USDOT and all major modes to advance transportation safety, mobility, and environmental sustainability through electronic and information technology applications, known as ITS. ITS applications focus on both the infrastructure and vehicle, as well as integrated applications between the two, to enable the creation of an intelligent transportation system. The USDOTs ITS Program supports the overall advancement of ITS through investments in major research initiatives, exploratory studies, and a deployment support program. Increasingly, federal investments target opportunities or major initiatives that have the potential for significant payoff in improving safety, mobility, and roadway capacity.
HERO Program The Highway Emergency Response Operators program is a Highway Incident Management service patrol operated in metro Atlanta, Georgia by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). Both the program and the individual vehicles are typically referred to by the acronym HERO. The program began in Atlanta in 1994 and has since been expanded in association with GDOT's AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
21
Cleaning Up: Atlanta’s Compliance with Federal Consent Decrees Earns Extra Time By Jo Ann Macrina, P.E. | Commissioner | City of Atlanta | Department of Watershed Management
Today, the city of Atlanta is managing its infrastructure—integrating water, wastewater, and stormwater management—in ways unimaginable a generation ago. This came about because prior to 1998, repeated sewer spills plagued Atlanta's residents and business owners. Multiple and frequent violations of the Clean Water Act precipitated a number of lawsuits, ultimately leading to two federal Consent Decrees: a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Consent Decree entered in 1998, and the First Amended Consent Decree dealing with Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) entered in 1999. These unfunded mandates called for the near elimination of CSOs allowing for a maximum of four annual overflow events as well as rehabilitation and replacement of an aging system to reduce the number and volume of overflows. Even after successfully meeting the CSO Consent Decree deadline of November 2008, Atlanta’s ability to remain in compliance with the SSO Consent Decree was uncertain. With strained budgets, mounting debt, and numerous other infrastructure needs, leaders recognized the necessity to alleviate pressure from the remaining mandates at an estimated cost of $500 million. In April 2010, Atlanta initiated its appeal for relief. The city’s team made a bold request, a 15-year extension and promised in return to continue all the work in good faith and completing major projects before the July 2014 original completion date. Could the municipality that was once used as a model of noncompliance successfully present itself as a model of compliance? This photo was taken from inside the shaft of the South River Tunnel. The tunnel collects flows from existing sanitary sewers and transports them to a newly constructed pumping station at the South River Water Reclamation Center. The tunnel spans 9,000 feet with a 14-foot finished diameter and extends from the South River facility to Macon Drive. The tunnel was brought online in 2011. 22
GeorGia enGineer
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
23
Model of Compliance It was necessary to prove without a doubt that all of the CSO Consent Decree requirements had been fulfilled as well as the SSO Consent Decree milestones up to the current time. Equally as important, the city needed to demonstrate the extraordinary financial burden placed on the rate payers with a potential for failure of other infrastructure due to disproportionate spending. Atlanta’s Department of Watershed Management (DWM) successfully met every project milestone, changed procedures and protocols to support a more effective operation and maintenance program, established regular tracking and reporting of capital projects and maintenance, and trained employees in applicable practices. The multi-pronged approach to reducing spills included repairing and improving the sewer system, adding sewer capacity, and separating the combined sanitary from stormwater collection system. Fifteen percent of the city’s collection system is combined and is the most challenging system since rain events can often overwhelm the design capacity, causing overflows. Last year, the city finished a comprehensive physical and video inspection of the sewer system to identify structural defects, infiltration, and inflow. The Sewer System Evaluation Survey, or SSES, involved more than 1,600 miles of sewer lines and took ten years to complete. Armed with the survey data, Atlanta has repaired or replaced almost 400 miles of the most critical defects during the sewer rehabilitation program. Surveyed sewers were categorized into six groups, with lines in greatest need of repair receiving the first attention. To provide additional capacity, DWM completed 24 storage tank and tunnel projects, such as Nancy Creek Tunnel and Pump Station, completed in 2005, providing reliable long-term system capacity for various outfall and trunk sewers.
Program Financing & Ratepayer Burden To pay for infrastructure neglect during past administrations, Atlanta raised billions in revenues to meet Consent Decree mandates. Sewer improvements have been funded by a combination of large increases in water and sewer rates between 2004 and 2012, bond issuances, low-interest loans from the state, and a special one-cent tax levy called the Municipal Option Sales Tax. Atlanta's efforts to play ‘catch up’ with collection system needs now translates to a 40 percent budget allocation to debt repayment and the highest water and sewer rates in the country. DWM is moving forward on a ‘pay as we go’ basis to avoid further debt. In addition, since the city experienced consent decree myopia for the past 15 years, treatment plants and other linear infrastructure have taken a back seat. For every dollar spent on the drinking water distribution system, four dollars were spent on the sanitary sewer collection system. Breathing a Sigh of Relief Through strong leadership and wisdom, Mayor Kasim Reed made the crucial decision to request an unprecedented extension to a federal consent decree and in September 2012, received approval for an additional 13 years. “Since 1999, the city of Atlanta has dramatically reduced the number of sewer spills and significantly decreased the number of rain-induced overflows into Atlanta’s rivers and streams,” Mayor Kasim Reed said after the ruling. “The consent decree extension
will allow the city to continue vital infrastructure repairs that reduce sewage overflows and protect our natural resources and drinking water. I deeply appreciate the efforts of all parties in negotiating this agreement, which enables the city to complete its work without putting any further burden on ratepayers.” Going forward, the time extension assures that the department will be able to invest appropriately across its linear infrastructure and treatment facilities. Those needs can now be appropriately balanced with remaining consent decree work completed at a more sustainable pace. “This schedule extension will enable Atlanta to ensure that the remaining improvements to the wastewater system are completed in the most cost-effective manner while protecting public health and the environment,” said Jo Ann Macrina, Watershed Management Commissioner. “These investments in the city’s infrastructure will continue to pay dividends for decades to come.” Path Forward - Integrated and Sustainable Water Management Atlanta’s 13-year extension from U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash is the first Consent Decree schedule revision authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice. This reflects, in part, Atlanta’s extraordinary success in timely completion of its obligations. “I think the extension will put the city’s water and sewer systems on a sustainable basis,” Thrash said
“...it really is a remarkable accomplishment…” - Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. All told, the city has reduced the overall number of sewer spills to creeks and rivers by an amazing 80 percent. 24
GeorGia enGineer
in a 2012 interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. DWM now has the breathing room to do business differently; more effectively and efficiently, more balanced. Atlanta is actively implementing green methods to improve water quality and increase sewer system capacity. “It’s not just about sewers, pipes, construction, bulldozers, and building giant tunnels. It's also about creating better creeks and streams and watersheds,” Macrina said. Increased
emphasis is placed on green measures that address both sewer overflow issues and surface water management. DWM’s response to recent flooding incidents is evidence of the shift in thinking within the department on best practices in addressing these types of problems. Last year in the Custer sewer basin in southeast Atlanta, rain gardens and bioswales were installed to help alleviate future flooding after a major rain event caused damage in the Peoplestown community. Pervious pavers with an under-
ground drainage system will be installed later this year. Atlanta is evolving into a leader in integrated water resource management by successfully meeting its obligations under the consent decrees while ensuring reliable and sustainable systems overall. It owes its success to strong leadership, an acceptance of its environmental responsibility, and commitment to protect and make best use of limited resources entrusted to it. v
Below is a photo of the Historic Fourth Ward Park in downtown Atlanta. In conjunction with the Atlanta Beltline development project, Watershed Management constructed a detention pond as the park’s centerpiece. This innovative infrastructure solution saved the city more than $15 million versus a traditional storm water tunnel system, and is one of the many sustainable features of the park, which opened in June 2011.
