Georgia Engineer Aug-Sept 2012

the

GeorgiaEngineer NATURAL RESOURCES & THE ENVIRONMENT

Volume 19, Issue 4 | August | September 2012

2

The GeorGia enGineer

the

GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Carolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jeff Dingle, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam L. Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE Jimmy St. John, PE ACEC/G Representatives Robin Overstreet Carley Humphreys ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE John Karnowski ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells Shaun Green, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Ed Culican, PE SEAOG Representative Kurt Swensson, 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 2012

3

Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Albany Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Association of Energy Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 CDM Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Chastain & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GEL | Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Greater Traffic Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4

The GeorGia enGineer

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER August | september 2012

8

Augusta Canal ~ Infrastructure Investment as Economic Development

10

The Water Wars: History and an Update in Lay Terms

11

Q&A with Jud Turner, EPD Director

13

Succession Planning in a Family Business

14

Georgia Comprehensive Water Supply Solution on Tap to Ensure the State’s Future and Quality of Life

18

Environmental Legacy: The ASCE Georgia Section Celebrates 100 Years of Progress

21

National Compensation Matrix is Finally Here!

23

GDOT Welcomes New Federal Surface Transportation Law ~ MAP-21

24

Hickory Log Creek Reservoir ~ a Case Study in Sustainable Water Management

28

New Air Quality Rules that Can Affect Your Business

30

Positive Impact of ARC’s LCI Program

32

Georgia Water Supply Planning Watching the Horizon

34

What’s in the NEWS

GEA

ACEC

GEF

GSPE

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

36

40

ASCE

ASHE

38

ITE

42

B

ecause so much of what we design and build has an impact on the natural environment, we have learned to pay special attention to these far-reaching effects. The engineering community holds in high regard the stewardship of Georgia’s beautiful natural resources, so careful environmental planning has become a standard part of all that we engineer. The August|September issue of e Georgia Engineer is dedicated each year to a discussion of how that planning has played out. v

GMCEA

34

ITS

44

SEAOG

46

WTS

41

5

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

The Georgia Engineer Web site is new and improved! www.thegeorgiaengineer.com

6

The GeorGia enGineer

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

7

Augusta Canal Infrastructure Investment as Economic Development *

By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs

T

o be clear, the railroads came to Augusta before the canal: from Charleston to the South Carolina side of the Savannah River in 1833 and from Augusta into the interior wilderness of Georgia beginning in 1836 (and arriving at its terminus—now Atlanta - in 1845). In many other locales, canals were built as a transportation facility—think of the Erie Canal completed in 1825, which connected the Great Lakes with the Hudson River and New York City. So the first question is, “Why build a canal in Augusta?”

The answer begins with President Andrew Jackson. In short, President Jackson destroyed the country’s only national bank by vetoing a congressional action to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the US. Business lending was taken over by state and local banks. Then in 1836 he issued the Specie Circular, which required that all purchases of public land be paid in specie (gold or silver coin). At the time, selling western land to settlers was an enormous enterprise; an act of claiming America’s destiny. Since few state/local banks had reserves of specie, the President’s action led to a widespread economic depression and banking collapse, the “Panic of 1837.” The panic was felt especially hard in the South as agricultural prices fell and a long and deep depression continued into the early-1840s.

The mayor of Augusta, recalling the hard times of the panic/depression, said that in 1844 Augusta was caught in the grip of “the cold damp of commercial death”. In a later recollection of these times by the very public spirited civil leader, Henry H. Cumming, he said of Augusta, “In 1845 the prospects of the city were so gloomy that many of its citizens had abandoned or were preparing to abandon it.” The community was dispirited, and the notion that Augusta could whither away was not an inconceivable outcome of the panic/depression.

Augusta was largely founded at its par8

ticular location because it is where the Piedmont Province of rolling hills meets the flat Coastal Plain Province. This intersection creates the Fall Line that runs across Georgia from Augusta to Macon to Columbus. Over geologic time, the Appalachian Mountains eroded and left the hard rock of the Piedmont, the sediment from this erosion formed the Coastal Plain, and the sea flooded and receded many times. At this intersection, the Savannah River slows to a more sluggish pace, which also marks the inland limit of navigation.

Henry Cumming was a lawyer and son of a prominent merchant who was the first mayor of Augusta. He and other public minded friends became familiar with textile mills in Lowell, Massachusetts that were powered by a canal diverting water from the Merrimac and Pawtucket rivers. Their notion was that a similar canal would completely change the nature of Augusta from a plantation society with barge traffic to a water-powered, textile-manufacturing center.

In 1836, Lowell had 26 mills along the canal. The Proprietors of Locks and Canals was an organization that made money by selling water to mills. The same men that sat on the boards of the mills also sat on the board of the canal organization. Cumming and others from Augusta visited the operations in Lowell and returned with a vision for Augusta to shake its economic malaise: be-

Thomas C. Leslie come the ‘Lowell of the South.’

Across the Fall Line, the elevation of the Savannah River drops by 52 feet over a sixmile distance. The canal would be constructed parallel to the River with a gentle gradient so that the water surface would be much higher than the river when it reached Augusta. Water from the canal was diverted through mills to drive a series of belts that powered them. The water would eventually find its way back to the river, but at the lower elevation downstream of Augusta. There was enough elevation difference, such that three parallel canals were eventually constructed at the most downstream end of the main canal so that power could be harnessed as water flowed from the higher canal to the lower ones. This was the concept to industrialize Augusta, but it was not an easy path to reality.

Henry Cumming became the chief proponent for the canal, and he was supported

A Petersburg boat at the 13th Street turning basin on the Augusta Canal.

Photo courtesy of the Augusta Canal Authority

by many of the leading citizens and the newspaper; but all were not pleased. Edward Cashin describes the setting this way: “The plantation model of success had become an obsession with Georgians. Cotton was king.

Cotton production and cotton investment were identified with Southernism. City folk tried to act like planters, in dress, politics, and manners. On the other hand, factories were Yankee inventions; places where cruel capitalists exploited workers and cast them out when they became old or ill.” Henry Cumming said, “ To many the thought of competing with the North(‘s) industry was foolish, to others the very name manufacturer had become odious.”

Nonetheless, Cumming plowed forward in developing the concept and working out the details. It is interesting that federal funding of such investments at about this time was a controversial issue in Congress. Early in his political career, South Carolina neighbor John C. Calhoun had championed a bill in Congress to fund ‘internal improvements’ (canals and roads), but President James Madison vetoed it. Later, Andrew Jackson defeated a bill by Henry Clay to fund road building in Kentucky. Clay ran for President in 1844 (and Calhoun thought about doing it). Clay was supported by most of the canal builders, including Henry Cumming, but he lost to President James Polk, who was more interested in expanding the country’s territory than in connecting it with internal improvements. The state of Georgia had spent money to improve rivers but was busy building a railroad to Chattanooga and would not help with a canal in Augusta.

Absent state or federal financial help, Cumming credited a local banker with a creative financial structure that made the canal possible. In 1845, four local banks put up $1,000 each as seed money, and Augusta issued $100,000 in bonds to be paid off by a special ‘canal tax.’ Citizens would become stockholders in the Augusta Canal Company in proportion to the taxes paid. The stock entitled the taxpayers to vote for the Board of Managers of the Canal Company. The city of Augusta became the largest stockholder and elected the mayor as Chair of the Board of Managers, which appointed Henry Cumming and his friends to a Board of Canal AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Commissioners, which was responsible for constructing and operating the canal. Cumming was elected President.

In a remarkably short period of time, the Canal Commission began acquiring land (mostly by donation), hired a few folks as staff, and selected contractors for 12 separate divisions. Earlier work paved the way for this progress. Cumming had hired engineers from Lowell to provide a design and J. Edgar Thompson, a local engineer, to prepare a survey of the route for the canal. This early, conceptual work was instrumental in promoting the plan to elected leaders and general taxpayers.

If there were a Georgia Engineer Hall of Fame, surely Thompson would be in it. He served as Chief Engineer of the Georgia Railroad beginning with his arrival in Augusta in 1835. In 1847, he became the Chief Engineer of the Pennsylvania Railroad, perhaps the most successful in America. Later he became its president.

As the Canal was moving toward implementation, many in the ‘old guard’ continued to agitate in opposition to the canal tax and an industrial future for Augusta.

They sued the city to stop the project from moving forward, and lost. Supporters were successful in the Georgia General Assembly to secure legislation that retroactively authorized the canal tax, the canal, and its future expansion.

Construction of the project moved ahead briskly. The project included two aqueducts; the largest over Rae’s Creek (yes, the same one that flows by the 12th hole on Augusta National Golf Course). The Canal Commission was created in March 1845 and on November 23, 1846, the first water flowed through the entire length of the canal. Mills began to locate adjacent to the canal to manufacture textiles, grind corn and wheat, and saw lumber. Petersburg boats used the canal to transport commodities from above the Fall Line to factories on the canal and nearby consumers.

But all was not sweetness and light.

The Rae’s Creek Aqueduct leaked and had to be repaired and rebuilt, and there was a very bad initial cost estimate. The first cost estimate was about $100,000, but by the end of 1850, the cost had risen to $245,000, and the Rae’s Creek aqueduct

was not finally replaced until 1855.

There were incorrect calculations from the pre-construction phase of the project that vastly overestimated the ability of the canal flow to power the stipulated number of spindles in the textile mills. It was not until after the Civil War that a careful evaluation concluded that the canal needed expansion to meet the growing demand for power. The 1871 expansion of the canal included widening by as much as 100 feet and raising the banks by up to ten feet in some locations. Rae’s Creek Aqueduct was eliminated and cleverly used as a dam that created Lake Olmstead.

The period from 1875 to 1890 was the boom time for economic development in Augusta. The canal expansion was complete, and an economic recession in 1873 was exhausted.

Mills were built and others expanded, jobs were created, and Augusta’s population more than doubled between 1870 and 1890 to 33,300. Lake Olmstead became a popular pastoral setting for picnics, boating, and summer cottages. The canal served as a reliable source of drinking water, provided waterpower for mills, drove electrical turbines that powered trolleys, and created Lake Olmstead.

The canal continued to serve it purposes through the 1930s but was taken for granted by most of Augusta during the 1940s. Its decline lasted for decades as manufacturing (especially textiles) declined throughout the South. And then the renaissance began. In 1971, the canal was placed on the National Register of Historic Places even though it was still used for power, transportation, and water supply. Land along the canal was purchased by the state of Georgia for a state park. Old, brick mills have been converted to residential and commercial spaces. The canal is now a much beloved civic asset, even as it continues to serve some of its original purposes. This is one truly remarkable attribute to infrastructure investments: even at 166 years old, this ‘internal improvement’ is still a valuable asset for Augusta. *Note: This article is largely based on The Brightest Arm of the Savannah, The Augusta Canal, 1845 – 2000, by Edward J. Cashin, published by the Augusta Canal Authority, 2002. v

9

The Water Wars: History and an Update in Lay Terms

By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs

T

he dispute between Georgia and its neighbor states, Alabama and Florida, over who gets how much water from rivers that flow in all three states has become known as the (tri-state) Water Wars. It began over two decades ago. A full history is akin to that of the thousand-year Byzantine Empire. Recent events, however, stand out as important mostly for their moment of clarity in a sea of technical complexity, legal disputation, and political bluster.

It seems valuable to provide an updated version of the Water Wars but at the cocktail party level.

erate Lake Lanier to provide more water supply to support a much larger population, Alabama and Florida became downright hostile. Remember, the details are being skipped over—there was litigation in multiple courts, congressional action on a water compact, interstate negotiations, new governors, North Georgia-South Georgia competition (aka, agricultural vs. urban use), and droughts.

The root of the Water Wars seemed to be this: with a rapidly growing demand for water and a limited supply, the three states had different views of the priority water use: Georgia—population growth (mostly in Metro Atlanta), Alabama—economic development (if you stop Atlanta’s growth, they’ll

“When metro Atlanta hit about four million people, our neighboring states became concerned.”

The Etowah River (upon which is lake Altoona) and the Oostanaulla River intersect and form the Coosa River, which flows into Alabama. The same is true for the Tallapoosa River, but it is much smaller. The Chattahoochee River constitutes much of the boundary between Alabama and Georgia. It is joined by the Flint River at the Florida boundary, becomes the Apalachicola River and flows across the Florida panhandle into the Gulf of Mexico. These three river basins have their headwaters and origination in Georgia.

Managing rivers is a state function. The U.S Government, acting through the US Army Corps of Engineers, built four reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River and one on the Etowah River. The biggest impact on flow in those rivers is operation of the federal reservoirs.

