GeorgiaEngineerthe

Volume 19, Issue 4 |

August | September 2012

NATURAL RESOURCES &THE ENVIRONMENT

2 The GeorGia enGineer

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012 3

Publisher: A4 Inc.1154 Lower Birmingham Road

Canton, Georgia 30115Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406

E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com

Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-FreyArt Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey

Georgia Engineering Alliance233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700

Atlanta, Georgia 30303Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283

Georgia Engineering AllianceGwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director

Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External AffairsCarolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager

Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial BoardJeff Dingle, PE, Chairman

GSPE RepresentativesSam L. Fleming, PE

Tim Glover, PEJimmy St. John, PE

ACEC/G RepresentativesRobin Overstreet

Carley Humphreys

ASCE/G RepresentativesDaniel Agramonte, PESteven C. Seachrist, PE

GMCEA RepresentativeBirdel F. Jackson, III, PE

ITE RepresentativesDaniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE

John Karnowski

ITS/G RepresentativesBill Wells

Shaun Green, PE

WTS RepresentativeAngela Snyder

ASHE RepresentativeEd Culican, PE

SEAOG RepresentativeKurt Swensson, PE

GeorgiaEngineerthe

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia EngineeringAlliance 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 dothey accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neitherdo they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be re-produced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regardingaddress changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regardingadvertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

4 The GeorGia enGineer

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

5AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER August | september 2012

GSPE40

ASCE38

ITE42

ACEC36

ITS44

ASHE34

SEAOG46

GMCEAGEA

GEF WTS41

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 theState’s Future and Quality of Life

18 Environmental Legacy: The ASCE Georgia Section Celebrates 100 Yearsof 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 WaterManagement

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

ecause so much of what we de-sign and build has an impact on

the natural environment, we havelearned to pay special attention to thesefar-reaching effects. The engineeringcommunity holds in high regard thestewardship of Georgia’s beautiful nat-ural resources, so careful environmen-tal planning has become a standard partof all that we engineer. The August|Sep-tember issue of e Georgia Engineer isdedicated each year to a discussion ofhow that planning has played out. v

B

6 The GeorGia enGineer

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

The Georgia Engineer Web site

is new and improved!

www.thegeorgiaengineer.com

7AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

o be clear, the railroadscame to Augusta beforethe canal: fromCharleston to the SouthCarolina side of the Sa-vannah River in 1833

and from Augusta into the interior wilder-ness of Georgia beginning in 1836 (and ar-riving at its terminus—now Atlanta - in1845). In many other locales, canals werebuilt as a transportation facility—think ofthe Erie Canal completed in 1825, whichconnected the Great Lakes with the HudsonRiver and New York City. So the first ques-tion is, “Why build a canal in Augusta?”

The answer begins with President An-drew Jackson. In short, President Jacksondestroyed the country’s only national bankby vetoing a congressional action to renewthe charter of the Second Bank of the US.Business lending was taken over by state andlocal banks. Then in 1836 he issued theSpecie Circular, which required that all pur-chases of public land be paid in specie (goldor silver coin). At the time, selling westernland to settlers was an enormous enterprise;an act of claiming America’s destiny. Sincefew state/local banks had reserves of specie,the President’s action led to a widespreadeconomic depression and banking collapse,the “Panic of 1837.” The panic was felt es-pecially hard in the South as agriculturalprices fell and a long and deep depressioncontinued into the early-1840s.

The mayor of Augusta, recalling thehard times of the panic/depression, said thatin 1844 Augusta was caught in the grip of“the cold damp of commercial death”. In alater recollection of these times by the verypublic spirited civil leader, Henry H. Cum-ming, he said of Augusta, “In 1845 theprospects of the city were so gloomy thatmany of its citizens had abandoned or werepreparing to abandon it.” The communitywas dispirited, and the notion that Augustacould whither away was not an inconceivableoutcome of the panic/depression.

Augusta was largely founded at its par-

ticular location because it is where the Pied-mont Province of rolling hills meets the flatCoastal Plain Province. This intersectioncreates the Fall Line that runs across Georgiafrom Augusta to Macon to Columbus. Overgeologic time, the Appalachian Mountainseroded and left the hard rock of the Pied-mont, the sediment from this erosion formedthe Coastal Plain, and the sea flooded andreceded many times. At this intersection, theSavannah River slows to a more sluggishpace, which also marks the inland limit ofnavigation.