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
25
Georgia’s Forests: Providing Trees for the EU and Sustainability for the US By Ms. Jill Stuckey | Director, Biomass Development | Georgia Southern University’s Herty Advanced Materials Development Center
Got trees?
n Georgia, we do. Lots of them. And in today’s world where issues such as the economy, climate change, and sustainability are major concerns, where do all these trees fit in, and what can we do with them? If you keep up-to-date with the latest headlines, no doubt you’ve heard about the European Union’s mandates for carbon emissions and transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy. Countries in the EU are committed to making 20 percent of their energy come from renewable sources by 2020. Wood and other forms of biomass pellets are renewable, and when compared to the cost of many other renewable sources, less expensive. By using biomass in place of coal, plus wind, solar, and wave technology, it’s possible for the EU to reach its goal. In fact, according to former president, nobel laureate, and Georgia resident Jimmy Carter, “The Europeans have learned first and now they are buying pelleted wood, as you know, to cut down on the amount of coal and other things that they burn. I think, in the future, the research done by Herty and others is going to make sure that we in Georgia and throughout the U.S. are going to use a lot more of the wood energy than we do now. With research and with a commitment, particularly with the White House and the Congress, I think we’ll see this done.” Here’s where Georgia’s incredible forests come into play. Georgia has over 24 million acres of forests, with our trees growing nearly 40 percent faster than what is being harvested. According to Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia’s forest industry had a total impact of over $25 billion in 2011, ranked second
I
26
Pictured above: Pine tree chips ready to be processed into pellets and sent to Europe. Photo by Jill Stuckey.
in total compensation, and supported 118,459 state-wide jobs. Because of statistics like these, Georgia and the Southeast are smart choices for the EU and pellet manufacturers. Why? First, the EU doesn’t have the climate or land mass to supply itself, so other options are a necessity. In addition, the US offers a stable and friendly government and doesn’t have rainforests to endanger by cutting down trees. Also, much of US land has management practices in place ensuring a sustainable feedstock. For Georgia foresters and land owners, trees are considered a crop and planted in straight rows, similar to the way corn is planted in states such as Iowa. When the trees are harvested, more trees are planted. If there is no demand for biomass, the trees won’t be replanted. President Carter explains it best: “This is another example of renewable energy that can be replaced and all the energy comes directly from the sun as the tree grows and matures." And interestingly, 91 percent of
Georgia timberland is privately owned. Georgia boasts more acreage of privately owned forests than any other state. Owners range from small family farms that comprise a few acres to companies like Plum Creek that own hundreds of thousands of acres. With our vast amount of acreage, Georgia stands as a prime example of a state utilizing its natural resources and capitalizing on business opportunities both abroad and at home. Currently, there are more than six facilities in Georgia making pellets for export to Europe. Located in Waycross, Georgia, and operating under the name of ‘Georgia Biomass,’ the European utility ‘RWE’ built one of the largest pellet producing facilities in the world. Another facility, and a major player in the pellet market, is Fram Renewable Fuels. They have a mill located in Baxley, Georgia, and plan to build a second mill in Hazlehurst, Georgia. When in full operation, the Hazlehurst facility will use up to one million
GeorGia enGineer
metric tons of raw material annually. Fram has done due diligence and has researched several aspects of the pellet market. With the help of the Georgia Forestry Commission and the US Forest Service, Fram has determined there is more than sufficient growth, in excess of demand, to supply the new facility. Currently, both Georgia Biomass and Fram Renewable Fuels transport pellets, by way of rail or truck, to ports in Savannah and Brunswick, Georgia, and then on to Europe. Also, General Biofuels, Enova, and others have announced plans to build pellet mills in Georgia. But why send so much of Georgia’s natural resource abroad? The answer, like many things, relates to cost. What Americans pay each month to keep their lights on is roughly half of what many Europeans pay. For example, wood pellets priced at $250 per ton are more cost effective than natural gas in most European markets. Georgia has the unique opportunity to provide our neighbors across the sea with a less expensive, environmentally-friendly, alternative energy source. And that’s good business. Not only does pellet production help the EU reach its energy goals, but it promotes sustainable utilization of our forests, jobs for our citizens, and money for Georgia’s logistics industry and tax coffers. One of the keys to healthy growth is to site these mills in areas of high wood growth and low wood demand. We don’t want to harm our existing pulp and paper industry or other industries that utilize biomass. Some 80 years ago, Dr. Charles H. Herty developed a way to take our southern yellow pine tree and make paper, catalyzing the southern pulp and paper industry. At his namesake, the Herty Advanced Materials Development Center, a part of Georgia Southern University, we
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
work on ways to take biomass and develop even higher value products—such as chemicals, fuels, and pharmaceuticals. We also provide research and development assistance in the pulp and paper and pellet industries. Herty has assisted companies in the development of recycling processes for both synthetic and natural fibers and helped create innovative processes to add strength to building and paper products. In terms of pellet research, our fully-integrated pellet line processes biomass to form pellets at a rate of one dry ton per hour. This, along with laboratory testing capabilities, allows us to fully characterize energy pellets produced from a range of feedstocks. In this way, companies can reduce technical risk from a thorough assessment of feedstocks and conversion
technologies. More importantly, the pellets produced at Herty can be field tested at the utility to confirm processability and performance in test burns. In the future, is it possible to find a way to better utilize biomass right here in Georgia, thereby bringing more jobs to our rural areas? I believe that it is possible. Our pulp and paper industry, after years of decline, and slow to no growth, is healthy again. Our timber industry is starting to see signs that the future is bright; housing starts are increasing, and there is optimism of a strong lumber export market. Georgia and other states like her can find a way to fully embrace, research, and develop even more valueadded products from biomass. v
27
Teamwork Tackles Challenging Riverbank Restoration By Paul Slovisky | Vice President for Operations | Aquascape Environmental n the aftermath of the recent recession, Metro Atlanta was left littered with stalled, unfinished residential developments. In many cases, infrastructure was put in place but funding was lost before the home construction could begin. In Bartow County, Riverside Plantation had met this fate. The proposed community on the Etowah River had graded lots, paved roads, water, sewer, and stormwater structures, but building had been delayed for several years. In 2012, the property came under the new ownership of Rialto Capital, which then retained Mr. Tad Braswell with East Lake Asset Management to ready the property for home construction. In the original infrastructure design for Riverside Plantation, the bulk of the stormwater runoff from the development had been piped directly to the Etowah River. Mr. Braswell discovered that the existing concrete stormwater pipes and adjoining outfalls had failed in three locations. These locations exhibited significant channel incision immediately downstream of each of the stormwater outfalls. The ongoing erosion had served to undermine the concrete outfall structures and the existing stormwater culverts, while significantly degrading the adjacent riverbanks. These failures had created a mass wasting of the riverbank, with the head-cut features at each failed location contributing significant quantities of sediment to the river. Based on this discovery, Mr. Braswell contacted Kent Campbell of Eco-South to take the lead in developing a solution to address the stormwater issues within a framework of sensitivity to the river environment. Mr. Campbell assembled a team of professionals to address the unique challenges of the project. On the engineering side, the firm of McFarland-Dyer & Associates was tasked with developing plans to address the infrastructure details. Due to the damage cre-
I
28
ated on the riverbank, the project also required a ‘green’ approach to stabilizing the riverbanks, rather than the standard practice of hard armoring. Mr. Campbell collaborated with Aquascape Environmental to design and implement an appropriate restoration plan for the damaged riverbank and associated riparian buffer areas. Restoration A two-phase approach was designed to first stabilize each drainage feature and then restore the degraded riverbank and associated riparian buffer areas. In order to stabilize the channel erosion at each of the failure locations, standard concrete drop inlet structures were installed to adequately transition stormwater flows to the proper elevation/invert. Stormwater flows were then conveyed into the Etowah River via a reinforced concrete pipe culvert system terminating at a standard concrete headwall feature. These repairs were completed by W.E. Contracting of Acworth, Georgia. Upon completion of the infrastructure