As the South grew in population and economic enterprise, the availability of water supply grew much more important. When metro Atlanta hit about four million people, our neighboring states became concerned.

When Metro Atlanta asked the Corps to op10

move to Alabama), and Florida—environmental (preserve the oyster beds and fishery in Apalachicola Bay).

In due course, several federal lawsuits were combined, and a special, federal judge appointed to hear the consolidated case. He declared that water supply was not an authorized purpose for Lake Lanier and gave Georgia (i.e., Metro Atlanta) three years to cease using it. This was draconian in its implications and was probably intended to force congressional action, supported by a tri-state negotiated settlement. In 2011, Georgia appealed the judgment to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was overturned with a finding that water supply was an authorized purpose. Alabama and Florida asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and in June 2012, they refused to do so.

The Circuit Court ruling is left standing. In a related finding required by the Court, the Corps concluded they could allocate water supply for Lake Lanier compatible with other authorized purposes.

The next step is for the Corps to determine how much water can be made available

for both current and future water supply needs for Metro Atlanta and balance that allocation with other purposes and legislative constraints. Part of this study will be to determine impacts purposes and prepare a formal environmental impact statement— perhaps a two-to-three-year process. Then the Corps would take final action to implement the new water allocations. At that time, it should be expected that Alabama and Florida would sue again to overturn the final action.

This could start another sequence of litigation/appeal that leads again to the US Supreme Court.

In the interim, there is renewed hope that the states could restart negotiations on a settlement. The Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a favorable ruling for Georgia (i.e., Metro Atlanta). Prior to this ruling, the litigation setting was very favorable to Florida and Alabama. It seems that Georgia has an incentive to negotiate a comprehensive settlement and secure its future water supply.

On the other hand, Alabama and Florida may not have much of an incentive. As long as the case is being litigated and our neighbors’ political leaders are viewed as “fighting for the rights of their state against the rapacious growth of Atlanta,” they win. Perhaps this is too cynical; perhaps not. Maybe we just begin another ten-year journey back to the Supreme Court. v

The GeorGia enGineer

Q/A with Jud Turner, EPD Director Jud Turner became Director of EPD on the first of the year. He served as special executive counsel for both Governor Perdue and Governor Deal in negotiations between Georgia and Alabama and Florida in what has been dubbed the Water Wars over use of rivers flowing from Georgia into these two states. His work experience includes law firms, public affairs, and state government. He holds a law degree from the University of Virginia and an undergraduate degree from the University of Georgia, where he was president of the Student Government Association and graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

On June 28th, Eddie Williams, Corky Welch, and Tom Leslie sat down with Mr. Turner to discuss his first few months as director.

The EPD Director must be the worst job in state government. You must impose environmental requirements on local governments and industries that frequently see them as overly burdensome and costly. And environmental advocates think they are too weak. The EPD Director must make ‘yes/no’ decisions on quarries, landfills, hazardous waste facilities, and sewer plants that make nearby neighbors mad and very few people happy. Why in heaven’s name would you agree to take a position like this?

I can assure you this job is not the result of farsighted planning. In law school, I never dreamed of a career in environmental law. I was introduced to this world as executive counsel for Governor Perdue (and later as special executive counsel to Governor Deal) in negotiations with Alabama and Florida in the ‘water wars.’ When former EDP Director Allen Barnes made known his intention to leave, I wondered who would take such a tough job. In due course, I was both surprised and humbled, that I turned out to be the one.

It is a King Solomon job—I say this not as a measure of my personal acumen, but to describe a job that always requires finding balance among competing elements.

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Interview with New EPD Director Jud Turner. l-r, ACEC/G President Eddie Williams, Jud Turner, and ACEC/G Environmental Forum Chair Corkey Welch.

How long do you expect to serve as director?

The true and accurate answer is “I do not know,” but I expect to be here for a while. I serve at the pleasure of the DNR Board and the governor, so I guess I will serve as long as they are ‘pleased.’

Have you set any personal goals as director?

EPD executes an amazing array of state laws and federal environmental regulations that have been delegated to Georgia.

Unlike some agencies and private sector businesses, we don’t have much opportunity to evaluate our core competencies and prepare a plan to exploit the things that we are really good at and avoid the other things; we must do it all. Nonetheless, I hope to manage the division with our state’s priorities and strategic objectives in mind. To that end, I genuinely hope that we can reach an ultimate pathway to securing our future statewide water resources. With the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and the Corps of Engineers determination on Georgia’s water supply request from Lake Lanier and the

Chattahoochee River, I believe we have in place a component of our state’s plan for water security. My second goal may sound like a cliché, but it is my hope to leave EPD a better organization than when I arrived.

We want to be more effective in what we do, and, to determine if we are, we need the right metrics to tell us so.

What have been your biggest challenges in managing EPD since becoming director?

We have great talent at EPD, hard working and professionally competent. But we are losing institutional knowledge primarily through retirements, and to a much lesser degree by people moving to federal agencies and industry. What in the world will we do when the economy improves and others take a good look at our staff and view them as very appealing potential employees?

Have you had a chance to contemplate environmental legislation you would pursue in the 2013 General Assembly?

There are two primary pieces of legislation as I see it now. We need to reauthorize the Hazardous Waste Trust Fund, which is 11

expiring. A big issue is the payments of fees into the Trust Fund, which are often not fully appropriated by the General Assembly, to help with the cost of hazardous waste clean-ups. In recent years, the Trust Fund receipts have far exceeded the appropriations.

I expect there to be a deep discussion over this disparity as part of the reauthorization.

The Flint River Drought Protection Act needs an overhaul. The present, voluntary system where the state pays farmers to take acreage out of irrigation has not achieved its laudable management objectives. We need to redesign the statute so that it will function to help us manage through these multi-year droughts—for the benefit of all those that depend on the resource.

What do you think of the proposition that EPD would not provide a detailed review of design plans, associated with approval of a permit, provided they are sealed by a licensed engineer and certified to meet EPD expectations (such as a Design Development Report for a wastewater treatment plant).

As you know, we are working with representatives of cities, counties, water professionals, and engineers to determine if and how we would implement such a policy.

12

The quality of a set of plans should not be the responsibility of EPD; it must be the responsibility of the design professional sealing the documents. Our job is to do the planning, set the performance criteria for facilities to meet water quality standards, and enforce these standards. It makes sense to me to place a strong emphasis on holding design professionals responsible for the quality of their work. EPD should not be devoting scarce resources to double-checking design details.

critical to allowing us to move forward with water planning in Georgia, does not change our strategic water planning objectives, which involve continued conservation efforts and the planning, design, and development of additional critical water supply resources in addition to the federal reservoirs. Hopefully, the resolution of this legal question will in the end help us resolve our dispute with both Alabama and Florida. v

The U. S. Supreme Court’s refusal to consider an appeal of the 11th Circuit Court’s finding on Lake Lanier is surely good news for Georgia. What can you tell us about the next steps in resolving the dispute with Alabama and Florida?

While the Supreme Court’s action is certainly good news and, by the way, leaves in place a well-reasoned legal decision by the 11th Circuit, as Governor Deal has said repeatedly, this does not change Georgia’s commitment to try and reach an amicable long term resolution with our sister states regarding our shared river systems. Additionally, resolving this decades old dispute about the authorized purposes for Lake Lanier, while

The GeorGia enGineer

Succession Planning in a Family Business

By Matt Stringfellow, CPA & Brad Whitfield, CPA, CVA | Deemer, Dana & Froehle LLP

W

ith a large segment of the business population beginning to enter their retirement years, ownership transition has become a hot topic lately. Senior owners, who are often the founders of their business, begin to grapple with the issue of planning for the long term future of the firms they have built. When such succession planning happens to involve family dynamics, where the children or grandchildren are a part of the business and therefore part of the succession plan, family succession brings with it a host of issues that are more difficult to deal with than a typical ownership transition plan.

One of the most prevalent issues in any succession plan is the inability of the owner to ‘step aside’ and allow the new team to function without interference. Founders especially have a hard time letting go after building and growing the company from its inception. Rather than functioning as a valuable advisor, the founders stay too involved in the day to day operational issues. This is even more acute when the successor is the child of the owner. If the owner is too handson during the pre-succession training period, the necessary skills may not be effectively passed along experientially to ‘the kid(s)’ or

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

the next business generation.

Another important issue in succession planning is the value equation. What will it cost to buy out the owner and how will it be structured? Business owners almost always have an inflated idea of the true value of their business—it’s just human nature. The established value must be able to withstand scrutiny at an arm’s length transaction. Any value calculation is advisedly arrived at by a properly drawn formula that is relevant to the particular industry in which the company operates or by an independent business

sale of stock between the owner and the buyer. An alternative structure is an internal partial or full redemption of the stock by the company, which results in a step-up in ownership percentage for the other shareholders.

Or it can be a combination of a sale of stock and compensation to the seller. Both buyer and seller should be aware that the way the sale is structured can result in radically different tax results for both parties. A professional tax advisor should be closely involved in the determination of the sale structure to prevent unforeseen tax results.

Both buyer and seller should be aware that the way the sale is structured can result in radically different tax results for both parties. valuation by a credentialed appraiser. This is even more important in a family setting, both from a tax standpoint and to prevent subjectivity in setting a value, which could cause a disruption in family harmony.

There are several ways a sale can be structured. In its simplest form, it can be a

While there are many other issues involved with any good succession plan, those mentioned here are especially important in any family business. As in all business matters, always seek competent, experienced advisors to guide you through the business transition process. v

13

GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY SOLUTION ON TAP TO ENSURE THE STATE’S

FUTURE quality of life Hickory Log Creek Reservoir, Cherokee County, Georgia 14

The GeorGia enGineer

By Kevin Clark | Executive Director | The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA)

f you’ve lived in Georgia for very long, then you’ve seen the state’s population and economy grow significantly over the years. Georgia’s population is projected to grow by an additional 4.6 million people by 2030. Over the past six years in metro Atlanta alone, the area has added more than 450,000 people annually, more than any other area in the United States. At this growth rate, the projected population of Atlanta’s 20 core counties for 2020 is 6.4 million.

Given these trends, it’s important for us to consider how the state’s projected population increase will impact the state’s resources, particularly its water supply. Planning ahead for this growth ensures the state’s quality of life and continued economic development.

Georgia has proactively sought solutions to the water supply issue, including developing new water sources and promoting water conservation. A comprehensive approach that includes water conservation and provides new supply is critical to the state. By ensuring adequate supply through both new water sources and conservation, we can meet our water supply needs.

Georgia’s Water Conservation Initiatives Water conservation has long been an important initiative for the state. Over the last several years, Georgia has increased its water conservation initiatives and efforts, and residents have come together to support the state’s conservation strategies.

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD), since 2003, has required water conservation practices throughout the metro Atlanta region. The MNGWPD has worked with local governments, water and wastewater utilities, and stakeholders to develop comprehensive regional plans to protect water quality and supply. MNGWPD initiatives include public awareness and conservation pricing.

The Water Stewardship Act was passed in 2010 (SB370). It calls for water conservation efforts throughout Georgia, including implementing water loss monitoring programs; reviewing and updating the state’s outdoor watering rules; sub-metering all new multifamily housing; and requirements for highefficiency plumbing fixtures and cooling towers in new construction.

In addition to these initiatives by the state, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have long required water conservation practices during the permitting process for water supply projects.

The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) is an integral partner in helping Georgia conserve this precious resource. In the last six years, GEFA has financed more than $69 million in water efficiency and conservation projects. For years, GEFA offered one percent interest rate reductions for WaterFirst communities. In 2011, the GEFA board of directors approved a one percent interest rate reduction for stand-alone water efficiency and conservation projects funded through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

15

Revolving Funds (SRFs) and the Georgia Fund. GEFA also expects to have more than $300 million available in its water and sewer financing programs during this year alone from which water conservation projects can be financed.

Despite the significant demands placed on Georgia’s water supply by population growth and drought, Georgia has sought to address the issue and preserve the state’s economic development and quality of life through a culture of conservation. Georgia’s residents have gone above and beyond in supporting the state’s efforts. But conservation efforts alone won’t be enough to meet the state’s future water needs.

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission; and the Georgia Department of Agriculture.

In December 2011, Gov. Nathan Deal approved the final report of the WSTF, which outlined water supply initiatives and recommendations for the GWSP. GEFA and DCA opened the initial GWSP application period in January 2012. More than a dozen communities submitted applications requesting more than $195 million in loans and state direct investments. The GWSP has $300 million available for water supply projects, with $120 million available during this first round. There will be two additional rounds of funding. Eligible projects will be

scored based on need, readiness, finances, and regional cooperation and impact.