Henry Cumming was a lawyer and sonof a prominent merchant who was the firstmayor of Augusta. He and other publicminded friends became familiar with textilemills in Lowell, Massachusetts that werepowered by a canal diverting water from theMerrimac and Pawtucket rivers. Their no-tion was that a similar canal would com-pletely change the nature of Augusta from aplantation society with barge traffic to awater-powered, textile-manufacturing center.

In 1836, Lowell had 26 mills along thecanal. The Proprietors of Locks and Canalswas an organization that made money byselling water to mills. The same men that saton the boards of the mills also sat on theboard of the canal organization. Cummingand others from Augusta visited the opera-tions in Lowell and returned with a vision forAugusta to shake its economic malaise: be-

come the ‘Lowell of the South.’ Across the Fall Line, the elevation of the

Savannah River drops by 52 feet over a six-mile distance. The canal would be con-structed parallel to the River with a gentlegradient so that the water surface would bemuch higher than the river when it reachedAugusta. Water from the canal was divertedthrough mills to drive a series of belts thatpowered them. The water would eventuallyfind its way back to the river, but at the lowerelevation downstream of Augusta. There wasenough elevation difference, such that threeparallel canals were eventually constructed atthe most downstream end of the main canalso that power could be harnessed as waterflowed from the higher canal to the lowerones. This was the concept to industrializeAugusta, but it was not an easy path to reality.

Henry Cumming became the chief pro-ponent for the canal, and he was supported

Thomas C. Leslie

Augusta CanalInfrastructure Investment as Economic Development *

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

T

8

A Petersburg boat at the 13th Street turningbasin on the Augusta Canal.Photo courtesy of the Augusta Canal Authority

9AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

by many of the leading citizens and thenewspaper; but all were not pleased. EdwardCashin describes the setting this way: “Theplantation model of success had become anobsession with Georgians. Cotton was king.Cotton production and cotton investmentwere identified with Southernism. City folktried to act like planters, in dress, politics,and manners. On the other hand, factorieswere Yankee inventions; places where cruelcapitalists exploited workers and cast themout when they became old or ill.” HenryCumming said, “ To many the thought ofcompeting with the North(‘s) industry wasfoolish, to others the very name manufac-turer had become odious.”

Nonetheless, Cumming plowed forwardin developing the concept and working outthe details. It is interesting that federal fund-ing of such investments at about this timewas a controversial issue in Congress. Earlyin his political career, South Carolina neigh-bor John C. Calhoun had championed a billin Congress to fund ‘internal improvements’(canals and roads), but President JamesMadison vetoed it. Later, Andrew Jacksondefeated a bill by Henry Clay to fund roadbuilding in Kentucky. Clay ran for Presidentin 1844 (and Calhoun thought about doingit). Clay was supported by most of the canalbuilders, including Henry Cumming, but helost to President James Polk, who was moreinterested in expanding the country’s terri-tory than in connecting it with internal im-provements. The state of Georgia had spentmoney to improve rivers but was busy build-ing a railroad to Chattanooga and would nothelp with a canal in Augusta.

Absent state or federal financial help,Cumming credited a local banker with a cre-ative financial structure that made the canalpossible. In 1845, four local banks put up$1,000 each as seed money, and Augusta is-sued $100,000 in bonds to be paid off by aspecial ‘canal tax.’ Citizens would becomestockholders in the Augusta Canal Companyin proportion to the taxes paid. The stockentitled the taxpayers to vote for the Board ofManagers of the Canal Company. The cityof Augusta became the largest stockholderand elected the mayor as Chair of the Boardof Managers, which appointed Henry Cum-ming and his friends to a Board of Canal

Commissioners, which was responsible forconstructing and operating the canal. Cum-ming was elected President.