repairs, the next step was the effort to restore the original contours of the damaged riverbank. Simply filling the eroded areas with compacted fill/soil was not a viable option because of the vertical gradient of the banks. An additional challenge was the fact that the level of the Etowah River fluctuates regularly within the impacted reach due to dam activity associated with an electrical power station upstream. The site conditions required a restoration method that would provide immediate stabilization and adequate soil compaction, while avoiding a hard armored approach and allowing for a successful riparian buffer re-vegetation. Aquascape Environmental determined that the most effective approach would be a Vegetation Reinforced Soil System (VRSS) utilizing soil encapsulated, earthen lifts. To streamline efforts, W.E. Contracting equipment and operators remained on site to provide the ‘heavy lifting’ for this process under the direct supervision of the specialized Aquascape Environmental restoration crew. GeorGia enGineer
Building the Lifts As with any building project, the key to success is to start with a solid, stable base. In this case it was essential to ensure the stability of the riverbank and the newly repaired stormwater culvert outlet structures. A trackhoe excavator was used to first install a base layer of Type Three granite riprap (18"-36" stone) at the toe of slope of the riverbank. This rock was ‘trenched in’ at a minimum depth of 18" below grade to anchor it in place, and extended 1.5-3 feet above the normal low water wark to account for the frequent water fluctuations. A layer of woven filter fabric was placed over the rock and secured with metal pins to prevent soil loss through the rock base layer. Custom metal angle irons were laid over the fabric-covered rocks to hold a series of two-by-twelve-inch wooden batter boards. The batter boards were placed on edge vertically to form a temporary framing to adequately compact the fill dirt used to construct the lift layer. Typically two batter boards are placed against the angle irons to construct a two-foot high frame in order to achieve a twelve-to-eighteen-inch soil encapsulated lift. Next, three layers of fabric were placed over the rock with the extra lengths folded over the batter boards. The layers were: coir erosion control matting (a natural fiber extracted from coconut husks); TerraGrid fabric (a bi-axial geogrid soil re-enforcement material used for its strength); and burlap. These fabric layers were secured into the existing bank with two-by-four-inch wooden wedges. Soil was used to build up the lift, sloped slightly away from the river and towards the bank. The soil was compacted using a hand-operated ‘Jumping Jack’ compactor and vibratory plate tamp. After solid compaction, the extra lengths of the fabrics layers were pulled back over the soil lift with slight tension via the excavator and secured into the riverbank with two-by-four-inch wooden wedges. As the lifts are completed, the batter boards and angle irons are removed and reused to construct the next lift on top of the prior one. Each lift is set back about six to twelve inches in order to match the adjacent riverbank slope. Typically, dormant black willow and/or silky dogwood cuttings, sixAUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
to-eight-feet long, are laid on top of the first lift, with two-thirds of the cuttings covered by the second lift and the outer one-third sticking out in the open air. However, due to the urgent nature of this project necessitating a summer installation, utilizing those materials was not an option. To compensate, Aquascape Environmental instead installed one gallon container, nursery grown vegetation. A four-to- six-inch layer of an enriched potting soil mixture was installed between each encapsulated lift to encourage the successful establishment of this vegetaton. Additional lifts were constructed in the same manner as the first, to the appropriate bank height for the site. Upon completion of construction activities, the entire site was temporarily stabilized for the summer months. This was achieved by hydro-seeding an appropriate combination of native warm and cool season grass mixture and coverage of all exposed/disturbed areas with a layer of blown, shredded hay mulch. Aquascape Environmental returned to the site during the following dormant planting season to complete the re-establishment of the required minimum 25’ riparian buffer with the installation of appropriate native vegetation, including lowgrowing riparian shrub and herbaceous ma-
terials. Dormant willow cuttings were also installed within the VRSS areas to supplement the previously installed container material that was hit hard by drought conditions experienced immediately after the completion of construction. Results Follow up inspections of the site show that woody vegetation has become established and will continue to mature with age. It is expected that the planted species will be complemented by volunteer plant species over time. With the newly installed drainage structures functioning as designed, it should be difficult for observers of the riverbank to discern the restored sections from the previously existing areas within five to seven years. __________________________________ Paul Slovisky is the Vice President for Operations at Aquascape Environmental in Woodstock, Georgia. He holds a B.S. in Earth Sciences from Mercer University, and is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control and a Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality. Aquascape Environmental has provided professional solutions for land and water resources in the Southeast since 1990. v
29
Highway Engineering, Plantations, and Archaeology: where the present intersects the past By Brad Botwick and Rita Folse Elliott | New South Associates Inc. | Stone Mountain, Georgia
C
ool, filtered shade replaces the bright sunlight as one enters the woods. A 400 year old live oak guards the entrance, in mute testimony to four centuries of past life here. Intermittent melodies of song birds slowly muffle the din of car and motorcycle engines from the adjacent four-lane road. The passage from the noisy 21st century to an earlier world is both figurative and literal on these 20 acres of land. As early as 1750, colonists claimed this property through English Crown grants. A succession of more than 23 landowners included this parcel in their holdings. By the late 1700s, large plantations arose throughout this neck of land south of Little Ogeechee River, near Georgetown in Chatham County, Georgia. The plantations have since disappeared but the ancient live oak remains, much older and enclosed in a small patch of woods surrounded by encroaching residential and commercial development. The press of modern Savannah, increasing population, the development of once rural areas, and the continual demand for roads has led to significant congestion on State Route 204/Abercorn Extension. For these reasons, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has begun implementing plans to modify the road to facilitate the circulation of traffic. It was this decision that triggered federal laws mandating archaeological investigation of the site, enabling the rare opportunity to document and interpret life here more than 200 years ago. The study combines historical research, archaeological fieldwork, and laboratory analysis to better understand how the site’s former occupants, including African-Americans enslaved on the plantations, lived. The excavation also incorporated a unique program of public outreach, including in-depth public tours, project content available 30
through social media, creation of a children’s book, and development of an educator’s curriculum. Archaeologists from New South Associates Inc., in consultation with GDOT, spent three months excavating the site and recovering traces of the houses, storage pits, and other features and artifacts used and discarded by the inhabitants. These materi-
als provide significant information about how they lived. Enslaved African-Americans in general left little account of their lives and experiences, and archaeology is one of the few ways we have to learn about how they lived and formed communities for themselves within the constraints of plantation slavery. No specific historical data about the set-
GeorGia enGineer
tlement at the Abercorn site were found, but land records indicate the property was owned by the Wilson, Spencer, and Scott families during the mid-1700s to mid-1800s. The plantation main houses associated with these properties were constructed away from this archaeological site, suggesting that the slave settlement was placed near the fields where the enslaved worked and did not form part of the more stereotypical version of a southern plantation dominated by the planter’s house with slave houses and other support structures arrayed nearby. Civil War maps show a small cluster of buildings in the general vicinity of the site, which might represent the settlement, although the buildings are not labeled and it is not known who lived in or used them. Archaeological fieldwork has recovered evidence of three structures, including two houses with brick chimneys and one small building with a trench foundation. As small as this latter building was (it measured only about 15 x 10 feet) it may represent a house for enslaved African-Americans. If so, it might be expected to accommodate as many as ten people. It is probable that in addition to brick chimneys, houses at the site were built with clay chimneys supported with log and stick frameworks. A large clay borrow pit found near the settlement was probably used to collect material for these chimneys. Archaeologists have also found storage facilities consisting of large cylindrical or bowlshaped pits measuring about three feet in diameter and up to three feet deep. Several other pits of various sizes have uncertain
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