Georgia’s water supply issue is serious, and the future estimated population growth in the state—an additional 4.6 people by 2030, along with the economic development that will accompany this population increase —makes it imperative that the state and its residents proactively develop solutions to conserve water and to develop new water supply. But we must have both—without effective conservation efforts and new water supply, Georgia families and businesses won’t have the water necessary to thrive. Utilizing both solutions will ensure an adequate water supply throughout the state. v

Creating New Water Supply for Georgia Georgia, in addition to its water conservation efforts, will need to develop and support new water supply projects, including new and expanded reservoirs, to capture the nearly 50 inches of rain the state typically receives each year. The water supply infrastructure projects will also include new wells, system interconnections between communities, and innovative approaches such as underground aquifers for storage and use.

In January 2011, GEFA came away from the annual Eggs and Issues Breakfast hosted by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce with an important new responsibility —heading the Governor’s Water Supply Program (GWSP). Gov. Nathan Deal issued an executive order following his speech that GEFA work with several state agencies to create a water supply program designed to help local governments develop new water supplies, and find ways to expand existing water reservoirs and build new ones.

GEFA convened the Water Supply Task Force (WSTF) to provide expert guidance in developing the GWSP and ensure interagency cooperation in the program’s implementation. In addition to GEFA, the WSTF consisted of representatives from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR); the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD); the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA); the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission, Financing and Investment Division; the State Properties Commission; the 16

The GeorGia enGineer

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

17

By Daniel E. Agramonte, PE, O’Brien & Gere | External Director, ASCE Georgia Section

18

The GeorGia enGineer

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY: The ASCE Georgia Section Celebrates 100 Years of Progress

T

he ASCE Georgia Section is celebrating its centennial in 2012 and in keeping with this issue’s theme, we would like to take a look at how our management of natural resources, also known as ‘the environment,’ has evolved during the this period. In so doing, we will also be taking a brief look at some of the challenges faced by Georgia as we begin the section’s second century.

Perhaps it would surprise some to find out that the first federal environmental law, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, actually predates the ASCE Georgia Section’s founding by 13 years. This law made it a crime to discharge refuse of any kind into navigable waters (or tributaries) of the United States without a permit. With the initial steps being taken to protect natural resources late in the 19th century, the focus of natural resource protection continued to evolve into other areas such as water treatment, wastewater treatment, and then branching into other areas such as land management/protection, solid waste management, and management of specific hazardous and legacy environmental issues. The evolution of environmental/natural resource management in Georgia mirrors the state’s many changes and challenges.

Since the focus of engineering frequently begins with protection of public safety, it is not surprising that the early focus of environmental protection can be traced back to the basics: supplying safe drinking water. In the late 19th century, water treatment consisted primarily of sand filtration. By the early 1900s, the use of chlorination to disinfect drinking water was already seeing widespread use throughout the US. Locally in Georgia, the Atlanta Canal and Water Works Company was established in 1875 to secure a constant and plentiful supply of water for growth and fire protection for the city of Atlanta. The system began with one pump and one reservoir. Due to rapid growth, the system became inadequate in only ten years. In 1891, the Chattahoochee River was selected as the source for Atlanta’s water by

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Mayor William Hemphill. At the close of 1907, approximately 65 percent of Atlanta’s residents had metered water. In 1923, a second raw water reservoir was built and the Hemphill WTP was upgraded to 42 mgd by the addition of seven new filters. In 1941, the filter rate was increased to a then astronomical 106 mgd.

The need for water, heightened by burgeoning demand in the metro Atlanta area, created stress on the river systems that were called on to supply vast quantities of water. The drive to control water flow and mitigate Georgia’s notorious drought cycles came on the heels of droughts in 1930-35 and 1938-44. With these droughts fresh on the minds of Georgians, water needs first focused on the Coosa River with the construction of Allatoona Dam, creating Lake Allatoona near Cartersville shortly after World War II. The state’s attention then turned mostly to the Chattahoochee River, which led to the United States Congress passing legislation in 1944 and 1945 under the auspices of improving navigation for commercial traffic on the Chattahoochee.

This initiative established hydroelectric power and recreational facilities on a series of lakes that were created by building dams and establishing reservoirs. These included Lake Sidney Lanier, created with the construction of Buford Dam (1957); Lake Walter F. George, created with the construction of Walter F. George Dam (1965); and West Point Lake, created with the construction of West Point Dam (1974). The new reservoirs were intended to serve a dual purpose: (1) augment existing power generation, and (2) provide an ample drinking water supply. Their need was driven by population growth and the realization that the TVA power generation infrastructure in extreme north Georgia, dating back to 1931 with the completion of the Blue Ridge Dam in Fannin County, was inadequate.

The other TVA dam in Georgia, the Nottely Dam in Union County (1941), has a modest hydroelectric capability and was primarily designed for flood control.

19

The growth in Georgia’s population centers in the latter half of the 20th century, most notably in north Georgia, has been dramatic.

In 2007, the number of public community water systems in the state of Georgia stood at 1,731, serving a population of 7,879,320.

The 2007 figures represent an increase of more than ten percent in the population served from 2003 figures. Population growth, which drives increased water demand, has led to significant dam construction in north Georgia, which significantly impacts human health as well as the environment. Between 2003 and 2008, Georgia saw an 8.5 percent increase in the number of state-regulated dams (from 3,412 to 3,703) as construction boomed in Atlanta’s northern suburbs. The growing complexity of Georgia’s infrastructure has invariably led to consequences. The Georgia Safe Dams Act was enacted in 1978 after failure of the KellyBarnes Dam in Toccoa, Georgia, which killed 39 people at the Toccoa Falls College in 1977.

In addition to water storage structures such as dams, providing safe drinking water requires protection of the water resource to ensure water quality requirements are met.

The protection of Georgia’s surface water led to the construction of wastewater treatment plants, known by their euphemistic moniker, ‘water reclamation facility.’ Starting in the 1930s, the Intrenchment Creek, R.M. Clayton, South River, and Utok Creek facilities were constructed to support the city of Atlanta. Additional facilities followed throughout the state, most notably the Messerly and Spirit Creek plants in Augusta, the Lower Poplar and Rocky Creek plants in Macon, and the President Street plant in Savannah.

As of 2008, there were 1,118 active wastewater permits in the state of Georgia, comprising city/municipal, federal, and private wastewater treatment and pretreatment facilities. Since nearly all of these sites discharge to surface waters of the State of Georgia, their effluent is regulated by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.

Growing population has made it increasingly difficult to provide the state’s population with a steady, predictable supply of water. According to the US Census Bureau, Georgia’s population in 1910 was approximately 2.6 million. One hundred years later, the Peach State’s population has nearly 20

quadrupled and is approaching ten million.

In north Georgia, where the primary source is surface water, population growth has certainly exacerbated the water supply situation.

This was evident during the drought of 2007-2008, which resulted in significant water use restrictions that were felt by nearly all residents. In middle and south Georgia, where the supply is typically drawn from groundwater, growing agricultural uses have also been affected by recent drought conditions. As of 2012, there have been numerous reports of water wells running dry due to drought conditions throughout middle and south Georgia.

The need for an adequate supply of drinking water is one of the major considerations that influenced the actions of the Georgia General Assembly to establish the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District in 2001. This District is one of 11 districts in the state of Georgia. Subsequently, the Georgia Water Council and the Georgia General Assembly developed and adopted the Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan in 2008. In 2009, the ASCE Georgia Section, in its Infrastructure Report Card, graded Drinking Water a ‘C+,’ citing the need for additional construction of water supply reservoirs, improved management of drinking water infrastructure, better water supply source protection, and more focused state-wide planning.

One other natural resource area, solid waste, deserves mention in a more favorable light. During the high population growth in the last quarter of the 20th century, municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills saw a signif-

icant reduction in per capital disposal rates— nearly 25 percent, primarily due to the ban on yard trimmings from household waste.

During the 1990s, there was a pronounced shift from municipally-managed solid waste facilities to privately-funded sites. As a result, at the close of 2004, Georgia had 26.6 years of remaining permitted MSW landfill space and 19.9 years of permitted construction and demolition landfill space based on current disposal rates.

With heightened public awareness and the need for continued vigilance, the ASCE Georgia section expects to play a more prominent role in helping protect Georgia’s natural resources during the section’s second century. We hope to be able to raise awareness through publication of periodic report cards and public outreach as the state works to overcome numerous challenges. v

The GeorGia enGineer

National Compensation Matrix is finally here!

T

By Aimee Picciano-Walker | CPA Deemer Dana & Froehle

he 2012 National Compensation Matrix (‘NCM’) has been finalized and published on May 8, 2012. Section 7.7 of the 2010 AASHTO Audit & Accounting Guide references the NCM as a tool for determining reasonable executive compensation. The NCM was not published at the time the 2010 AASHTO Guide was written and came into effect. A committee was formed to prepare the NCM. Todd Jones, Audit Manager for North Carolina Department of Transportation, and a committee member described their work, “….it was a very large group effort that included the DOT auditors, the FHWA, the CPA community, the ACEC as well as we hired a compensation expert to help! We had weekly conference calls over a several month period as well as a smaller task force group met in Texas to help finalize the NCM. We wanted to make it as simple as possible for firms and DOTs to use while at the same time we wanted to provide a product that all could agree with.” Forrest Cameron, CPA, External Audit Supervisor with the Office of Audits at Georgia Department of Transportation, also played a vital role in the development of the NCM. The committee developed the NCM using compensation data from four surveys specific to the A/E industry and three other national surveys that included A/E firms.

Chapter Seven of the AASHTO Guide provides details on executive compensation.

It requires consultants to determine the reasonableness that is compliant with the criteria established in FAR 31.205-6. FAR 31.205-6 explains that executives of consultants are permitted to charge reasonable compensation to government contracts as either direct cost, indirect cost, or a combination AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

of the two. Amounts in excess of what is deemed reasonable must be disallowed. Factors that may be relevant to determining reasonableness include the size of firm, industry, and geographical area. To fulfill this requirement detailed in the AASHTO Guide there are two options. A consultant may: 1. Prepare a compensation analysis as outlined in step-by-step instructions in Section 7.5 of the AASHTO Guide, including using nationally published compensation surveys matching the revenue, industry, geographic location, and other relevant factors, or 2.

Use the NCM in testing for compensation reasonableness of certain executive positions based on revenue.

Because the NCM is a composite of multiple surveys, it cannot be used in option one.

The consultant cannot use the data from two nationally-published surveys and use the NCM as a third survey. If a consultant prepares a fully compliant compensation analysis as outlined in Section 7.5 of the AASHTO Guide, the state DOTs will be required to accept the consultant’s analysis as appropriate and compliant. Therefore, the NCM may not be used as a basis to contest, question or disallow compensation.

The final NCM provides a description of positions and a breakdown of reasonable salary by position and revenue. There is also an example of a schedule demonstrating the testing of reasonableness. Likely, this will be the type of schedule the state DOTs will be looking for. Consultants can create a similar schedule, and then populate the columns as they relate to their firm. The 2012 NCM applies to 2011 overhead reports. However, due to the late publication of the final 2012 NCM you should contact your home state

Aimee Picciano-Walker DOT for further guidance if your overhead report was submitted prior to the publication. Forrest Cameron at Georgia Department of Transportation stated, “…any firm that has a compliant compensation analysis will have no further action. If the firm did not perform a compliant analysis (say they only used the Ohio Matrix) then they should evaluate compensation based on the NCM and reissue the overhead if necessary.” He can be contacted at fcameron@dot.ga.gov for any questions relating to this matter.

At this time, the NCM does not include indexing for geographic differentials. The issue will be revisited when the NCM is updated in future periods. The NCM committee anticipates updating the matrix annually. If the NCM is not updated for a given year, the committee will issue detailed instructions regarding escalation/indexing at that time.

The NCM is accurate for consultants with revenues that range from $1 million to $500 million. When revenue is below $1 million the NCM will default to the data applicable to $1 million. Consultants are being given the benefit of $1 million revenues for compensation purposes. Consultants with revenues in excess of $500 million are expected to perform their own compensation analysis. Consultants should be aware that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) has determined that the maximum benchmark compensation is $763,029 for 21

certain executives, which can be utilized from January 1, 2011 forward. Within the Federal Register’s publication of this new benchmark is a discussion on President Obama’s administration’s attempt to change the benchmark formula. The benchmark formula the administration is proposing would lower the benchmark of the pay rate for the most senior federal government executives.. This proposal could have a significant negative impact on the allowable compensation for consultants on indirect cost schedules in the future.