In a remarkably short period of time,the Canal Commission began acquiring land(mostly by donation), hired a few folks asstaff, and selected contractors for 12 separatedivisions. Earlier work paved the way forthis progress. Cumming had hired engineersfrom Lowell to provide a design and J. EdgarThompson, a local engineer, to prepare a sur-vey of the route for the canal. This early,conceptual work was instrumental in pro-moting the plan to elected leaders and gen-eral taxpayers.

If there were a Georgia Engineer Hall ofFame, surely Thompson would be in it. Heserved as Chief Engineer of the Georgia Rail-road beginning with his arrival in Augusta in1835. In 1847, he became the Chief Engi-neer of the Pennsylvania Railroad, perhapsthe most successful in America. Later he be-came its president.

As the Canal was moving toward im-plementation, many in the ‘old guard’ con-tinued to agitate in opposition to the canaltax and an industrial future for Augusta.They sued the city to stop the project frommoving forward, and lost. Supporters weresuccessful in the Georgia General Assemblyto secure legislation that retroactively au-thorized the canal tax, the canal, and its fu-ture expansion.

Construction of the project moved aheadbriskly. The project included two aqueducts;the largest over Rae’s Creek (yes, the same onethat flows by the 12th hole on Augusta Na-tional Golf Course). The Canal Commissionwas created in March 1845 and on Novem-ber 23, 1846, the first water flowed throughthe entire length of the canal. Mills began tolocate adjacent to the canal to manufacturetextiles, grind corn and wheat, and saw lum-ber. Petersburg boats used the canal to trans-port commodities from above the Fall Line tofactories on the canal and nearby consumers.

But all was not sweetness and light.The Rae’s Creek Aqueduct leaked and hadto be repaired and rebuilt, and there was avery bad initial cost estimate. The first costestimate was about $100,000, but by theend 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 projectthat vastly overestimated the ability of thecanal flow to power the stipulated numberof spindles in the textile mills. It was notuntil after the Civil War that a careful eval-uation concluded that the canal needed ex-pansion to meet the growing demand forpower. The 1871 expansion of the canal in-cluded widening by as much as 100 feet andraising the banks by up to ten feet in somelocations. Rae’s Creek Aqueduct was elimi-nated and cleverly used as a dam that cre-ated Lake Olmstead.

The period from 1875 to 1890 was theboom time for economic development in Au-gusta. The canal expansion was complete, andan economic recession in 1873 was exhausted.Mills were built and others expanded, jobswere created, and Augusta’s population morethan doubled between 1870 and 1890 to33,300. Lake Olmstead became a popularpastoral setting for picnics, boating, and sum-mer cottages. The canal served as a reliablesource of drinking water, provided water-power for mills, drove electrical turbines thatpowered trolleys, and created Lake Olmstead.

The canal continued to serve it purposesthrough the 1930s but was taken for grantedby most of Augusta during the 1940s. Its de-cline lasted for decades as manufacturing (es-pecially textiles) declined throughout theSouth. And then the renaissance began. In1971, the canal was placed on the NationalRegister of Historic Places even though itwas still used for power, transportation, andwater supply. Land along the canal was pur-chased by the state of Georgia for a statepark. Old, brick mills have been convertedto residential and commercial spaces. Thecanal is now a much beloved civic asset, evenas it continues to serve some of its originalpurposes. This is one truly remarkable at-tribute to infrastructure investments: evenat 166 years old, this ‘internal improvement’is still a valuable asset for Augusta.

*Note: This article is largely based on The BrightestArm of the Savannah, The Augusta Canal, 1845 –2000, by Edward J. Cashin, published by the Au-gusta Canal Authority, 2002. v

10 The GeorGia enGineer

he dispute betweenGeorgia and its neigh-bor states, Alabamaand Florida, over whogets how much waterfrom rivers that flow in

all three states has become known as the(tri-state) Water Wars. It began over twodecades ago. A full history is akin to that ofthe thousand-year Byzantine Empire. Re-cent events, however, stand out as impor-tant mostly for their moment of clarity in asea of technical complexity, legal disputa-tion, and political bluster.

It seems valuable to provide an updatedversion of the Water Wars but at the cocktailparty level.