functions but are similar to those found at slave occupations in coastal Georgia and South Carolina. Pits like these were used by the enslaved to store root crops and other foods through the winter. Artifacts have not yet been analyzed, but they include a wide range of household items including European and Americanmade ceramics and glass bottles, metal implements, such as cast iron kettles, buttons and other clothing fasteners, and other items. Artifacts that have known manufacturing dates indicate the site was occupied through the Civil War and at least to the last quarter of the nineteenth century, an indication that Freedmen may have returned to the plantation land after the war. Archaeologists collected soil samples that are ex-
pected to provide evidence of plant and animal foods used by the site’s inhabitants, and numerous oyster shells indicate that they made use of nearby estuaries for subsistence. An iron trap and a few pieces of lead shot indicate that the inhabitants also hunted small animals and birds for food. Analysis of artifacts and field data is very preliminary at this time, but the site is expected to yield important information about the lives of African-Americans enslaved on Georgia plantations, including how they organized settlements and used their domestic yards, their degree of autonomy in such matters, and how they differed from slaves who lived closer to the planter’s house. Because this study was conducted with public funding and on behalf of the public, GDOT and New South Associates enthusiastically incorporated a program of public access to allow visitors to participate in tours of the site during excavations and follow the work on internet social media, including FaceBook and the worldwide Web. This provided an unusual opportunity to share the history of the area and the unique ways that archaeological study can uncover and document that history. A total of 1,098 visitors came to the site during a nine week period, participating in four 90-minute tours daily. Visitors included neighborhood residents, city of Savannah and Chatham County staff and employees, homeschooled students, eight classes of undergraduate and 31
graduate students from three universities, 196 students from two local elementary schools, members of museums and historical organizations, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, federal agency staff, employees of private corporations, journalists, and members of the armed forces. The experience illustrated the public’s intense interest in Chatham County’s past and its universal surprise to discover that unlike the federal protections offered to the Abercorn Site through GDOT, most archaeological sites in historic Savannah and Chatham Counties remain unprotected due to the lack of any city or county ordinances. These sites are subject to destruction without archaeological excavations that save the unique and valuable information they contain about our collective history. Archaeologists will complete a report about the important discoveries at the site. The artifacts and the field notes will be curated in perpetuity as a significant collection, where it can be studied indefinitely into the future to provide us with new understandings of past life at the Abercorn site. The
32
400-year old oak will be preserved as a heritage tree and will remain as a reminder of the history and past occupants of the site. The tree stands as a symbol of the benefits that can accrue through the intersection of engineering, design, preservation, and public awareness. v
GeorGia enGineer
First Leg in 98-mile Regional Trail System Opens to Public By Krystal Modigell | RS&H
C
ommunity members and commissioners alike are excited about the completion of a new recreational trail in Douglas County, Georgia. Since its ribbon-cutting on May 10, 2013, the new 0.75mile trail is already attracting walkers, runners, joggers, and cyclists looking for a chance to escape, breathe some fresh air, and exercise as they explore the shady pathway. The trail is located in a Douglas County mega-park and runs near the smooth Chattahoochee River, providing users with a scenic route as they take in the beautiful natural landscape of Georgia. Even though the completed trail is only three-quarters of a mile long, it is extremely significant in that it marks the first segment in a much larger planned multipurpose trail —the Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway Trail, which is proposed to span 98 miles through Douglas, Carroll, Coweta, and Fulton Counties. The overall trail network will promote active, healthy lifestyles, as well as provide an alternative transportation option among all four counties. The completion of Douglas County’s segment of the trail sets the stage and builds momentum for the region’s future plans, as the new trail displays a detailed image of what the community can expect to see once the entire trail system is finished. “Completing this pilot segment is a great accomplishment,” said Sara Huie, project manager with facilities and infrastructure consulting firm RS&H who led the design. “It’s a vision of what the whole trail system will eventually look like.” In order to enrich the area through environmental and cultural features, the first piece was designed with its own unique identity and distinctiveness, added Huie. The design team worked closely with a unique group of representatives from the four counties to decide on an overall theme with the goal of enhancing the park’s existing character, while AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
e trail’s features, like signage, represent natural colors and styles that blend into the environment. paying particular attention to the environment and surrounding natural resources, like the river and animal habitats, she said. “The look and feel was an important aspect of the project, since the theme will likely be carried out across the many features of the entire trail system,” Huie said. “We wanted to carefully select an overall theme that represents and matches the surrounding suburban and rural character of the region.” The team selected features that blend into the natural environment. For instance, outdoor furniture, like benches and trash receptacles, incorporate natural elements like wood grain. Through color and style, features such as signage, furniture, bike racks, and water fountains mesh with the natural environment without intruding or taking away from the peacefulness of the natural landscape that guests will enjoy. According to Huie, the team also developed standards for the trail’s identification,
directional, regulatory, and mile-maker signs, which allow for quick and easy navigation and wayfinding. Now that these standards are in place, they can be carried over to the new sections as more segments are added to the trail, creating a consistent, recognizable identity for the 98-mile regional trail network. To ensure construction would not disturb the park’s character, the trail carefully loops around ponds and other natural features, avoiding disruption of the land. The segment was built as an addition to the park’s existing hiking trail in order to provide guests with another route and the opportunity to enjoy a smooth, paved foundation for a variety of physical activities. The trail is also wheelchair accessible, allowing all users to comfortably enjoy the woods and the entire park. Fitting seamlessly into the surrounding environment, the first section of the 98-mile trail was a successful groundbreaking project that everyone in the community will enjoy. The trail encourages healthier and more active lifestyles through outdoor activities, while connecting people with nature. “Eventually, when more segments of the trail are built and connected, it will be a great additional mode of transportation for residents and visitors of all four counties,” said Huie. “It will also be a unique recreational opportunity giving people access to one of Georgia’s great natural resources—the Chattahoochee River.” v
e start of the trail features an inviting trailhead and rest area. 33
Damming the Great Falls of the Chattahoochee River W. Dean Wood | Southern Research | Historic Preservation Consultants Inc.
O
ne hundred and thirty-one years ago, engineers and workmen were busy constructing the largest masonry dam in the south. In 1882, the brand new Eagle and Phenix Dam would stretch 1,000 feet from Columbus, Georgia to Phenix City, Alabama. The dam at the Fall Line created a mill pond one mile long and 30 feet deep that provided reliable power in the form of falling water for the city’s factory and mill turbines. Fast forward to 2013, the Eagle and Phenix Dam and another historic dam at City Mills have just been removed in an effort to restore the river and create critical habitat for aquatic life. In addition, an urban white water course has been created that brings rafters and kayak paddlers to the region to run the newly freed rapids at the Great Falls of the Chattahoochee River. The Eagle and Phenix and City Mills Dams were part of a National Historic Landmark District that included significant historic industrial buildings and structures along the river in Columbus. As part of the agreement reached between the project sponsor Uptown Columbus Inc. and the U S Army Corps of Engineers, the historic dams were thoroughly documented before removal. Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants Inc. conducted the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level One Recording for both dams. The work included historians, a historic architecture, industrial archaeologists, underwater archaeologists, 3 D laser scanning, and tree ring analysis. In October of 2011, Southern Research’s team of investigators began documenting the two masonry dams before they were removed. Our underwater archaeology teams used Side Scan Sonar and divers to search the river bed for archaeological features before the dams were breached. As each masonry dam was breached, teams of archaeologists entered the recently exposed 34
river bed of the Chattahoochee River to identify and record the previously inundated early mills and dams. Beginning in 1828, Columbus’ mill and factory owners have been building dams into and across the Chattahoochee River to divert or impound water for power. New dams would be constructed downstream for more head and subsequently inundate the earlier ones upstream. When the Eagle and Phenix Dam and City Mills Dam were removed and the water drained, three old mills and eight dams were identified dating from 1828 to 1869.