The NCM may be used by A/E firms to

prepare their compensation analysis. Janette Lennon, Corporate Controller for Kittelson & Associates Inc. in Portland, Oregon, whose firm prepares their own compensation analysis, had this to say, “To ensure the competitiveness of our compensation packages, we rely on a comparison of regional and national surveys and peer firm information sharing. The NCM will now provide us with additional survey data points for this analysis; however we will continue to prepare our own analysis. Thus while this will be helpful, we anticipate the most significant benefit being agencies across the country accepting

the overall validity of our total compensation, regardless of the weighting of individual components of our compensation packages, much more readily.”

Deemer Dana & Froehle, LLP will be using the NCM as a resource for auditing indirect cost schedules and in assisting A/E firms in compiling an indirect cost schedule.

Also, in cases where a consultant does not perform a compliant compensation analysis, state DOTs may use the NCM as a benchmark for determining reasonableness. Following is the link to the 2012 NCM, including instructions and FAQs. v

http://audit.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx

22

The GeorGia enGineer

GDOT Welcomes New Federal Surface Transportation Law ~ MAP-21

By Dan Gentry & Todd Long | Georgia DOT

A

long-awaited surface transportation authorization law to replace SAFETEA-LU has finally been enacted. On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law a new transportation authorization bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing a 27-month extension of the federalaid highway programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund through September 30, 2014. The measure passed the House by a vote of 373-52, and the Senate by a vote of 74-19, demonstrating bipartisan support for the new federal transportation bill. GDOT and other state and national transportation advocates had urged a ‘long-term’ bill and increased funding but given the fiscal and political realities, most advocates are thankful that the new bill at least extends the programs for two years through Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 14. We are also thankful the bill maintains existing funding levels. This gives GDOT, transit agenciesf and local agencies a relative degree of certainty for developing transportation programs for the next two years. The law provides exactly the same dollars of highway funding to Georgia (and to each state) in FFY 13 as it received in FFY 12 and a slight increase in FFY 14.

GDOT is pleased the law consolidates core highway program categories and eliminates many special-purpose categories.

Nearly 60 programs are eliminated or covered under core programs. This gives substantially greater flexibility in the use of federal funds. The bill limits core highway programs to the following four programs: 1. National Highway Performance Program ~ for an expanded National Highway System (including Interstate roads) and bridges thereon

2.

Surface Transportation Program ~ for all federal-aid highways and bridges

3.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

4.

Highway Safety Improvement Program

In addition, the law directs US DOT to develop up to a 30,000-mile primary freight network and increases the federal share for freight projects included in state freight plans. It apportions nearly all funds to the states by formula and does not earmark funds, which helps maximize funds to Georgia. Other states historically have received more earmarks than Georgia.

GDOT particularly welcomes the numerous provisions intended to accelerate project delivery. Several of the provisions will clearly enable a substantial reduction in time and costsf and we are hopeful other provisions will also expedite delivery. We believe provisions such as Categorical Exclusions for projects in existing ROW and for those receiving relatively small amounts of federal funds will be effective towards this objective.

Projects receiving less than $5 million in federal funds or projects costing up to $30 million with federal funds less than 15 percent will ‘automatically’ be placed in the Categorical Exclusion level of documentation.

The bill requires states to develop and use an asset management plan for roads and bridges on the National Highway System.

GDOT already has the beginnings of a robust asset management system. The bill directs US DOT to develop performance measures for Interstate and other NHS highways and bridges, for highway fatalities and serious injuries, for traffic congestion and mobile source emissions, and for freight movement on interstate highways. The bill requires states and MPOs to utilize those measures in planning and programming, to set targets for each measure, and to report on progress towards achieving targets.

As the department continues its P3 program, we hope to draw on the greatly increased TIFIA loan program funding for major projects and we will use the continued ability to use tolling for the planned managed lanes in Atlanta.

The new law generally continues the structure of the transit program and overall funding. It requires transit agencies to develop asset management systems and to set targets for asset condition measures developed by US DOT. While there is excitement in having a new law, it is very important to note that it does not increase the level of federal resources to address Georgia’s huge needs for highway and transit infrastructure investment to support economic growth. It is with some concern that Congress only temporarily filled the shortfall in user fee revenue needed to maintain current funding, again drawing on general funds ($19 billion) to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. This means the debate continues on how to fund the federal transportation program beyond FFY 14. Georgia, along with all states, would lose a large amount of federal funds starting in FFY 15 if Congress returns to ‘living within its means.’

In other words, if funding is based on actual income to the Trust Fund, Georgia stands to have a 25-30 percent reduction starting in FFY 15. Only time will tell how Congress will respond over the next several years.

All in all, GDOT is pleased with the reforms in the new law and is ready to put them in place in our planning, programming, and project development processes.

We look forward to participating in the numerous US DOT rulemakings required by the law—to help ensure efficient, productive application of the law. v

23

Figure 2: Hickory Log Creek Dam

Hickory Log Creek Reservoir a Case Study in Sustainable Water Management

By Glenn M. Page, PE | General Manager | Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority & George F. McMahon, Ph.D., PE, D.WRE | ARCADIS-US Inc.

T

he Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority (CCMWA) is the second-largest purveyor of drinking water in Georgia, supplying water on a regional wholesale basis to ten local retail water suppliers and one large industrial user. The authority’s mission includes securing sufficient and sustainable sources of water for its cus-

tomers and the communities they serve, and providing reliable, high quality and affordable wholesale drinking

water. It has built a strong reputation for successful investment in conservation programs and responsible development

of new water sources, of which the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir is one example.

The Hickory Log Creek Reservoir (HLCR) project (Figure 1) includes a 411-acre impoundment on Hickory Log Creek in Canton, Georgia, and is a joint project of CCMWA and the city of Canton. The 160-foot-high roller-compacted concrete (RCC) dam (Figure 2) impounds approximately 5.7 billion gallons of water. The project uses a pumped-storage concept, with water supplied to the reservoir by a 39 million gallon per day (mgd) intake and pump station on the Etowah River in Canton.

24

The GeorGia enGineer

A single 42-inch diameter pipeline connects the reservoir and the pump station and provides flow both into and out of the reservoir.

The design yield of the project is 44 mgd on an average annual basis, split between CCMWA and Canton on a 75 percent-25 percent basis, respectively. Development cost, including all permitting, engineering, construction, land acquisition, and mitigation, is just under $100 million, averaging $2.27 per gallon per day supplied by the project. Annual operating costs are anticipated to be approximately $750,000. The project is managed by a Board of Managers created through a Joint Project Agreement between CCMWA and Canton.

HLCR represents a new concept in the planning, development, and management of new and sustainable water supply sources.

The project is designed to meet future growth in water demand by capitalizing on unique opportunities presented by geography and configuration of existing water and wastewater infrastructure owned by CCMWA and its customers. Some of the components of the proposed water resource management system are listed as follows: Off-channel site location on Hickory Log Creek, a small tributary of the Etowah River just upstream of Allatoona Lake, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reservoir authorized for multiple purposes including water supply (Figure 3)

Figure 1: Hickory Log Creek Reservoir (Canton, Georgia) Potential for avoidance of capital, operating, and environmental costs of construction of new water infrastructure through coordinated HLCR–Allatoona operation and utilization of CCMWA’s existing Allatoona intake and Wyckoff Water Treatment Plant (WTP) The Section 404 Permit to construct the HLCR project was received in 2004 after approximately four years of Corps review. The site contained a small reservoir that had previously supplied water to Canton Mills and the city of Canton; therefore, many of the environmental impacts typically created

Figure 3: Location Map of Hickory Log Creek Reservoir, Etowah River and Allatoona Lake AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

through reservoir construction were already in existence at the time of the permit application. Nevertheless, mitigation was required for wetland loss, stream impacts and threatened and endangered species (including three darter species).

Foundation preparation for the RCC dam began in 2005, followed by dam placement in 2006. Most of the quarter million cubic yards of RCC was placed over approximately six months. Construction of the intake and pump station on the Etowah River followed, along with the 7500-foot pipeline and the relocation of a road to an elevation above the reservoir's flood pool. All improvements required under the 404 Permit are completed, and at press date, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and a Reservoir Management and Operations Office have been designed and are prepared to advertise for bidding.

Perhaps the primary uniqueness of the HLCR project is its design to use a natural system to move water instead of constructing additional infrastructure, saving millions of dollars and preventing enormous environmental impacts. Instead of requiring construction of a new intake and raw water main to CCMWA’s Wyckoff WTP, the project will release water into the Etowah River to be withdrawn from CCMWA’s existing intake downstream in Allatoona Lake. The capital, operating and environmental costs of 25

capacity expansion of the existing Allatoona intake and Wyckoff WTP are expected to be much lower than costs of construction of comparable new pumping facilities at HLCR and a 20-mile transmission water main from HLCR to the Wyckoff Plant.

The manner in which HLCR will be operated is illustrated in Figure 4 and briefly described as follows: • Natural inflow above mandatory minimum release from Hickory Log Creek is stored in HLCR (1).

•

Pump station (2) withdraws water from the Etowah River to refill HLCR when river flow exceeds Georgia minimum instream flow requirements at Canton (4).

•

HLCR releases water (3) to the Etowah River as needed to meet Georgia minimum instream flow requirements and to refill CCMWA’s Allatoona storage account (7).

•

Cobb County’s Noonday Creek and Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plants return flows to Allatoona (5).

•

Allatoona (6) stores natural inflows, upstream wastewater treatment plant discharges and HLCR releases to meet multi-purpose objectives.

•

Corps provides contracted storage in Allatoona for CCMWA use (7).

•

CCMWA withdraws water from Allatoona under State of Georgia permit at existing intake (8) for treatment at its Wyckoff WTP.

•

Corps releases water from Allatoona (9) to meet at-site and system objectives.

Figure 4: Hickory Log Creek Reservoir Operation Schematic to Allatoona from HLCR. The HLCR project exemplifies basic principles of sustainable design in the provision of reliable public water supply by maximizing the use of existing water and wastewater infrastructure under a current contractual arrangement for coordinated

water management. By avoiding the need to construct a new intake and raw water main to the Wyckoff WTP, the HLCR project will expand CCMWA’s current water supply capacity at lower cost and with reduced environmental footprint than a comparable stand-alone supply source. v

This design requires development of a mechanism to allow CCMWA to transfer water from storage in HLCR to Lake Allatoona.

The storage accounting system used by the Corps to monitor storage in Lake Allatoona will need to be revised to provide CCMWA with appropriate credit for water transferred 26

The GeorGia enGineer

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

27

New Air Quality Rules that Can Affect Your Business

By Matthew Traister, P.E. | O’Brien & Gere

28

The GeorGia enGineer

O

ver the past couple of years, there have been a host of new and proposed air quality regulations that have the potential to significantly affect the development of new construction projects and, in some cases, existing operations. These regulations may affect industrial facilities, hospitals, and even educational institutions. In this article, we highlight a few of the more widespread regulations and try to give an idea of whom they could impact.

New National Ambient Air Quality Standards The New National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) target air quality concentrations that each air quality region throughout the country is tasked with achieving and maintaining. Areas that fail to achieve a particular standard are considered to be in ‘nonattainment,’ while those that meet or exceed the standard are considered to be in attainment. For example, air monitoring has revealed that the metro Atlanta area (including the following counties: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, Walton) comprise a nonattainment area for ozone. In practical terms, activities that generate air emission are subject to more stringent requirements when they are located inside a nonattainment area.

The standards that drive air quality attainment are changing. In many cases, these standards are getting more stringent. On January 25, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced the promulgation of a new onehour NAAQS for NO2 of 100 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). Prior to that time, there had only been an annual NO2 NAAQS of 53 ppbv, which USEPA has retained. Likewise, USEPA issued a new onehour NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2), which has been set at 75 ppbv.

The new one-hour NO2 standard is considered to be particularly stringent, since under a short-term standard, a source cannot benefit from the inherent averaging that AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

occurs due to the intermittent operations of the source of the air contaminant (different production levels) and the natural variability in meteorological conditions.

The takeaway: If you are planning a combustion project, such as a new boiler installation, including those involving natural gas, these new NAAQS may trigger the need to conduct air dispersion modeling as part of the project’s normal air permitting effort. In many cases, it is possible that an exceedance of the NAAQS will be predicted by the model. You may need a skilled environmental consultant to help you navigate through this new regulatory landscape.