The Etowah River (upon which is lakeAltoona) and the Oostanaulla River inter-sect and form the Coosa River, which flowsinto Alabama. The same is true for the Tal-lapoosa River, but it is much smaller. TheChattahoochee River constitutes much ofthe boundary between Alabama and Geor-gia. It is joined by the Flint River at theFlorida boundary, becomes the ApalachicolaRiver and flows across the Florida panhandleinto the Gulf of Mexico. These three riverbasins have their headwaters and originationin Georgia.

Managing rivers is a state function. TheU.S Government, acting through the USArmy Corps of Engineers, built four reser-voirs on the Chattahoochee River and oneon the Etowah River. The biggest impact onflow in those rivers is operation of the fed-eral reservoirs.

As the South grew in population andeconomic enterprise, the availability of watersupply grew much more important. Whenmetro Atlanta hit about four million people,our neighboring states became concerned.When Metro Atlanta asked the Corps to op-

erate Lake Lanier to provide more water sup-ply to support a much larger population, Al-abama and Florida became downrighthostile. Remember, the details are beingskipped over—there was litigation in multi-ple courts, congressional action on a watercompact, interstate negotiations, new gover-nors, North Georgia-South Georgia compe-tition (aka, agricultural vs. urban use), anddroughts.

The root of the Water Wars seemed tobe this: with a rapidly growing demand forwater and a limited supply, the three stateshad different views of the priority water use:Georgia—population growth (mostly inMetro Atlanta), Alabama—economic devel-opment (if you stop Atlanta’s growth, they’ll

move to Alabama), and Florida—environ-mental (preserve the oyster beds and fisheryin Apalachicola Bay).

In due course, several federal lawsuitswere combined, and a special, federal judgeappointed to hear the consolidated case. Hedeclared that water supply was not an au-thorized purpose for Lake Lanier and gaveGeorgia (i.e., Metro Atlanta) three years tocease using it. This was draconian in its im-plications and was probably intended toforce congressional action, supported by atri-state negotiated settlement. In 2011,Georgia appealed the judgment to the Cir-cuit Court of Appeals, where it was over-turned with a finding that water supply wasan authorized purpose. Alabama and Floridaasked the U.S. Supreme Court to review thecase, and in June 2012, they refused to do so.The Circuit Court ruling is left standing. Ina related finding required by the Court, theCorps concluded they could allocate watersupply for Lake Lanier compatible withother authorized purposes.

The next step is for the Corps to deter-mine how much water can be made available

for both current and future water supplyneeds for Metro Atlanta and balance that al-location with other purposes and legislativeconstraints. Part of this study will be to de-termine impacts purposes and prepare a for-mal environmental impact statement—perhaps a two-to-three-year process. Then theCorps would take final action to implementthe new water allocations. At that time, itshould be expected that Alabama and Floridawould sue again to overturn the final action.This could start another sequence of litiga-tion/appeal that leads again to the USSupreme Court.

In the interim, there is renewed hopethat the states could restart negotiations on asettlement. The Circuit Court of Appealsrendered a favorable ruling for Georgia (i.e.,Metro Atlanta). Prior to this ruling, the lit-igation setting was very favorable to Floridaand Alabama. It seems that Georgia has anincentive to negotiate a comprehensive set-tlement and secure its future water supply.On the other hand, Alabama and Floridamay not have much of an incentive. As longas the case is being litigated and our neigh-bors’ political leaders are viewed as “fightingfor the rights of their state against the rapa-cious growth of Atlanta,” they win. Perhapsthis is too cynical; perhaps not. Maybe wejust begin another ten-year journey back tothe Supreme Court. v

The Water Wars: History and an Update in Lay TermsBy Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs

T

“When metro Atlanta hit about four million

people, our neighboring states became concerned.”

11AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Jud Turner became Director of EPD on thefirst of the year. He served as special ex-ecutive counsel for both Governor Perdueand Governor Deal in negotiations be-tween Georgia and Alabama and Floridain what has been dubbed the WaterWars over use of rivers flowing fromGeorgia into these two states. His workexperience includes law firms, public af-fairs, and state government. He holds alaw degree from the University of Virginiaand an undergraduate degree from theUniversity of Georgia, where he waspresident of the Student Government As-sociation and graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

On June 28th, Eddie Williams, CorkyWelch, and Tom Leslie sat down with Mr.Turner to discuss his first few months asdirector.