Before the Eagle and Phenix Dam spanned the Chattahoochee River in 1882, there were at least three earlier attempts to harness the river for the industries in Columbus. In 1848, a wood dam a quarter of a mile upstream of the Great Gorge was built and diverted the river into a large head race or canal to power the turbines of the textile factories. This power distribution system consisted of a wood frame dam in the river and substantial stone walls to contain the water in the headrace. In 1856, another attempt to span the river resulted in the construction of GeorGia enGineer
a larger wood frame dam downstream at what was referred to as the Great Gorge of the Chattahoochee. Yet another wood frame dam was constructed in 1869 when the Columbus factories were rebuilt after the Civil War. These wood frame dams were commonly used to impound streams and rivers until the late nineteenth century. They are a heavy timber frame structure, triangular or wedge shaped that has the upstream side faced in boards. They used the force and weight of water flowing over their sloped surface to exert a downward force on to the bedrock in the river bed. These self loading dams made from local long leaf pine timbers were constructed six times in Columbus between 1844 and 1870. The Long Leaf Pine used to construct the wood dams was harvested locally. We estimate that it took 2,000 timbers between 34 and five feet long and 12 inches square to construct the wood timber frame for the dam in 1869. The Long Leaf Pines are highly resinous and since the timbers had been underwater for at least 130 years, the wood preservation was remarkable. We have been able to employ tree ring analysis to date some of the wooden dams and features we found after the masonry dams were removed. The growth rings on the wood dam timbers were matched to two known data bases from the region allowing us to see when approximately the trees began life and what year they were harvested. This not only allows us to chronologically date the wood dams, mills foundations, and other features but we can also observe very local climate fluctuations from the 1660s to the 1850s. The earliest wood dams from 1848 to 1869 were always subject to very high maintenance, and breaches due to flooding were common. Damages to the wood dams were cause for great concern in Columbus, as the inability to furnish water to power the mills and factories would idle these facilities throwing hundreds of workers out of work. It wasn’t until 1882 that the Eagle and Phenix Manufacturing Company dedicated itself to damming the Chattahoochee River with a modern stone gravity dam. The massive weight of a twenty foot thick, 15 to 30 foot high and 1000 foot long masonry dam on the bedrock of the river would anchor it for 130 years to come. AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
Ongoing historical research about the dam is beginning to shed light on the construction activities when the masonry Eagle and Phenix Dam was built in 1882. The chief engineer for the Eagle and Phenix Mill, Mr. John Hill, designed the dam and supervised the effort. According to an 1882 article in Columbus’ Enquirer—Sun newspaper, the work employed as many as 250 men every day during peak construction. The newspaper boasted that, when finished, it would be the largest masonry dam in the south, presumably owing to its length of 1,006 feet. John Hill was able to manage the project’s budget by using the most modern equipment and technology available at the time. The new Ingersoll steam rock drills were employed to drill hundreds of holes in the rock. This modern innovation allowed for accelerated drilling as compared to hand drilling, thus saving time and money. The holes were filled with dynamite for blasting
apart rock in the river bed to be used in the construction of the dam. Another cost effective innovation was the use of an electrical charge to simultaneously set off multiple sticks of dynamite. The enormous rocks used in building the dam were lifted from the downstream quarry using four boom derricks then transported to the dam on small gage railroad cars capable of hauling up to two tons per car. Railroad cars were also used to transport mortar to the dam from the mortar beds. Uptown Columbus Inc. and Southern Research will continue the work of recording and documenting the Eagle and Phenix and City Mills Dams throughout 2013. When the documentation is complete, the history of the water powered industry at what was once called the Great Falls of the Chattahoochee will be told in a series of interpretive exhibits and curriculum based lesson plans for our community’s schools.v
35
georgiA
ENGINEERING NEWS
Cardno ATC Cardno ATC is pleased to announce Richard L. Curtis, P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE as their Branch Manager in Atlanta, Georgia Richard earned his Richard Curtis Bachelor of Civil Engineering and Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical) degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology and has over 30 years of experience in the fields of geotechnical engineering, environmental consulting, and construction materials testing. He is a Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and has received his Diplomate, Geotechnical Engineering board certification through the Academy of Geo-Professionals. His background in both the technical and management arenas, as well as his previous experience with ATC, have made for a smooth transition, and we are proud to have him as part of our team. You can reach Richard at:.richard.curtis@cardno.com or at (770) 427-9456 v
of F&H’s award-winning engineering services has allowed ICA to take a holistic approach to creating and sustaining infrastructure assets that are vital to the U.S. economy. The broadened expertise allows the company to begin with initial project design, work through the construction phase, and ultimately to develop an operations and maintenance plan that will maximize the life cycle of the infrastructure asset and save taxpayers’ money. ICA Engineering specializes in the complete spectrum of civil engineering and environmental services for the infrastructure of the built environment with an integrated sensitivity to the natural environment. ICA Engineering has offices in Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Florida. Founded in 1965 in Paducah, Kentucky by Bob Florence and Dave Hutcheson, the original F&H team rapidly began serving the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and municipalities throughout Kentucky. The F&H footprint first expanded beyond Kentucky in
the 1970s when work was contracted with departments of transportation first in Tennessee and North Carolina and then expanded throughout the Southeast. Over the years, F&H developed a solid reputation with federal, state, county, and municipal agencies, as well as industrial, commercial, and private developers and property owners. The firm is known for combining technical resources and a wide scope of services to implement the most complex and extensive projects with the flexibility to ensure responsive, one-to-one client service and proactive, visionary solutions. “F&H is known for exceptional and passionate client service; ICA has quickly become known as a market innovator,” said Mark Acuff, President of Engineering Services. “Our clients are excited that the project managers they’ve come to trust and rely on now have additional capabilities to offer that will save them time and money.” ICA and ICA Engineering employ about 750 people in offices across the Southeast and Midwest. v
Florence & Hutcheson is Now ICA Engineering Florence & Hutcheson Inc. will now be known as ICA Engineering Inc. The name change is the final step in the acquisition of F&H in a strategy by ICA to create a more innovative delivery of engineering, operations, and maintenance services for all transportation infrastructure assets. “Over the past three years, F&H and ICA have merged services, ideas, and cultures to create an integrated company able to provide complete infrastructure services,” said Butch Eley, CEO of ICA. “Together we form a stronger, more dynamic enterprise that is able to deliver enhanced efficiencies and cost savings to our clients, maximize the value, and extend the lifespan of infrastructure assets.” Infrastructure Corporation of Americas maintains public transportation infrastructure, including roadways, bridges, toll ways, rest areas, and welcome centers. The addition 36
GeorGia enGineer
ACeC Georgia Jay Wolverton, PE Chair ACEC Georgia
Stay the Course! That is the slogan of the newly elected 2013-2014 Board of Directors of ACEC Georgia.
News Engineering Firm Operations: Staff Development, Best Practices, and Technology I am honored to be the new Chairman for the coming year and am very excited about the great young talent that has joined the seasoned veterans to make up this year’s board. The board and staff pledge to make this another successful year for ACEC Georgia. But before I begin discussing what is ahead, let me say thanks to our outgoing Chairman, Eddie Williams, his Board of Directors and our fabulous staff for a job well done. That group of outstanding professionals prepared a roadmap for the future that will continue to make this organization a destination place. The visionary work that
group of people put in place will continue us all on the road to success. ACEC Georgia’s value proposition will focus on (1) Advocacy, (2) Business Development and (3) Firm Operations going forward. All of the initiatives under taken in the future will fall within these principles and will provide benefit to our members. Let’s start with Advocacy. ACEC Georgia will continue to build both the federal and state level partnerships with our representatives to make sure that our voices are heard when it comes to engineering business needs. This also includes working with other engineering societies as well as the contractors and
Political Advocacy
The Value of ACEC Georgia Serving your firm’s business interests through:
• Advocating at all levels of government to advance policies that impact the business of engineering in Georgia. • Monitoring the regulatory issues and government agency actions that affect engineers. • Working for a more pro-business climate and defending against unfair business practices. • Fighting to protect the professional engineering practice.
Business Development • Providing networking opportunities, meetings, and programs that put you in contact with potential clients, industry peers, and the leaders of the engineering profession. • Hosting the Georgia Engineers Summer Conference, Transportation Summit, P3 Summit, and other programs that expand your professional knowledge and network. • Offering informative and relevant seminars, programs, and webinars with presentations from leaders who affect our industry and community.
Firm Operations • Providing a forum for the exchange of business and professional experiences. • Offering programs and resources on best business practices for member firms. • Sponsoring the Future Leaders Program to build the next generation of leaders within member firms and the engineering profession. • We provide executive development training for emerging leaders and firm management.
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
37
architects on legislation that affects our industry. Having a strong PAC, both locally and at the state level, goes a long way in our voice being heard. Please support the PAC as it is a great way for our voice to be heard. The second initiative is Business Development. This will entail creating new programs, social events, and networking opportunities for our members designed to help us grow our business. The recently held P3 Summit is a great example where we had ‘the engineer’s clients’ on the stage talking about current business issues and how they see the future landscape and the engineer’s
involvement. This is just one example of how ACEC Georgia will look for ways to help you grow your business. Last but not least is the Firm Operations initiative. This deals with the day to day management and operation of an engineering firm and includes items such as technology, human resources, health insurance, risk management and legal and contracting issues. With this initiative, firms will get exposure to best practices type programs and the latest developments associated with firm operations. We continue to grow our membership
as both new and returning firms want to be involved with ACEC and all we have to offer. This is bringing in both new talent and some great returning talent as well to help us shape the future of ACEC. Our charge to you......get involved! Come and help us design some of these new initiatives or refine the existing ones in place now. We look forward to all of our members finding their place to get plugged in. Be a participant in the new ACEC Georgia. Be a participant in helping to shape and drive our future. The journey is going to be great. Come be a part. v
2013 Georgia Engineers Summer Conference Planted Seeds for Success! The 2013 Georgia Engineers Summer Conference held June 13 -16 at The Lodge and Spa, Callaway Gardens in Pine Mountain, Georgia, exceeded the planning committee’s expectations. Based on initial feedback, ACEC Georgia, ASCE Georgia Chapter, and GSPE members benefited greatly from expert speakers during four tracks of professional development hours, appreciated time with current and prospective clients, gained valuable and state of the art business information from sponsors and exhibitors, and enjoyed getting away with their families in an informal setting. What attendees are saying about their conference experience: • “Top notch entertainment this year at the Gala! We need to invite that magician back!” • “The speakers this year were excellent, especially Dr. Tutterow on the State of the Economy” • “Everyone here seems to be enjoying the sessions and the networking!” • “I have learned so much this year, the topics are great!”