Emission Standards for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines On February 10, 2010, and August 10, 2010, USEPA issued new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards from compression ignition (CI) and spark ignition reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE), respectively. These standards apply to emergency and non-emergency engines, at both major and area HAP emission sources.

Similar to the NAAQS, the reach of these regulations is incredibly broad and will likely affect most manufacturing facilities, data centers, and educational institutions. There are notification, recordkeeping, reporting, and emissions limits that may apply, depending on the type and size of engine, whether your facility is a major HAP source and other factors.

The compliance date for CI engines is May 3, 2013, while the compliance date for SI engines is October 19, 2013.

The takeaway: If you have a RICE engine, you should check to make sure you understand what regulatory obligations apply to your facility.

Boiler MACT USEPA is expected to issue final emission standards for industrial/institutional boilers and process heaters later this year. As with the other regulations mentioned above, these regulations will have broad implication on many manufacturing facilities simply by virtue of the ubiquitous nature of boilers. It appears that there are to be two rules: one for

major HAP sources and one for area sources.

For example, area sources of air pollution are typically air pollutant emission sources which operate within a certain locale. The USEPA has categorized 70 different types of air pollution area sources. Regulatory requirements vary by the type of boiler fuel, whether your facility is a major HAP source or an area source and other factors. The first compliance date for both rules may have been as early as March 21, 2013 (although USEPA has indicated it will not take enforcement action against affected facilities).

More likely, USEPA will extend the deadline through future rulemaking to at least March 21, 2013.

The takeaway: If you have a boiler or process heater, make sure you understand what regulatory obligations apply to your facility and when they apply.

Natural gas boiler ~ These boilers may be subject to MACT regulations The Future Looking toward the future, one would anticipate that the evolution of air regulations will continue. It would appear that we are likely to see tightening in standards again, such as we have seen with the NAAQS. As the compliance date approaches in 2013, we will likely see a flurry of activity dealing with RICE. Lastly, the MACT standard for boilers will be finalized soon. These far reaching regulations will significantly impact a broad range of facilities. While there has been little recent movement in the regulation of greenhouse gases, this could change, though probably after the November elections. Facility owners and operators would be wise to keep an eye on the ever-developing world of air quality regulations. v 29

Positive Impact of ARC’s LCI Program

By Jared Lombard | AICP.

A

tlanta has no natural physical boundaries to restrain development, and, not surprisingly, the Metro-Atlanta region is currently one of the least dense metropolitan areas in the U.S. and has one of the longest average daily work commutes. The Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) program was begun in 1999 as a way to provide an alternative to these prevailing development patterns. Through the LCI program, planning grants are provided to local governments and non-profit organizations in order to prepare a plan for the enhancement of existing town centers, activity centers, and corridors. This enables these areas to take advantage of the infrastructure and private investments already committed in these jurisdictions—resulting in more balanced, regional development while reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving air quality.

Then, after the initial plan is complete, more money is made available to the jurisdictions that can help implement these plans.

When the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) established the program in 1999, $1 million was committed annually from federal transportation funds to complete the LCI area studies, and the program dedicated an additional $500 million to fund transportation projects identified during the studies. To date, more than $195 million in planning and transportation funds have been allocated to over 110 distinct areas in the region.

While all LCI areas are uniquely different, all employ similar concepts of smart development such as: • Connecting homes, shops, and offices through mixed-use developments •

Enhancing streetscapes, sidewalks, and general community aesthetics

•

Improving access to transit and multiple transportation modes, including roadways, walking, and biking

•

Expanded housing and employment options

30

Pedestrian underpass •

Creating an outreach program that promotes the involvement of all interested stakeholders in the formation of the plan

LCI Transportation Program The ARC Board established the LCI program in 1999, making a commitment of $350 million for the implementation of transportation projects identified through LCI studies. In 2004, the ARC Board increased LCI transportation funds to $500 million as part of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and this commitment was extended through PLAN 2040, ARC’s current RTP. The first year of funding for LCI Transportation Program projects was FY 2003. To date, more than $183 million has been allocated for the preliminary engineering, right‐of‐way acquisition, and construction of 92 projects located in 54 LCI communities. Of those 92 projects, 62 projects are authorized for construction or have been completed to date.

The LCI program uses federal transportation funds, specifically L230 Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, which are earmarked for urban areas with populations over 200,000. As such, all LCI Transportation projects are required to provide a minimum 20 percent local cash match.

In November 2011, ARC approved 13 additional transportation projects for LCI

funding, totaling $34 million in federal funds and an additional $12 million in local funds.

The calculations contained in this report do not reflect these newly awarded projects, as they are not yet programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The new projects continue to advance the goals of PLAN 2040 and the LCI program to create sustainable, multi‐modal centers throughout the region. Of these 13 projects: • Eight (60 percent) are first‐time LCI Transportation Program funding recipients • 13 (100 percent) provide ‘complete streets’ • Seven (53 percent) are transit‐supportive • Ten (77 percent) include innovative elements such as cycle tracks and roundabouts LCI Program Yields Results In 2010, the ARC distributed a survey to all LCI communities—this survey measured the progress of the LCI program by quantifying development as well as looking at changes in land use policies to support the plan’s implementation. From the surveys it was determined that since the first LCI grants were awarded in 2000, 724 new development projects have been identified, including: • 176 projects that are planned The GeorGia enGineer

• 150 that are under construction • 363 that have been completed From these projects, more than 63,000 residential units, 11 million square feet of commercial, and 40 million square feet of office space are either planned, under construction or complete.

To allow some of the densities and mix of uses found in the LCI plans, most jurisdictions need to adopt new regulations to make these projects a reality. In some cases, failure to change zoning codes and comprehensive plans can derail a plan from the start. Fortunately, most local governments are changing their policies and regulations to allow the quality growth that is outlined in their LCI plans.

Out of all of the LCI study areas: • 92 percent have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, their LCI study into their comprehensive plan

stories of mixed use residential or townhomes. The increase of multi-family or attached residential product allows the study areas to have significant increases in their population, making those areas more desirable to retail developments such as restaurants and other locally serving small retail or office developments.

Areas with a high concentration of jobs added a considerable number of residential units by developing vacant lands and by redeveloping underutilized properties such as parking lots. This type of development pattern resulted in significant changes in the job-housing balance within those study areas causing a significant reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The findings support that increased housing options in jobconcentrated areas had the impact of

reducing per capita VMT, results of which are illustrated in Chart 1, below. This is further supported by studies from Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which have shown doubling density can reduce driving by more than 30 percent.

The study areas examined (with one exception) showed decreased levels of VMT of the residents living within those areas. This has been attributed to moving toward a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio within those study areas and an improved multi-modal transportation network within those communities.

For more information about the Livable Centers Initiative, including how to apply for quality growth funding, please contact Dan Reuter, at dreuter@atlantaregional.com or visit their Web site at www.atlantaregional.com/lci v

• 49 percent have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, special LCI zoning districts • 43 percent have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, affordable or senior housing policies • 80 percent have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, design guidelines.

Chart 1: Home Based VMT of Existing Land Use Compared to LCI Land Use

Throughout 2008, ARC Land Use Division staff used INDEX, an add-on to ARCGIS, to ‘paint’ existing land uses and recommended land uses in the ten selected LCI areas. The existing transportation system— existing roads, sidewalks, other pedestrian routes, and the transit network—was added for each of the study areas.

Within each LCI study area, the studies recommended land use types that would cause an increase in population, with some areas experiencing dramatic increases due to large tracts of undeveloped or underutilized land being redeveloped. The majority of existing residential stock found in LCI areas is considered single family. The LCI plans recommended increasing residential uses within all the LCI study areas. However, due to the existing development constraints within those areas, the majority of new LCI residential construction would be three to six AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

31

Georgia Water Supply Planning Watching the Horizon

By Dave Campbell1, P.E. | Schnabel Engineering eorgia finds itself in the midst of a complex and costly dilemma. As a headwater state, virtually all of the water that flows across Georgia land fell from Georgia skies. Although the Savannah River flows along Georgia’s border with South Carolina, no rivers flow into Georgia from other states. Also, North Georgia, where most of Georgia’s population resides, is the headwater area of this headwater state. What does this mean?

Large drainage area water courses are scarce (and include existing multipurpose federal reservoirs)! In contrast to Georgia’s watershed to land area ratio of 1.0 (no rivers flowing into Georgia), Alabama boasts a ratio of 1.7 (70 percent of the total watershed contributing to Alabama rivers originates in other states). South Carolina has a ratio of 1.45.

Most of North Georgia is also underlain by crystalline rock that limits groundwater development. Longer-term climatic cycles lead to reasonably frequent droughts with extended durations and occasional extreme low flows. In North Georgia, droughts are severe enough and streams and rivers small enough to preclude direct stream diversion for water supply without reservoir storage. Reservoirs are needed to store water during periods of higher runoff and release water when stream flows are insufficient to support both baseline environmental flows and water supply diversions.

To compound the problems that Georgia water providers must face in developing adequate supplies for a growing population is a combination of more than 20 years of legal contests with Alabama and Florida over the purposes and appropriate uses of Georgia’s federal reservoirs, along with growing general environmental advocacy in opposition to reservoirs (a topic for another day).

This summary provides a very general background against which Georgia’s water

G

32

providers must act in carrying out their mandates to provide their customers with safe and adequate supplies of water. Individually, each of these factors makes the job of the Georgia water provider a little more difficult than considerations faced by its neighbors.

In aggregate, the challenge for Georgia may be significantly greater.

Despite these deep challenges, a duty to perform prevails, and the means to develop adequate supplies to meet future demands while securing adequate environmental protections is available. The impacts of the 1999–2002 and 2007–2008 droughts should not be forgotten. These droughts were considerable, and all droughts are unpredictable. Another major drought may be in the making now or could be more than a decade away. It is imperative to recognize that droughts do not announce their arrival, their intensity, or their duration with sufficient forewarning to allow for development of additional sources of supply.

Growing communities need to be prepared to meet increasing water demands, with sufficient reserves to carry them through critical drought conditions similar to or perhaps, more prudently, worse than those that have currently been experienced.

The debate over the man-made nature of ‘global warming’ is unresolved, but it is clear that we now recognize that climate is dynamic (another story for another day).

Population growth places stress on all of our infrastructure systems, requiring incisive, decisive, and timely action to keep facilities construction ahead of the growth curve.

Among the most critical of infrastructure development concerns is water supply source development. Why? Over the past several decades, there has been steady movement in the water supply planning regulatory process.

Over time, permitting for reservoirs has required the applicant to jump through more hoops, the hoops are held higher off the ground, and they are getting smaller. Lead times well in excess of a decade are com-

monly needed to plan, permit, finance, mitigate, design and construct intakes, pumping stations, pipelines, a dam, and water treatment facilities. Simply put, planning needs to occur well in advance of need.

Reservoirs are designed to provide a dependable level of water supply (safe yield), as tested against the most severe drought of record. Safe yield is dependent upon rainfall, runoff, and infiltration characteristics, seasonal water use variations, reservoir water supply storage, regulatory criteria used to define critical drought test conditions, competing uses for source water, required in-stream flow releases, regulated withdrawal limitations, and the cooperation of Mother Nature.

As water system demand starts creeping towards a water system’s available yield, you are already late to the game of water supply planning. Given the critical nature of water supply to public health, public safety, and economic well-being, it is imperative for water providers to plan well ahead to develop adequate supplies to meet potable water needs during an extended drought.

Proactive water system managers commonly initiate the water supply planning process well over a decade in advance of need. This allows them to take advantage of available resources and opportunities, and avoid the pitfalls and escalated costs of responding in crisis mode. It is important to remember that a growing population not only increases water demand but also stimulates other development activities that can eliminate the best water supply reservoir alternatives from consideration.

Water use efficiency and conservation measures (demand management) should be used as initial efforts to manage demand growth and to slow the impending need for additional supplies. Conservation and efficiency programs will also need to be addressed as part of the regulatory review and approvals process for a new source. Once demand management practices are in place, demand growth can be compared with available The GeorGia enGineer

Approximately 60 percent of Continental US is currently suffering drought conditions yield to estimate the timing and magnitude of source development needed to meet demand growth over the planning period.

The length of planning period can be affected by a number of variables, including the type of source development options available, longer-term growth projections, build-out population estimates, and economic and financial considerations. However, it is typical to use a 40 year to 50 year planning horizon for reservoir projects. The more difficult it is to locate and permit a source, the longer the recommended planning period. This costly and torturous process is not one to be repeated often.