The EPD Director must be the worstjob in state government. You must imposeenvironmental requirements on local gov-ernments and industries that frequently seethem as overly burdensome and costly. Andenvironmental advocates think they are tooweak. The EPD Director must make ‘yes/no’decisions on quarries, landfills, hazardouswaste facilities, and sewer plants that makenearby neighbors mad and very few peoplehappy. Why in heaven’s name would youagree to take a position like this?

I can assure you this job is not the re-sult of farsighted planning. In law school, Inever dreamed of a career in environmentallaw. I was introduced to this world as execu-tive counsel for Governor Perdue (and later asspecial executive counsel to Governor Deal)in negotiations with Alabama and Florida inthe ‘water wars.’ When former EDP Direc-tor Allen Barnes made known his intention toleave, I wondered who would take such atough job. In due course, I was both surprisedand humbled, that I turned out to be the one.It is a King Solomon job—I say this not as ameasure of my personal acumen, but to de-scribe a job that always requires finding bal-ance among competing elements.

How long do you expect to serve as di-rector?

The true and accurate answer is “I donot know,” but I expect to be here for awhile. I serve at the pleasure of the DNRBoard and the governor, so I guess I willserve as long as they are ‘pleased.’

Have you set any personal goals as di-rector?

EPD executes an amazing array ofstate laws and federal environmental regula-tions that have been delegated to Georgia.Unlike some agencies and private sector busi-nesses, we don’t have much opportunity toevaluate our core competencies and preparea plan to exploit the things that we are reallygood at and avoid the other things; we mustdo it all. Nonetheless, I hope to manage thedivision with our state’s priorities and strate-gic objectives in mind. To that end, I gen-uinely hope that we can reach an ultimatepathway to securing our future statewidewater resources. With the recent U.S.Supreme Court decision and the Corps ofEngineers determination on Georgia’s watersupply request from Lake Lanier and the

Chattahoochee River, I believe we have inplace a component of our state’s plan forwater security. My second goal may soundlike a cliché, but it is my hope to leave EPDa 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 rightmetrics to tell us so.

What have been your biggest chal-lenges in managing EPD since becoming di-rector?

We have great talent at EPD, hardworking and professionally competent. Butwe are losing institutional knowledge prima-rily through retirements, and to a muchlesser degree by people moving to federalagencies and industry. What in the worldwill we do when the economy improves andothers take a good look at our staff and viewthem as very appealing potential employees?

Have you had a chance to contemplateenvironmental legislation you would pursuein the 2013 General Assembly?

There are two primary pieces of legis-lation as I see it now. We need to reauthorizethe Hazardous Waste Trust Fund, which is

Q/A with Jud Turner, EPD Director

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

12 The GeorGia enGineer

expiring. A big issue is the payments of feesinto the Trust Fund, which are often notfully appropriated by the General Assembly,to help with the cost of hazardous wasteclean-ups. In recent years, the Trust Fundreceipts have far exceeded the appropriations.I expect there to be a deep discussion overthis disparity as part of the reauthorization.The Flint River Drought Protection Actneeds an overhaul. The present, voluntarysystem where the state pays farmers to takeacreage out of irrigation has not achieved itslaudable management objectives. We needto redesign the statute so that it will functionto help us manage through these multi-yeardroughts—for the benefit of all those thatdepend on the resource.

What do you think of the propositionthat EPD would not provide a detailed reviewof design plans, associated with approval of apermit, provided they are sealed by a licensedengineer and certified to meet EPD expecta-tions (such as a Design Development Reportfor a wastewater treatment plant).

As you know, we are working withrepresentatives of cities, counties, water pro-fessionals, and engineers to determine if andhow we would implement such a policy.

The quality of a set of plans should not bethe responsibility of EPD; it must be the re-sponsibility of the design professional sealingthe documents. Our job is to do the plan-ning, set the performance criteria for facilitiesto meet water quality standards, and enforcethese standards. It makes sense to me toplace a strong emphasis on holding designprofessionals responsible for the quality oftheir work. EPD should not be devotingscarce resources to double-checking designdetails.