The 2014 Georgia Engineers Summer Conference will be held at the popular Hammock Beach Resort, Palm Coast, Florida, June 12 – 15, 2014. This is a not-to-miss conference for earning your PDHs during a reporting year and for creating family vacation memories. v
Kathy Belcher, Programs Manager Discussion with Facility Staffer
Drew Settimo; David McFarlin, Conference Chair; and Mindy Wall
38
THC Sponsor, Michael Moore and Kelli Weigle
Rob Jacquette, Golf Chair at Picnic and Golf Awards Event
anks to the following sponsors and exhibitors for helping to make the conference successful! Platinum Sponsor Deemer Dana & Froehle, LLP Sponsor/Exhibitors ACEC Business Insurance Trust ACEC Life/Health Trust Crow Friedman Group Evonik Cyro LLC Metro Geospatial Southern Polytechnic State University THC Inc Wolverton & Associates Inc. Exhibitors A4inc. /The Georgia Engineer Applied Software Technology Auburn Univ. College of Engineering Foley Products Company Georgia Concrete Paving Association Photo Science RedVector Settimo Consulting Services Inc. T. Wayne Owens & Associates
Gregg Bundschuh and Lee Edmond, Hospitality Sponsor
GeorGia enGineer
CONTACT US at ACEC GEORGIA
(404) 521-2324 acecga.org
President & CEO, Michael Sullivan (404) 537-1337 sully@acecga.org
Secretary, Charles Ezelle (Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.) (912) 2345300, ezelle.c@thomasandhutton.com
Director, David Estes (Ayres Associates), (404) 658-9320, estesd@ ayresassociates.com
Chief Operating Officer, Gwen Brandon (404) 537-1415 gwen.brandon@acecga.org
Vice Chair, Don Harris (URS Corporation) (678) 808-8804, don.harris@urs.com
Director, Scott Gero (AECOM) (404) 965-9726, scott.gero@aecom.com
Member Services Manager, Kathy Belcher (404) 665-3539 kathy.belcher@acecga.org
Vice Chair, John A. Heath (Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc.) (770) 424-1668, jheath@heath-lineback.com
Accounting Manager, Mia Wilson (404) 537-1275 mia.wilson@acecga.org
Vice Chair, Doug Robinson (Walter P. Moore) (404) 898-9620, drobinson@walterpmoore.com
Chair, Jerry (Jay) Wolverton (Wolverton & Associates) (770) 447-8999, jay.wolverton@wolverton-assoc.com
National Director, David Wright (NeelSchaffer Inc.) (678) 604-0040, david.wright@neel-schaffer.com
Chair-Elect, Darrell K. Rochester (Rochester & Associates Inc.) (770) 718-0600, dkrochester@rochester-assoc.com
Director, Anita Atkinson (Patterson & Dewar Engineers) (770) 453-1410, aatkinson@pdengineers.com
Treasurer, Roseana Richards (Pond & Company) (678) 336-7740, richardsr@pondco.com
AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
Director, Jim Case (Uzun & Case Engineers Inc.) (678) 553-5200, Jcase@uzuncase.com
Director, Robert (Rob) Lewis (HNTB Corp.) (404) 946-5735, rtlewis@HNTB.com Director, David McFarlin (Long Engineering Inc.) (770) 951-2495, dmcfarlin@longeng.com Director, Kevin McOmber (Clark Patterson Lee) (770) 831-9000, kmcOmber@clarkpatterson.com Director, Taylor Wright (Atkins North America) (770) 933-0280, taylor.wrightt@atkinsglobal.com Past Chair, Edgar (Eddie) Williams (Keck & Wood) (678) 417-4000, ewilliams@keckwood.com
39
AsCe Georgia
News
Lisa S. Woods, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section www.ascega.org lisa.woods@jacobs.com
Greetings! I can’t believe I’m wrapping up my year as your president! I would like to take a moment to thank my board members. You have tirelessly done an excellent job with all of our programs this year. anks also to all of our wonderful members for making it a great year. I’m really looking forward to becoming Past President and it is with every confidence that I pass the gavel over to the wonderful Katherine McLeod Gurd!
contact them if you’re interested in getting involved. ASCE Georgia Section 2012-2013 Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony We will be hosting our ASCE Georgia Section Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony at Zoo Atlanta during lunch on Friday, September 13th. Cost for the banquet will include admission to the zoo for the day. Please check our Web site for registration details.
JACOBS, Hayward Baker, AECOM, Heath and Lineback, ASCE Region 5, ASCE Foundation, LB Foster, Evonik, Applied Technology Group, CH2MHILL, and John Group International. Please contact me if you are interested in becoming a sponsor. In closing, please e-mail me at any time if you have questions, concerns, suggestions, or would like to volunteer! Take care! v
Remember… Please join us at our Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony! Please check out our new Web site, www.ascega.org, for more information. I would like to extend a sincere thank you to our sponsors—Belgard Hardscapes,
Report Card We have begun updating our Georgia Infrastructure Report Card, slated for a January 2014 release! Rebecca Shelton and Dan Agramonte are leading this effort so please
ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2012 - 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Lisa S. Woods, P.E. JACOBS lisa.woods@jacobs.com President-Elect Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E. AECOM Katherine.Gurd@aecom.com Vice President Rebecca Shelton, P.E. Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@ gwinnettcounty.com
40
Treasurer Dan Agramonte, P.E. O'BRIEN & GERE daniel.agramonte@obg.com External Director Keith Cole, P.E. keith.cole@mindspring.com Internal Director Christina Vulova, P.E. Consultant ~ Civil & Geotechnical Engineering cvulova@gmail.com
Secretary Ernie Pollitzer, MS P.E. epollitzer@gmail.com Technical Director Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling RMorales@LBFoster.com Younger Member Director Julie Secrist, P.E. TY Lin Julie.Secrist@tylin.com Savannah Branch Director C. J. Chance
NE Georgia Branch Director Matthew Tanner, P.E. Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net South Metro Branch Director Greg A. Wombough, P.E. Oasis Consulting Services gwombough@oasis-cs.com Past-President James R. Wallace, Sc.D., P.E. AMEC (retired) jrwhaw@comcast.net
www.ascega.org GeorGia enGineer
Ashe Georgia Ron Osterloh, PE President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section
Another summer has arrived and our ASHE organization continues to thrive. With this summer brings change. Our nominating committee has selected ASHE’s new slate of officers, directors, and committee chairs and all were inducted at our June membership meeting. We welcome a new group of volunteers to our association and look forward to continuing to grow and flourish as the strongest Highway Engineers association in the Southeast. Michael Bywaletz will take the helm as the 2013-2014 President, and will be sure to impress! As I write this last article (whew), I realize that I only have fond memories of the past two years as president, except maybe writing these articles. It has been a pleasure serving with such great and
News dedicated leaders on our board that unselfishly have dedicated countless time and energy to advance our section, and more importantly, made the job of president easy. It was also a great honor to serve as the president for such a great group of people that encompasses our membership. From when our section was founded that fall night at the restaurant at Crooked Creek in 2008 to the vibrant membership of over 400 we have today, our ASHE section has flourished because of our membership. So again, and I wish a could be a little more eloquent in expressing my thoughts, but I sincerely thank every member of our ASHE section for allowing me to have the honor of being your president over the last two years! Now to recap the last couple of months. It was a busy spring and early summer full of fun events and great opportunities to learn and network. In addition to our membership meetings, we had two very successful events, our annual Golf Tournament and our second annual Tennis Tournament. Both were very well attended, and although it seems like it rains more here than it does in Seattle, we had great weather. The golf tournament was again held at River Pines and was a sell out well in advance (this is your reminder to sign up early next year so you don’t miss it). Also, in early June, ASHE held its an-
nual national conference in Lake Placid, NY. The weather in New York was not quite as cooperative as it has been for our section President ~ Ron Osterloh Pond & Company First Vice President ~ Michael Bywaletz, Gresham Smith and Partners Second Vice President ~ Brian O’Connor, Gresham Smith and Partners Secretary ~ Karyn Matthews, GDOT Treasurer ~ Richard Meehan Lowe Engineers Past President and Regional Rep ~ Tim Matthews, GDOT Director ~ Shawn Fleet, Heath and Lineback National Director ~ Nikki Reutlinger Atkins Chairs Nominating Committee Chair ~ Tim Matthews, GDOT Program Chair ~ Rob Dell-Ross City of Roswell Membership Chair ~ Scott Jordan Cobb County Scholarship Chair ~ Sarah Worachek, Gresham Smith and Partners ASHE Student Chapter Liason ~ Kevin Riggs, Gresham Smith and Partners Technical Chairs ~ Dan Bodycomb, AECOM; Chris Rudd, GDOT Communications Chair ~ Jenny Jenkins, McGee Partners Social Chair ~ Elizabeth Scales Thompson Engineering Golf Tournament Chair ~ Ashley Chan HNTB Web site Chairs ~ Mindy Sanders, Hatch Mott MacDonald; Pervez Iqbal, HNTB