Water supply alternatives that can satisfy identified planning period needs are first identified and catalogued. Depending upon the size and setting of the water system, alternatives may include new on-stream reservoirs (recharged by watershed runoff ), new pumped-diversion reservoirs (recharged primarily by pumped diversions from a nearby river), expansion of existing reservoirs, surface influenced or confined aquifer ground water, or a combination of these options.

Interconnections with nearby providers can be a prudent plan to build added robustness and dependability of supply. However, unless the interconnection provides for AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

provisions of fairly priced water available in perpetuity, it should be considered a safety factor, not a reliable source of supply. Where feasible, regional water supply development options need to be given careful consideration, other options, such as desalination or water reuse, have merit in much more limited applications.

An initial screening is performed to

identify potential sites and sources, which are then assessed on a qualitative basis to develop a listing of candidate projects. A short-list of sources showing promise, and lacking a fatal flaw, are then examined in more detail based upon site investigations and conceptual studies of environmental, technical, cost, public support, water quality, and treatment needs, and other factors.

The permitting process that follows is generally comprehensive and time-consuming, even for a highly justifiable project. Also, planning and permitting activities almost always become intertwined. Identification and permitting of a new source of supply will greatly benefit from experience in recognizing both the opportunities and the constraints related to site settings, costs, environmental impacts and mitigation opportunities, land use, and public acceptance.

Additionally, the planning and permitting team needs to be appropriate for your home turf, so that local, state, and regional regulatory and political considerations are appropriately identified and addressed.

What is most important for the water supplier is that all of this translates into a long lead-time and significant costs. The lead-time and costs can be made much longer and costlier if this multitude of key factors is not given consistent and credible attention.v

“Snake Creek Dam ~ Carroll County, Georgia ~ Safe and dependable water supplies provide reliable drinking water, sanitation, fire protection, and enhanced quality of life�

33

W h a t ’ s

i n

t h e

NEWS 2012 ASHE Golf Tournament On Thursday, May 17, ASHE held its annual golf tournament at River Pines Golf in Johns Creek. The tournament was a huge success with 124 participants. Players were allowed to form their own teams, which consisted of ASHE members, nonmembers, clients, and guests. The teams were divided into two tiers, and first place was awarded to the top team in each tier. The continued success of this tournament would not be possible without the support of our generous sponsors. This year, we set a record with 34 sponsors! All proceeds from the tournament went directly to the Jim McGee Memorial Scholarship fund. We look forward to another outstanding tournament next year.

Closest to the Pin: AECOM; Ecological So-

lutions Door Prizes/Goodies: AECOM; American Engineers; CH2M Hill; Clark Patterson Lee; Gresham Smith and Partners; KimleyHorn and Associates; Lowe Engineers; PSI; United Consulting Group v

Tier 2 First Place: (L-R) Efren Dilidili, Chad Bishop, Brad Cox, Joe Garland

2012 ASHE Golf Tournament Sponsors Platinum Sponsorship: T.Y. Lin International

Tier 1 First Place: (L-R) Tony Wiggins, Shawn Fleet, Robert Murphy, Kerry Williams

First Place Sponsorship: Edwards-Pitman

McGee Partners

Solving Subsurface Problems Since 1981

Food and Beverage: Edwards-Pitman

McGee Partners; Pond; Thompson Engineering Hole Sponsorship: AECOM; Accura Engi-

neering; American Engineers; Atkins; CH2M Hill; CHA; Cardno TBE; Columbia Engineering; ECS; Ecological Solutions Florence & Hutcheson; Gresham Smith and Partners; HNTB Corporation; KCI; Keck and Wood; Kimley-Horn and Associates; LPA; McKim & Creed; PSI; Parsons ; Photo Science; RS&H; S&ME; Stantec; THC; Terrell Hundley Carroll; United Consulting; Wolverton & Associates Longest Drive: Mulkey Engineers; T.Y. Lin

International 34

• • • • • • •

Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Underground utility locating Subsurface mapping and profiling Concrete imaging and inspection Geophysical exploration 3D subsurface imaging Geophysical borehole logging

GA: 770-980-1002 SC: 843-769-7379 NC: 919-406-1808 www.gel.com

Photo Science Purchases MJ Harden Photo Science is pleased to announce that it has entered into a definitive agreement to purchase the assets of MJ Harden (Mission, Kansas). “This agreement directly supports Photo Science’s ongoing growth strategy centered on services diversification and geographic expansion,” stated Mike Ritchie, President and CEO. “Along with the location of our Colorado Springs and San Francisco Bay area facilities, Photo Science is now ideally positioned to serve our national client base.”

In addition to enhanced client support, this agreement increases the firm’s flight operations to 13 aircraft. With significant acquisition staging from this new location, Photo Science is able to more efficiently support our client’s acquisition requirements.

Photo Science is now operating six large-format digital framing cameras that include both the Z/I DMC and Vexcel UtlraCam sensors. Moreover, this acquisition brings the total number of LiDAR sensors to eight including four Optech Geminis, two Leica ALS-70s, and two Leica ALS-50II models.

This acquisition strengthens our strategic relationship with GeoEye, while providing them enhanced support for aerial services naThe GeorGia enGineer

tionwide and additional Geospatial Services provided by Photo Science. v

partment of Labor) and Carol Tolbert (NASA). The dignitaries toured the Pile Dynamics facilities and were briefed on the Thermal Integrity Profiler.

Developed as a joint venture of PDI and FGE, LLC from Plant City, Florida, the Thermal Integrity Profiler is used to evaluate concrete foundations such as drilled shafts and augered cast-in-place piles. It gives information on the integrity and as-built shape of the tested foundation, as well as on the alignment of its reinforcing cage, by measuring the temperature of the concrete during the cement curing process. TIP measurements are taken with a reusable thermal probe that is lowered onto specially built tubes built into the foundation, or with Thermal WiresTM tied onto the reinforcing cage prior to concreting. v

At News Conference announcing the Manufacturing Innovation Award, from left to right, Dean Cotton, Senior Engineer, PDI, George Piscsalko, P.E., PDI vice president, Dr. Mason Peck, NASA Chief Technologist, and Garland Likins, P.E., M.ASCE, PDI president.

Thermal Integrity Profiler wins Manufacturing Innovation Project Award Pile Dynamics Inc. has announced that its Thermal Integrity Profiler (TIP) is among the winners of a Manufacturing Innovation Project Award.

The award is conferred by a partnership between the city of Cleveland, Ohio, Cuyahoga County (where PDI is located), the Manufacturing Advocacy & Growth Network (MAGNET), and the NASA Glenn Research Center, and is part of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy ‘Strong Cities, Strong Communities’ (SC2) effort. Pile Dynamics was one of nine manufacturers selected by an independent panel of judges to work with NASA scientists on incorporating NASA technologies into their already successful products.

“NASA is proud to be a part of a venture that promises to be a successful partnership between the space program and local companies in the city of Cleveland and in Cuyahoga County,” said NASA Chief Technologist Mason Peck at the May 23rd announcement of the winners.

Following the announcement of the award, PDI was honored by the visits of Jay Williams, Executive Director of the Office of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers of the Department of Labor, his Special Assistants Tom Kelly and Lauren Leonard, and SC2 representatives Grace Kilbane (DeAUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

35

ACeCNews

Edgar G. Williams, PE President ACEC/G Let’s Look Forward First of all, let me say I am honored to be your president for 2012-2013. Jim Hamilton and his predecessors, along with their very dedicated board members and our veteran staff, set the stage for some great things this year and the future of our organization.

I have learned a lot from these folks and plan to seek their input on future issues.

I am taking this introductory article to share my reasons for being excited about being ACEC/G President for this particular year in our history. It seems that I find myself coming into this job in the middle of a very dynamic period for the state of Georgia and ACEC/G. So, here is some speculation on what will be hot and what will not. Be advised that this discussion will be a mile wide and an inch deep because as I am writing this, many of the issues are in the early stages, have just been announced, or will be known soon after publication.

Reorganization of ACEC/G Your board has begun implementing a plan to dramatically reorganize how ACEC/G is staffed, managed, and governed. The board is committed to making ACEC Georgia more relevant in three areas: (1) Legislative/Regulatory Advocacy, (2) Business Development, and (3) Firm Operations. We are convinced that a more relevant ACEC/G will make it possible to grow the organization as the recession is ending because the value of membership will be high.

At the same time, we are committed to helping create a more inclusive version of the Georgia Engineering Alliance. The vision of the study group working on this effort is to add more engineering associations to the coalition and to provide it with the ability to speak with clarity and unity.

36

Board of Registration At the GEA Summer Conference, Secretary of State Brian Kemp spoke to us about his revised strategy for streamlining the registration boards and the administration of licensing and enforcement. He is seeking input from the engineering community to help develop what he envisions as a more efficient process where routine applications and administrative issues can be handled in a perfunctory manner with quick turnaround and less manpower. I anticipate that our involvement will be as part of the new GEA coalition, working with the other associations to be sure our concerns and suggestions are heard. This particular issue demonstrates the need for a unified coalition of all engineering associations.

Health Care The national news media has focused intensely on the Supreme Court decision regarding the health care law. Hopefully,

Congress will be able to develop legislation to help reduce factors contributing to the added costs, or perhaps develop a ‘Plan B’ that is more business friendly than the original. I am sure that ACEC National will keep us informed and help us understand the options for providing health care for our employees.

Infrastructure Investment Some pundits believe that just getting past the upcoming national elections will provide needed ‘health care’ for the economy. Others propose new infrastructure spending as part of a recovery strategy. Will there be another ‘stimulus’ bill for infrastructure? If so, ACEC National will certainly be in the middle of helping develop one that benefits our member firms.

Water Resources The theme for this issue of the magazine is ‘Natural Resources and the Environment.”

The GeorGia enGineer

Perhaps Water Resources will now take on more prominence in ACEC/G’s agenda.

ACEC/G leadership, along with Georgia Association of Water Professionals, Georgia Municipal Association, and the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, have been in early discussion with new EPD Director Jud Turner about potential streamlining of the environmental permitting and plan review processes. At its 2012 summer conference, the Georgia Municipal Association approved legislative policy recommendations stating, “GMA recommends an expedited permitting process and project review that will result in efficiencies at EPD…” ACEC/G has been asked to participate with the other stakeholders in developing revisions to the permitting process that provide proper safeguards while at the same time maintaining reasonable project implementation schedules.

ACEC’s national legislative agenda includes protection of existing funding levels for the Clean Water Act SRF Program and the Safe Drinking Water SRF, plus promotion of new financing alternatives for water and wastewater projects. An ACEC webinar in July provided explanation of proposed ‘WIFIA’ financing (Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) and changes in the rules for ‘PAB’s’ (Private Activity Bonds) that allow them to be used more competitively for water and wastewater infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court declining to hear the appeal confirms that ‘water supply’ from the Chattahoochee and Lake Lanier is an allowed use. This will allow Georgia, the other states, and the Corps of Engineers to finish their negotiations regarding the operating strategy for Lake Lanier and allow completion of Governor Deal’s Water Supply Plan. Member firms involved in water supply can look forward to multiple projects that will result, and all firms in the region will benefit from the removal of the cloud over economic development.

Transportation Funding As this article is being written, many of our members are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Transportation Referendum vote. Regardless of how the vote is determined, transportation funding will continue to be very AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

important for Georgia and our member firms. GMA’s approved policy recommendations for Transportation Finance seem to anticipate less than unanimous approval of the referenda across the state. The policy reads, “While the option of a regional sales tax made available in the Transportation Investment Act is a step in the right direction, it is only one solution…..however, it is possible that voters may not support the regional transportation sales tax in every region. The state must work with local and federal leaders on a ‘Plan B’ to explore additional financing alternatives for state and local transportation projects.”

Working closely with Congress, ACEC has been on the front line of efforts to get a multi-year transportation bill passed this summer and in keeping Congress informed of our concerns. In spite of political and economic challenges, it appears that a decent bill is going to pass. ACEC will deserve a lot of credit for this successful outcome.

Vertical Construction The strongest practice area for the coming years may be Vertical Construction, where our MEP and structural firm members make their living. In November 2011 we heard from Linda Daniels, Vice Chancellor for Fa-

cilities of the Georgia Board of Regents, at our monthly membership meeting. Many meetings with her department resulted from that networking opportunity. Also, members of ACEC/G are participating on the editorial board for the State Construction Manual. It appears that institutional, commercial, and industrial design activities and construction are building momentum as the economy improves.