The U. S. Supreme Court’s refusal toconsider an appeal of the 11th CircuitCourt’s finding on Lake Lanier is surely goodnews for Georgia. What can you tell usabout the next steps in resolving the disputewith Alabama and Florida?

While the Supreme Court’s action iscertainly good news and, by the way, leavesin place a well-reasoned legal decision by the11th Circuit, as Governor Deal has said re-peatedly, this does not change Georgia’s com-mitment to try and reach an amicable longterm resolution with our sister states regard-ing our shared river systems. Additionally,resolving this decades old dispute about theauthorized purposes for Lake Lanier, while

critical to allowing us to move forward withwater planning in Georgia, does not changeour strategic water planning objectives,which involve continued conservation effortsand the planning, design, and developmentof additional critical water supply resourcesin addition to the federal reservoirs. Hope-fully, the resolution of this legal question willin the end help us resolve our dispute withboth Alabama and Florida. v

13AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

ith a large seg-ment of thebusiness popula-tion beginningto enter their re-tirement years,

ownership transition has become a hot topiclately. Senior owners, who are often thefounders of their business, begin to grapplewith the issue of planning for the long termfuture of the firms they have built. Whensuch succession planning happens to involvefamily dynamics, where the children orgrandchildren are a part of the business andtherefore part of the succession plan, familysuccession brings with it a host of issues thatare more difficult to deal with than a typicalownership transition plan.

One of the most prevalent issues in anysuccession plan is the inability of the ownerto ‘step aside’ and allow the new team tofunction without interference. Founders es-pecially have a hard time letting go afterbuilding and growing the company from itsinception. Rather than functioning as a valu-able advisor, the founders stay too involvedin the day to day operational issues. This iseven more acute when the successor is thechild of the owner. If the owner is too hands-on during the pre-succession training period,the necessary skills may not be effectivelypassed along experientially to ‘the kid(s)’ or

the next business generation.Another important issue in succession

planning is the value equation. What will itcost to buy out the owner and how will it bestructured? Business owners almost alwayshave an inflated idea of the true value of theirbusiness—it’s just human nature. The estab-lished value must be able to withstandscrutiny at an arm’s length transaction. Anyvalue calculation is advisedly arrived at by aproperly drawn formula that is relevant tothe particular industry in which the com-pany operates or by an independent business

valuation by a credentialed appraiser. This iseven more important in a family setting,both from a tax standpoint and to preventsubjectivity in setting a value, which couldcause a disruption in family harmony.

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

sale of stock between the owner and thebuyer. An alternative structure is an internalpartial or full redemption of the stock by thecompany, which results in a step-up in own-ership percentage for the other shareholders.Or it can be a combination of a sale of stockand compensation to the seller. Both buyerand seller should be aware that the way thesale is structured can result in radically dif-ferent tax results for both parties. A profes-sional tax advisor should be closely involvedin the determination of the sale structure toprevent unforeseen tax results.

While there are many other issues in-volved with any good succession plan, thosementioned here are especially important inany family business. As in all business mat-ters, always seek competent, experienced ad-visors to guide you through the businesstransition process. v

Succession Planning in a Family BusinessBy Matt Stringfellow, CPA & Brad Whitfield, CPA, CVA | Deemer, Dana & Froehle LLP

W

Both buyer and seller should be aware that the way thesale is structured can result in radically different tax

results for both parties.

14 The GeorGia enGineer

GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVEWATER SUPPLY SOLUTION ONTAP TO ENSURE THE STATE’S

FUTUREquality of lifeHickory Log Creek Reservoir, Cherokee County, Georgia

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

Given these trends, it’s important for us to consider how the state’s pro-jected population increase will impact the state’s resources, particularly itswater supply. Planning ahead for this growth ensures the state’s quality of lifeand continued economic development.

Georgia has proactively sought solutions to the water supply issue, in-cluding developing new water sources and promoting water conservation. Acomprehensive approach that includes water conservation and provides newsupply is critical to the state. By ensuring adequate supply through both newwater sources and conservation, we can meet our water supply needs.