Tier 2 First Place: (L-R) Samuel Serio, Peter Coakley, Ben Buchan, Garrick Edwards AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
41
Tier 1 First Place: (L-R) Paul Murphy, Randy Sanborn, Tyler McIntosh, Tommy Montgomery events, highs in the 40s and rain every day, dees at the conference. On the extracurricubut it was still a great event put on by our lar side of things, the Georgia Section had northern colleagues. As the national confer- representatives on both the winning golf ence attendees have come to expect, the Georgia Section impressed. We were awarded the Gene Smith award for the section that has added the highest number of new members (40) and we came in a close second to the section with the most atten-
team and bobsled team! The next conference will be held in Bismarck, North Dakota and we strongly encourage any member able to attend to come join us. It is a great learning experience and an opportunity to get to know your organization better. Also, our past section presidents have been asked to serve on nationally. Nikki Reutlinger has been elected to serve as a national director and Tim Matthews is chairing the new section committee. Our section’s next goal is to make a push for hosting the national conference again in 2018, our section’s 20th anniversary. We are already looking for chairs and volunteers, so if you are interested, let us know. Last but most important, our renewal period is now open and we need all members to renew by August! It is an easy process. If you didn’t get an e-mail, just go to the new Web site (www.georgia.ashe.pro). Let’s keep our membership strong. Thanks again and good luck to Michael (don’t forget the articles are due every two months). We look forward to seeing you soon. v
CALENDAR OF EVENTS August 20, 2013 Bowling Tourney September, 2013 Membership Meeting October, 2013 Membership Meeting November, 2013 Transportation Summit December, 2013 Holiday Social *Check the Web site for dates, changes and other events. 42
GeorGia enGineer
gspe Georgia Trey Wingate, P.E., President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers
It is my pleasure once again to serve as the president of this organization. Through the last seven years, it has been an honor to participate in the leadership of GSPE across the state of Georgia. I look forward to representing the organization this year at our many events. We are off and running with what is sure to be another significant year for the engineering profession in Georgia. As always, GSPE will be working diligently on your behalf to further the concerns of professional engineers across the state. Through the years, we have learned that there are always going to be issues that require attention on our behalf. Our leadership through our legislative coalition will always be actively engaged in these opportunities. We are an active and dynamic organization that gets better with every ounce of energy put forth through our volunteers. That is why as president this year, the first thing I would like to do is thank all of our current volunteers/leaders, and encourage all of you reading this article to get involved in the fulfilling work of supporting engineering. We have exciting opportunities on our committees that offer everyone an option to actively participate in our events and leadership. If you have any questions about how you can participate, please contact me at twingate@wkdickson.com, and I will work to find the initiative that matches your interest. This past May GSPE held its annual AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
News planning session to review our current status and our goals for the coming year. The leadership had a common voice coming out of the planning session. Offer opportunities for members to engage in planning and leadership growth. We have identified a full list of committees to support our events and outreach and encourage each of you to contact us to find out where you can assist. As you will see in the calendar of events outlined, there is no shortage of opportunities for participation. Our local chapters will be meeting as well and providing interesting topics for you at your local level. Mark your calendars and get engaged in the events below. • MATHCOUNTS Golf Tournament September 20, 2013, Durham Lakes Golf Club, Fairburn, Georgia. The Georgia Society of Professional Engineers holds the annual MATHCOUNTS golf tournament as a fundraiser for the state MATHCOUNTS endowment. •
•
•
PDH Day October 25, 2013, Georgia. Tech Student Center, Atlanta, Georgia. The Annual PDH Day seminar is an expedient program that is modestly priced to assist engineers in securing professional development hours in a comfortable environment. There are multiple concurrent tracks for technical disciplines and professional business. Lunch is provided for all attendees New PE Recognition and Awards Dinner. October 2, 2013, Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center, Atlanta, Georgia. The New PE Recognition and Awards Dinner honors the newly licensed Professional Engineers in the state of Georgia and GSPE members that have made outstanding contributions to the profession. PE Exam Lunch October 25, 2013 and April 11, 2014.
•
Engineers Week Day at the Capital TBA. The engineering profession is honored at the Georgia State Capitol. This day highlights the impact that engineers have on the state including the economy and the public health and safety.
•
Engineers Week Awards Gala Banquet. February 15, 2013, Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center. An evening that brings together engineers, engineering companies, and their clients to highlight and award superior work on projects, in the community and individual accomplishments.
•
MATHCOUNTS Local Competitions January 2014 – February 2014 (Check with your Local GSPE Chapter for Exact Dates)
•
MATHCOUNTS State CompetitionMarch 17, 2014, Georgia Tech Student Center.
With a decline in students entering college to major in Engineering and/or Technology fields, the GSPE has become a strong advocate and host of the Georgia MATHCOUNTS to encourage students at the middle school level to strive for excellence in math and science. • GSPE Chapter Meetings • Check with your Local GSPE Chapter for Meeting Dates • GSPE Leadership Planning Meeting TBA GSPE Leadership, committee members, and members meet to coordinate and plan the upcoming year of goals, events, and benefits for GSPE members and engineers in Georgia. Participate and enjoy the value of membership in GSPE. v 43
ite Georgia Dwayne Tedder, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers
In this month’s installation of news regarding the Georgia Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (GA ITE), I wanted to capture how well GA ITE is doing at approximately mid-year. We set several goals as a section this year, and we’re well on our way to accomplishing them. 1. I wanted GA ITE to reach out to several other professional organizations involved in transportation and partner with them on meetings or conferences. GA ITE has done a good job of this in
News the past with partnerships with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Intelligent Transportation Society of Georgia (ITSGA) as two examples. This year GA ITE has already had a Winter Workshop in Athens, Georgia with the American Society of Highway Engineers (ASHE). We have also had a partnership with ITSGA to host another Legislative Reception with Governor Nathan Deal and other legislative representatives. On Thursday, August 8 GA ITE will host a monthly meeting with the Georgia Planning Association and we will have a speaker from the Atlanta Regional Commission. 2. Another goal this year was to have another session of our GA ITE leadership training. Our last session was a couple of years ago, so we wanted to have another session to provide up and coming leaders an opportunity to learn leadership skills. Some say leaders are born that way, and some say leaders are
shaped by their surroundings and resources. Either way, GA ITE wants our potential leaders to have plenty of tools and resources to lead in their environment. This leadership training is scheduled for October 25 – 26 at The Lodge at Simpsonwood in Norcross, Georgia. This leadership training model has been adopted by the Southern District of ITE and has been used by other ITE sections in the southeast United States. 3. Over the years, GA ITE has worked to provide training and networking opportunities in other areas of Georgia outside of Atlanta. In continuing this goal, I asked our GA ITE Technical Committee to put together at least one Technical Exchange in a non-Atlanta location that would provide participants with training in a transportation technology. The Technical Committee is actively pursuing this for the fall of this year, and more details will be available soon.