Balance Among our Practice Areas I am sure you are aware of the efforts ACEC/G has put into the Transportation Referendum and transportation issues in general for the past few years. However, as I mentioned above, some things in the works could cause a shift in some of that ‘energy’ to our other practice areas. I predict that going forward events and circumstances will result in much more balance among all the practice areas represented by ACEC/G. Whatever your firm’s focus, know that your Board is committed to a robust and relevant ACEC/G. We look forward to working with you to leverage your investment in ACEC/G membership for better results in Advocacy, Business Development, and Firm Operations. v

Front Row l-r: Margie Pozin, Director; Gwen Brandon, Executive Director; Rick Toole, National Director; Roseana Richards, Secretary Back Row l-r: David Wright, Vice President; Darrell Rochester, Treasurer; Jim Hamilton, Past President; Robert Lewis, Director; Jay Wolverton, President-Elect; Eddie Williams, President; Richard Meehan, Director; Charles Ezelle, Vice President; Jim Case, Director; John Heath, Vice President; David McFarlin, Director Not Pictured: Scott Gero, Don Harris, Doug Robinson 37

AsCeNews

Jim Wallace, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: jmacrina@dekalbcountyga.gov Sustainability: ASCE’s Position In e Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025, published by ASCE in 2007, the civil engineers’ role in a sustainable world is described as follows: “The global civil engineering profession has increasingly recognized the reality of shrinking resources, the desire for sustainable practices and design, and the need for social equity in the consumption of resources. Civil engineers have helped raise global expectations for sustainability and for environmental stewardship. The profession has led world acceptance of green design and has been in the forefront in making environmental considerations part of life-cycle and cost-benefit analyses. Civil engineers have urged clients to use new, environmentally-friendly technologies to improve the quality of life in urban

environments. Designs routinely incorporate recycling, either by using recycled materials, or by making project components recyclable at the end of their useful life. New processes, less harmful to the environment, have been implemented, and most new construction is based on green and smart-building technologies. Many new buildings actually produce more energy than they consume.”

ASCE has been a national and international leader in promoting the integration of sustainability into engineering education and practice. What follows is a summary of the major sustainability-related actions that the society has taken over the past decade. Each action has a Web site reference for additional information. The reader is strongly encouraged to visit these Web sites to obtain a fuller understanding of the range and depth of

ASCE’s commitment to building a sustainable future.

In the POLICY area, ASCE has: • Modified its Code of Ethics to include “..improving the environment by adhering to the principles of sustainable development...” (www.asce.org/inside/codeofethics.cfm) •

Adopted a policy on the Role of the Engineer in Sustainable Development, which defines sustainable development and provides working principles for implementation. (Policy Statement 418 - www.asce.org/pressroom /news/policy.cfm)

•

Adopted a policy on Capacity Building, which promotes the building of indigenous capability in the develop-

2011 - 2012 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Jim Wallace, PE jrwhaw@comcast.net

SECRETARY Ernie Pollitzer, PE epollitzer@bellsouth.net

INTERNAL AFFAIRS Keith Cole, PE keith.cole@mindspring.com

PRESIDENT-ELECT Lisa Woods, PE Lisa.woods@jacobs.com

DIRECTORS

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Dan Agramonte, PE daniel.agramonte@obg.com

VICE-PRESIDENT Katherine McLeod Gurd, PE Katherine.gurd@aecom.com PAST-PRESIDENT Jo Ann Macrina, PE jmacrina@AtlantaGa.Gov TREASURER Rebecca Shelton, PE rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

38

Northeast Georgia Branch: Paul Oglesby, PE paul@georgiacivil.com Savannah Branch: C. J. Chance, PE cchance@hgbd.com South Metro Branch: James Emery, PE jemery@troupco.org

YOUNGER MEMBERS Julie Secrist, PE secrist@loweengineers.com TECHNICAL GROUPS John Lawrence, PE John.lawrence@atcassociates.com www.ascega.org

The GeorGia enGineer

ing world. (Policy Statement 506 www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy.cfm) •

Adopted a policy on the Millennium Development Goals, which supports the Goals as related to improving the quality of life through science and engineering. Policy Statement 517 (www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy.cfm)

•

Described the critical role of engineers in a sustainable world in its report on e Vision of Civil Engineering in 2025. (www.asce.org/files/pdf/professional/su mmitreport12jan07.pdf )

•

Included as a goal in its Strategic Plan that the society will, “Facilitate the advancement of technology to enhance quality, knowledge, competitiveness, sustainability, and environmental stewardship.” (www.asce.org/inside/next_ plan.cfm)

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

In the area of PRACTICE, ASCE has: • Provided leadership in initiating the PERSI (Practice, Education, and Research in Sustainable Infrastructure) Project, to help its member organizations address sustainability consistently in their practices and standards, and to develop metrics for measuring sustainability performance. (www.persi.us) •

Established the Civil Engineering Forum for Innovation (CEFI), which addresses such issues as the role of innovation in achieving sustainability, and applying innovation and knowledge for resilience. (www.asce.org/cefi)

The Vision of Civil Engineering 2025 cannot be fully achieved without the active involvement and commitment of ASCE’s Sections, Branches and Student Chapters, which rep-

resent the current grass-roots strength and future national leadership of the society. The understanding and participation of civil engineers in these local elements of the society, from our young engineering students to our section and branch leadership, will be critical in meeting the society’s ‘Vision’ over the next two decades. It is with this understanding that the Georgia Section of ASCE has organized a Sustainability Committee and would like to extend an invitation to all members of the section to join in the work of this committee. We believe that the work of this committee will contribute to the impact that sustainability can have on the quality of life in our state. Remember, it is very difficult to have a meaningful committee if only the committee chair is active. To become part of this effort, please contact the Section President, Jim Wallace, or the President-Elect, Lisa Woods. Their contact information is on the Section Web page (ascega.org). v

Read articles on-line at: THEGEORGIAENGINEER.

39

GsPeNews

David W. Simoneau, P.E. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.” Introduced by Charles E. Weller as a typing drill for his students, through the years it has been used as a call to action by others. I want to borrow the action theme and ask all of the professional engineers in Georgia to stand up and be counted.

I know that is asking a lot during these difficult economic times. However, all of us need to remember that one of our major strengths in influencing others is our numbers. I have sat in many politically oriented meetings and seen the group that had the overwhelmingly larger numbers affect the outcome in their favor. According to the Secretary of State’s office, there are 19,813 professional engineers in Georgia. If we were to believe that often quoted statistic that ten percent of the people do 90 percent of the work, we would have over 1900 active members. Well, I believe that all engineers should be engaged in the improvement of their profession. If half of them were members of GSPE, we would be able to express to anyone who asked that we directly represent over 9,900 engineers in Georgia. In reality, we represent all of you. When I discuss our opinions on registration, ethics, upcoming legislation or other matters that affect the profession of engineering in Georgia, as the President of GSPE I am speaking for you.

Because I believe everyone should have input into issues addressed on their behalf, I ask you to join me and GSPE. My theme for this year is ‘Be Involved!’

My message is that all engineers should belong to and participate in at least three organizations. These should be the society that represents your profession, the society that represents your technical field of expertise, 40

and a group that provides opportunities for you to be active in your community.

For many of you the civic group is your priority. You may be an active member of your church, help with a local charity, participate in a civic organization such as the Optimists, Rotary, Exchange Club, Kiwanis, etc… For others, it is the technical society that allows you to stay current with your career. Since I can think of at least 20 organizations and do not want to slight any of them, I will not attempt to list all of the groups that this includes. For me it is the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, the one part of the formula that is often neglected is the professional society that represents every engineer for the advancement of engineering, ethical behavior by all in our profession, and protection of the profession of engineering through positive promotion and legislative activities. We have all worked hard to be professional engineers, respected in our communities, and are proud of our accomplishments. Years of education and experience, hours of studying and testing have allowed us to be a part of a very select group.

When we seal and sign a document we know that it is correct and complete, and those around us expect it to be that way. So, step up and be counted as a member of the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers and the National Society of Professional Engineers.

At the national level NSPE represents you as I do in Georgia. Because many of you, like me, are registered in more than one state, we need that national perspective and cooperation.

Each of us should share the responsibility to make engineers such a respected group that not only will people listen when we speak, they will seek us out because they

know we are responsible trustworthy members of society. I look forward to the day when everyone recognizes what we already know. Engineers are the ones that make things work.

This year as I travel around the state, I hope to meet many of you and get your input for ways we can improve. I want to hear your concerns about problems that face our profession. I want to hear your successes in promoting the positive side of engineering. I hope to share with you my experiences in working with young students to encourage them in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In short, I want to get to know you. However, if I do not get to meet you personally, please send your ideas and comments to me at dsimoneau@gspe.org.

This new year brings new challenges, and I am excited about the possibilities we face to make the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers bigger, better, and stronger.

Join me! v

The GeorGia enGineer

WtsNews

President

Jennifer King, PE HNTB

jjking@hntb.com Jennifer King, PE, President Women in Transportation Seminar International Conference The WTS International Conference held in Denver, Colorado, in May was a rousing success with over 400 people in attendance. ‘Elevating Transportation to New Heights’ was an appropriate theme for this conference that included sessions on transportation funding, living and sustainability, and moving goods and people worldwide. Atlanta members in attendance included Jennifer King, Laurie Reed, Jenny Jenkins, Marsha Anderson Bomar, Daveitta Jenkins, Regan Hammond, Alison Gonzalez, Beverly Scott, and Liz Sanford. The Atlanta Chapter was also proud to sponsor two of our local scholarship winners (Jamie Fischer and Amanda Wall), who were honored with National Scholarships at this event.

ASHE – WTS Tennis Tournament In May, WTS teamed up with ASHE to host our first joint tennis tournament. Members of both organizations had the chance to show off their tennis skills (or lack thereof ) while networking with other professionals in the industry. Though no one was recruited directly from the courts to the professional tennis tour, we believe that good times were had by all (both participants and the lucky spectators).

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Public Sector Membership Drive In an effort to increase public sector membership in chapters across the nation, WTS International is hosting a Public Sector Membership Drive in October. During this month, public sector members can join at half the normal rate. More information regarding membership can be found at www.wtsinternational.org/members/membership-benefits or by contacting Membership Chair Tonya Saxon at tsaxon@itsmarta.com.

Vice President-Programs lreed@hntb.com Vice President-Membership tsaxon@itsmarta.com

Laurie Reed, PE HNTB Tonya Saxon MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, PE angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com Wolverton and Assoc Treasurer Marissa Martin, PE marissa_martin@gspnet.com Gresham Smith Partners Director at Large

Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E.

bschwartz@lpagroup.com The LPA Group Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, AICP heather.alhadeff@perkinswill.com Perkins + Will

Call for Volunteers Jennifer Harper, PE Fall is a very busy time for WTS Atlanta and Director at Large Jennifer_harper@urscorp.com our members. First, we will be hosting our URS Corporation Annual Scholarship Luncheon this October.

Helen McSwain, PE We need the help of all of our members to Director at Large PBS&J make this event a success. We will begin hold- hmcswain@matcjv.com ing calls on a regular basis beginning Thurs- Immediate Past President URS Corporation day, July 12. Please let us know if you are Emily Swearingen, PE Emily_swearingen@urscorp.com interested in chairing or helping with any of the following committees. It is a great way to WTS would like to thank our 2012 sponsors get involved with WTS Atlanta and to help who help make all of our programs possible! with an amazing event. We will need help Bronze Level Platinum Level with the following committees: Jacobs Atlanta Regional Scholarship Committee HNTB Corporation Commission Nominations and Awards Committee Georgia Department MARTA of Transportation Corporate Tables Committee Gresham Smith Silent Auction Committee Gold Level Partners Additionally, we will be electing a new board to serve the 2013-2014 term. Board positions are described in the by-laws which are available on our Web site at www.wtsinternational.org/atlanta . If you have any questions or might be interested in running for a position or to serve as nominations chair, please contact Jennifer King (jjking@hntb.com or 404.946.5727) for details. v

Edwards-Pitman Environmental Inc JAT Consulting Services Inc. Silver Level HJAIA Atkins Croy Engineering GeoStats PSI

Kimley Horn and Associates McGee Partners Inc. Reynolds, Smith and Hills Stantec STV/Ralph Whitehead & Associates Wolverton and Associates

41

iteNews

John Karnowski, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers I am a do-it-yourselfer. I always have been.

It not only applies to household projects but most things in general. I guess that’s the way I’m wired. I’ve been tinkering with things since I developed fine motor skills… sometime in the late nineties, I’m told.

When I was four, I tried to help my dad move the wheelbarrow that contained the Christmas tree into the carport while he was in the house. I tipped it over and, believing I was in for it, ran and hid in the sandbox for something like a gazillion years or until the heat died down.