Members networking after tour
44
GeorGia enGineer
4. We also wanted to have ‘just one more’ event to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Georgia Section of ITE. We had a big time gala in March of this year. Please see the previous issue of Georgia Engineer Magazine for a full write-up and photos. 5. A continuous goal that GA ITE has year after year is to provide awesome networking and relationship building activities that get our members interacting and learning from each other. GA ITE had a very well attended event on May 16 at SweetWater Brewery in Atlanta, Georgia. We had engineers mingle with fellow engineers for a relaxing evening and a few cold ones at SweetWater Brewery. There were tours of the brewery, and we even got a few photos of the fun. Our Activities Committee also had two more networking and volunteering events recently. GA ITE had a volunteer shift at the Atlanta Dogwood Festival, and we had a team trivia at Firebird in June. Also coming up this year we have several events that I wanted to highlight. 1. The GA ITE Summer Seminar occurred on July 22-25. More details will follow on this event in the next issue. 2. The September meeting of GA ITE is scheduled to be held at Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) in Marietta, Georgia. More details will be sent to members and it will be on our Web site. 3. The Annual Meeting for GA ITE has been scheduled and a location has been chosen. We will be heading back to the Buckhead Club in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday, December 10. We are looking forward to another great year-end event where we pat ourselves on the back a little and have a good time networking, socializing, and recognizing our accomplishments. At that time we’ll induct our new board and officers. So, come on out and get active in ITE. We AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013
have a ton of committees, so we can find somewhere for you if you want to volunteer. We also pledge to do our best to provide the
most value for our members. See www.ite.org or www.gaite.org for ways to become a member. v
Members networking after tour
Board Position President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Past President District Representative District Representative District Representative Affiliate Director
Member Dwayne Tedder Jonathan Reid Andrew Antweiler John Karnowski David Low Carla Holmes Jim Tolson Patrick McAtee
E-mail dwayne.tedder@urs.com reid@pbworld.com aantweiler@roswellgov.com jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com dlow@roswellgov.com carla_holmes@gspnet.com jtolson@dot.ga.gov pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com
Phone 404.406.8791 404.364.5225 678.639.7540 770.368.1399 770.594.6422 678.518.3654 404.635.2849 404.574.1985
Committee Activities Annual Report Audio/Visual Awards/Nominations Career Guidance Clerk Comptroller Engineers Week Finance Georgia Engineer Magazine Georgia Tech Liaison Historian Host Legislative Affairs Life Membership Marketing Membership Monthly Meetings Newsletter Past Presidents Public Officials Education Scholarship Southern Poly Liaison Summer Seminar Technical/Web site Winter Workshop
Chair(s) Jim Tolson Mark Boivin John Karnowski Brendetta Walker Elizabeth Scales Jim Pohlman Steven Sheffield
E-mail jtolson@dot.ga.gov markboivin@alltrafficdata.net jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com bhargro@bellsouth.net escales@thompsonengineering.com pohlmanj@bellsouth.net stevenwsheffield@gmail.com
Phone 404.635.2849 404.374.1283 770.368.1399 404.364.5235 404.574.1985 770.972.9709
Dan Dobry Paul DeNard Charles Bopp Vamshi Mudumba Bill Ruhsam Don Gaines Shannon Fain Sunita Nadella Jonathan Reid Vern Wilburn Todd Long Scott Mohler Mike Crawford Bryan Sartin Sean Coleman France Campbell Larry Overn
ddobry@croyengineering.com pdenard@dot.ga.gov charles_bopp@hotmail.com vamshim@laiengineering.com bruhsam@maai.net dgaines@gcaeng.com shannon.fain@stantec.com sunita.nadella@parsons.com reid@pbworld.com vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com tlong@dot.ga.gov scott.mohler@urs.com mike.crawford@jacobs.com bryan_sartin@gspnet.com sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com france_campbell@gspnet.com larry.overn@stantec.com
770.971.5407 404.635.2843 678.380.9053 770.423.0807 678.728.9076 404.355.4010 770.813.0882 678.969.2304 404.364.5225 678.423.0050 404.631.1021 678.808.8811 678.333.0319 678.518.3884 404.419.8781 678.518.3952 770.813.0882
45
its Georgia Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President
We return to beautiful Callaway Gardens this year for the 2013 ITS Georgia Annual Meeting and Exposition, September 14 - 17. The theme for this year’s meeting is ‘From Vision to Operations, Living in the Future.” We plan to present a roadmap on how to create, plan and implement your vision for improving the safety and efficiency of transportation systems large and small, urban and rural. Last year’s meeting was very successful with 125 registered attendees, 24 exhibitors, and 17 sponsors. We hope to better those numbers this year. Kicking off this year’s meeting will be GDOT Commissioner Keith Golden. The Commissioner will deliver our keynote address and present his ITS vision for the department and state. Commissioner Golden has been involved in every aspect of our theme from planning to operations. Scheduled topics and speakers at press time are: Rural ITS – Dee Taylor, City of Gainesville • I-75 FDOT, District 2, Rural Deployment – Paul Mannix, Atkins • TDOT Rural ITS Deployments – Speaker TBD • TDOT Rural ITS – Nathan Vatter, TDOT Product Info – Moderator TBD Our monthly meeting dates for the remainder of 2013 are: August 22 September 14-17 Annual Meeting October 31 46
News • Camera Security – Matt Powell, MOOG Videolarm • QPL – Putting the Pieces Together – Delcan perspective – Speaker TBD • Columbus TIA – Director of engineering for Wireless – Ron Hamlet Project Delivery – Cynthia Burney, GDOT • Systems Engineering – Eddie Curtis, FHWA • GDOT Design Build – John Hancock, GDOT • FDOT Design Build Lessons Learned – TBD, FDOT Central Office Arterials – Eli Veith, City of Alpharetta • Highway 9 Lessons Learned – France Campbell GS&P • Cobb County Highway 41 – Brook Martin, Cobb County and/or Marc Start, URS • ALDOT Highway 280 – Brett Sellers, ALDOT Signals – Muhammad Rauf, City of Roswell • NTCIP – What does and Doesn’t Work – ITS Georgia Mission We believe that ITS is a valuable tool for improved management of any transportation system, regardless of the inherent complexity of the system. ITS can help operate, manage, and maintain the system once it has been constructed. We believe that ITS should be systematically incorporated into the earliest stages of project development, especially into the planning and design of transportation projects. We believe the best way to achieve this systematic incorporation into the process is through a coordinated, comprehensive program to ‘get out the word’ on ITS to constituencies that might not otherwise consider the relevance of ITS to their transportation system.
OUR 2013 SPONSORS Control Technologies Metrotech Temple Arcadis Gresham Smith and Partners HNTB World Fiber Technologies Atkins Delcan
Kimley-Horn and Associates Sensys Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems URS Telvent Cambridge Systematics Grice Consulting Wolverton & Associates
Speaker TBD • Signal Software – Alan Davis, GDOT • Flashing Yellow Arrow Lessons Learned – Steven Cummins, City of Lexington, Kentucky Scan the QR code for the annual meeting home page or visit www.itsga.org. Join us today. Visit itsga.org/contactjoin.html and become a member organization of ITS Georgia. Please join us at our monthly meetings and bring a friend. We’ll keep you posted on times and locations on our Web site and by e-mail. If you are not on our e-mail list, then visit www.itsga.org. v ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan Immediate Past President
Marion Waters Gresham Smith & Partners Directors Mark Demidovich, GDOT Susie Dunn, ARC Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta Carla Holmes, Gresham Smith & Partners Winter Horbal, Temple Inc. Keary Lord, Douglas County DOT Michael Roberson, GDOT David Smith, Dekalb Co. Transportation Prasoon Sinha, ARCADIS Grant Waldrop, GDOT State Chapters Representative
Shahram Malek, Arcadis Ex Officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Andres Ramirez, Federal Transit Administration
GeorGia enGineer