When I was eight, I dismantled the microwave to see how it worked. Note: it worked fine until then. Who knew it contained a toxic amount of beryllium?

When I was 17, I took apart the carburetor on my 1978 Honda Civic to clean it because, hey, it looked dirty. The very cute neighbor girl chose that moment to come over and talk to me for two hours about how she had just broken up with her boyfriend… it took me three days and six Polaroid pictures of another neighbor’s engine to figure out how to put that thing back together.

When I discovered a little rotting wood in the corner outside my shower, I started a project that would eventually take me eleven months to complete. I ripped out my shower and bathtub, removed the wall between them, replaced the linoleum with ceramic tile, replaced the sink with two basins and a new vanity, and installed a tiled shower. I did all the plumbing, dry wall, grouting, caulking, and griping myself. (Full disclosure: I think my wife also helped with some of the griping.)

I’ve roto-tilled lawns, replaced transmissions, laid sidewalk, rebuilt my kitchen, built a porch, rewired buildings, and even assembled my son’s Radio Flyer red wagon with optional side railings. And, the lesson I can tell anyone so like-minded is: Leave it 42

to the professionals.

I wasn’t strong enough to lift the wheelbarrow with the Christmas tree. I wasn’t experienced enough to put the microwave back together without extra parts left over. I had no right to think I ever had a shot with the girl next-door so I should have just waited to dismantle the carburetor… or taken it to a mechanic. I had to hire Tile with Style to finish the shower (they’re in Duluth… great outfit… check them out). I hate yard work and ended up with brown patches in my yard. I dropped a 200 lb transmission on my chest and nearly suffocated myself. I fused a screwdriver to an electrical box in a fireworks-like example of ‘don’t touch that.’ And I had three screws leftover from the wagon.

I’m sure I could have saved time and maybe even some money if I left it to the professionals.

The engineers reading this article might say, “Of course you can do it yourself, you’re an engineer.” At the same time, the geotechnical engineer will tell the structural engineer, “Let me figure out the bearing capacity and you stick to your moment.” (Just a bit

of structures humor but then what might you expect from a dirt engineer?)

I’ve heard of general civils completing a traffic study; surveyors laying out a subdivision; bridge designers identifying wetlands; and most egregious of them all, Robin driving the Batmobile. It can happen; those doit-yourselfers out there will always find a way.

It doesn’t mean the traffic study will pass muster in permitting, the subdivision will drain properly, the cattails will be seen amongst the weeping willows, and the Boy Wonder won’t wreck the car while texting on his Bat iPhone. (Note to self: call Apple about developing a Bat iPhone.)

The truth is that often times—maybe not always but enough to make this point, we would be better off leaving it to the professionals. If you have the time and budget to get an expert in, you should do it. Yes, just because you took Materials from Dr. Lai at GA Tech 20 years ago, doesn’t mean you can calculate the footing depths for your front porch. Believe me, I know, and so does the Gwinnett County building inspector.

Similarly, if you have the personality of

The GeorGia enGineer

a damp rag when in front of people at a public meeting, get a professional facilitator to do it. Ultimately, your project will be better received and you will come across as the real professional you are. If you think all vehicles larger than a FedEx truck are ‘18-wheelers,’

get an expert to design your loading bay or start looking over your shoulder for a Teamster with a grudge. And, just because you can dodge traffic like Frogger, let a count company put out those ATRs. (Note, if you don’t know what an ATR is, you really shouldn’t

be counting cars.)

So, sub out those specialty areas and quit trying to do it all yourself. Now excuse me while I finish replacing the roof on my house. v

Board Position

Member

E-mail

Phone

President

John Karnowski

jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com

(770) 368-1399

Vice President

Dwayne Tedder

dwayne.tedder@urs.com

(678) 808-8840

Secretary/Tresurer

Jonathan Reid

Reid@pbworld.com

(404) 769-4058

Past President

Mike Holt

mholt@worldfiber.com

(770) 407-7799

District Representative

David Benevelli

david.benevelli@transcore.com

(770) 246-6257

District Representative

Carla Holmes

carla_holmes@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3654

District Representative

Jim Tolson

jtolson@dot.ga.gov

(404) 624-7119

Affiliate Director

Andrew Antweiler

aantweiler@roswellgov.com

(678) 639-7540

Committee

Chair(s)

E-mail

Phone

2012 Intl Meeting

Marsha Bomar

marsha.andersonbomar@stantec.com

(770) 813-0882

Kenny Voorhies

kvoorhies@camsys.com

(404) 460-2604

Activities

Patrick McAtee

PMcatee@ThompsonEngineering.com

(404) 574-1985

Annual Report

Carla Holmes

carla_holmes@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3654

Jim Tolson

jtolson@dot.ga.gov

(404) 624-7119

Audio/Visual

France Campbell

france_campbell@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3952

Awards/Nominations

Mike Holt

mholt@worldfiber.com

(770) 407-7799

Career Guidance

Brendetta Walker

bhargro@bellsouth.net

(404) 364-5235

Clerk

Elizabeth Scales

elizabeth.scales@hatchmott.com

(770) 200-1735

Comptroller

Jim Pohlman

pohlmanj@bellsouth.net

(770) 972-9709

Engineers Week

Steven Sheffield

ssheffield@georgiatolls.com

(404) 893-6132

Finance

Martin Bretherton

wbretherton@hntb.com

(404) 946-5709

Georgia Engineer Magazine

Dan Dobry

ddobry@croyengineering.com

(770) 971-5407

John Edwards

jdedwards4929@bellsouth.net

(404) 264-0789

Paul DeNard

pdenard@dot.ga.gov

(404) 635-8278

Georgia Tech Liaison Historian

Charles Bopp

charles_bopp@hotmail.com

(404) 848-6054

Host

Sujith Racha

sujith.racha@arcadis-us.com

(770) 431-8666

Legislative Affairs

Bill Ruhsam

bruhsam@maai.net

(678) 728-9076

Life Membership

Don Gaines

dgaines@gcaeng.com

(404) 355-4010

Marketing

Shannon Fain

shannon.fain@stantec.com

(770) 813-0882

Membership

Sunita Nadella

sunita.nadella@parsons.com

(678) 969-2304

Monthly Meetings

Dwayne Tedder

dwayne.tedder@urs.com

(678) 808-8840

Newsletter

Vern Wilburn

vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com

(770) 977-8920

Past Presidents

Todd Long

tlong@dot.ga.gov

(404) 631-1021

Public Officials Education

Scott Mohler

scott_mohler@urscorp.com

(678) 808-8811

Scholarship

Tim Brandstetter

tim.brandstetter@kimley-horn.com

(404) 419-8714

Southern Poly Liaison

Bryan Sartin

bryan_sartin@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3884

Summer Seminar

Josh Williams

josh_williams@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3672

Technical

Winter Horbal

winter.horbal@temple-inc.com

(678) 412-5554

Web site

Shawn Pope

spope@camsys.com

(404) 460-2609

Winter Workshop

Jody Peace

Jody.Peace@arcadis-us.com

(770) 431-8666

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

43

ITS

News

Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President

Congratulations to us! ITS Georgia has been recognized as Outstanding State Chapter of the Year by the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. Special recognition is in order to past-president Marion Waters, the board of directors, committee volunteers, and our hard working members for winning this prestigious award.

We were up against the largest chapters in the country including California, Texas, New York, and Florida, among others. This is the second top prize awarded our chapter and reflects the quality of the organization and the leadership position taken by our state when it comes to innovation in transportation.

To read more about the accomplishments of our ITS Georgia state chapter, scan the QR symbol with your smart phone, or visit http://www.itsa.org/aboutus/statechapters/award-winners.

2012 Annual Meeting and Expositions (September 9-11) We are very excited about our upcoming annual meeting to be held September 9-11,

44

2012 at beautiful Callaway Gardens.

Our theme, ‘Connecting DOTs...Connecting people to technologies,’ will challenge our conference attendees to think out of the box in new ways to connect the public with existing and future ITS technologies.

As always, the conference will provide a variety of technical sessions featuring leading transportation professionals from Georgia and around the country, with informative presentations and thought-provoking panel

ITS Georgia Board Member John Hibbard

The GeorGia enGineer

discussions. There will be numerous opportunities for professional networking and our valued exhibitors will be on hand presenting the latest ITS products and services.

We will also install new directors, present the best of ITS awards, and name our 2012 Wayne Shackelford Scholarship winners.

Among some of the confirmed presenters is ITS America President Scott Belcher who was heavily involved in getting a federal transportation bill passed. We’ll also look over the horizon at future vehicle technology and research at Georgia Tech. GDOT and local transportation agencies will tell us their plans, and we’ll learn about the latest ITS apps. For more information, visit www.itsga.org.

August and October Monthly Meetings Mark your calendars for August 30 and October 25 for monthly chapter meetings. Our August meeting will focus on ITS in transit, and in October we’ll delve into the technology and behind the scenes activities for variable speed limits on I-285. See you there. v

Our 2012 Sponsors Temple Arcadis Gresham Smith and Partners Traficon Atkins World Fiber Technologies Serco Utilicom Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems URS Kimley-Horn and Associates Control Technologies Telvent Delcan Cambridge Systematics Stantec Grice Consulting Sensys Networks Daktronics

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation Immediate Past President Marion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan Directors Mark Demidovich Susie Dunn Kenn Fink Eric Graves John Hibbard Carla Holmes Patrece Keeter Keary Lord Bayne Smith Grant Waldrop

GDOT ARC Kimley-Horn City of Alpharetta Atkins Gresham Smith DeKalb County Douglas County DOT URS GDOT

State Chapters Representative Kenny Voorhies Cambridge Systematics Inc. Ex Officio Greg Morris Federal Highway Administration Jamie Pfister Federal Transit Administration

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

45

SEAOGNews

Kurt Swensson, PE, SE President The Structural Engineers Association of Georgia SEAOG has a busy schedule for the coming year, with new subcommittees, new initiatives in education for exam candidates, and SE Licensing, in addition to our regular meetings.

The following membership meeting topics are planned for the fall of 2012: • September 20 ~ Prequalified Steel Moment Connections for Seismic Design with Patrick J. Fortney, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng. •

October 18 ~ Use of Laser Scanning and Surveying with Tate Jones

•

November 15 ~ Project Spotlight: GT’s Alexander Memorial Coliseum Replacement with John Hann, PE and Kurt Swensson, PE

In addition to the membership meeting presentations, SEAOG will begin providing training for the new 16-hour licensing exam required for structural engineers. We will have two classes ready in preparation for the fall exam: • Wood Design ~ Wednesday, August 29 from 4:00-7:00 pm

Engineers Inc. for their help.

During the 2011-2012 year the board has made some changes to our organization in order to provide more opportunities and better service to our members. The board created subcommittees to coordinate activities in the separate areas of service, and this summer we will be increasing the subcommittees from five to eight: • Structural Engineering Emergency Response (SEER) • Structural Engineering Licensing (SE) • Programs (for monthly membership meetings) • Liaison with the Board of Registration • Legislative Council • Licensing Exam Preparation Classes • Liaison to the NCSEA 2013 Convention (in Atlanta) • Awards Program (for winter 20132014)

AASHTO Design ~ Wednesday, September 12 from 4:00-7:00 pm

This spring, SEAOG held elections, and our new Board of Directors is as follows: • President: Rob Weilacher, PE • Vice President: Michael Planer, PE • Secretary: Eric Hagberg, PE • Treasurer: Wilbur Bragg, PE • Director: Adrian Persaud, PE • Director: John Hann, PE • Director: Ken Nuttall, PE • Executive Director: Al Lagerstrom, PE

It is the intention of SEAOG to add other courses in the future to cover additional topics. These classes will be priced very affordably so young engineers can afford to attend them in conjunction with the now very expensive exam and will be given about a month before each exam. Several of our strategic partners have generously helped us in the creation of these seminars, and we would like to recognize Woodworks and Heath & Lineback

This fall we will be sending two representatives to the NCSEA Convention October 36, in St. Louis, Missouri. SE Licensing is likely to be a major topic of discussion.

Mark on your calendars that next year’s NCSEA National Convention will be in Atlanta September 18-21, 2013 at the Westin Buckhead.

SEAOG would like to note our appreciation for the many efforts put forth over

•

46

the years from our two board members who are stepping down: John Hutton, PE and Paul Shelton, PE. Their many accomplishments and initiatives go well beyond the scope of this article.

In summary, the Structural Engineers Association of Georgia begins our 20122013 year in good health and looking forward to an active and exciting year ahead. We encourage you to keep tabs on our events and activities at www.seaog.org. v

The GeorGia enGineer