Georgia’s Water Conservation InitiativesWater conservation has long been an important initiative for the state. Overthe last several years, Georgia has increased its water conservation initiativesand efforts, and residents have come together to support the state’s conserva-tion strategies.

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD),since 2003, has required water conservation practices throughout the metroAtlanta region. The MNGWPD has worked with local governments, waterand wastewater utilities, and stakeholders to develop comprehensive regionalplans to protect water quality and supply. MNGWPD initiatives include pub-lic awareness and conservation pricing.

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

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

The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) is an integralpartner in helping Georgia conserve this precious resource. In the last six years,GEFA has financed more than $69 million in water efficiency and conserva-tion projects. For years, GEFA offered one percent interest rate reductions forWaterFirst communities. In 2011, the GEFA board of directors approved aone percent interest rate reduction for stand-alone water efficiency and con-servation projects funded through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State

15AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

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

Revolving Funds (SRFs) and the GeorgiaFund. GEFA also expects to have more than$300 million available in its water and sewerfinancing programs during this year alonefrom which water conservation projects canbe financed.

Despite the significant demands placedon Georgia’s water supply by populationgrowth and drought, Georgia has sought toaddress the issue and preserve the state’s eco-nomic development and quality of lifethrough a culture of conservation. Georgia’sresidents have gone above and beyond insupporting the state’s efforts. But conserva-tion efforts alone won’t be enough to meetthe state’s future water needs.

Creating New Water Supply for GeorgiaGeorgia, in addition to its water conserva-tion efforts, will need to develop and supportnew water supply projects, including newand expanded reservoirs, to capture thenearly 50 inches of rain the state typically re-ceives each year. The water supply infra-structure projects will also include new wells,system interconnections between communi-ties, and innovative approaches such as un-derground aquifers for storage and use.

In January 2011, GEFA came awayfrom the annual Eggs and Issues Breakfasthosted by the Georgia Chamber of Com-merce with an important new responsibility—heading the Governor’s Water Supply Pro-gram (GWSP). Gov. Nathan Deal issued anexecutive order following his speech thatGEFA work with several state agencies tocreate a water supply program designed tohelp local governments develop new watersupplies, and find ways to expand existingwater reservoirs and build new ones.

GEFA convened the Water Supply TaskForce (WSTF) to provide expert guidance indeveloping the GWSP and ensure intera-gency cooperation in the program’s imple-mentation. In addition to GEFA, the WSTFconsisted of representatives from the Geor-gia Department of Natural Resources(DNR); the Georgia Environmental Protec-tion Division (EPD); the Georgia Depart-ment of Community Affairs (DCA); theGeorgia State Financing and InvestmentCommission, Financing and Investment Di-vision; the State Properties Commission; the

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Com-mission; and the Georgia Department ofAgriculture.

In December 2011, Gov. Nathan Dealapproved the final report of the WSTF,which outlined water supply initiatives andrecommendations for the GWSP. GEFA andDCA opened the initial GWSP applicationperiod in January 2012. More than a dozencommunities submitted applications re-questing more than $195 million in loansand state direct investments. The GWSP has$300 million available for water supply proj-ects, with $120 million available during thisfirst round. There will be two additionalrounds 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 growthin the state—an additional 4.6 people by2030, along with the economic developmentthat will accompany this population increase—makes it imperative that the state and itsresidents proactively develop solutions toconserve water and to develop new watersupply. But we must have both—without ef-fective conservation efforts and new watersupply, Georgia families and businesses won’thave the water necessary to thrive. Utilizingboth solutions will ensure an adequate watersupply throughout the state. v

16 The GeorGia enGineer

17AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

18 The GeorGia enGineer

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

19AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY: The ASCE Georgia Section Celebrates

100 Years of Progress

he ASCE Georgia Section is cele-brating its centennial in 2012 and inkeeping with this issue’s theme, wewould like to take a look at how our

management of natural resources, also known as‘the environment,’ has evolved during the this pe-riod. In so doing, we will also be taking a brieflook at some of the challenges faced by Georgiaas we begin the section’s second century.

Perhaps it would surprise some to find outthat the first federal environmental law, the Riversand Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, actu-ally predates the ASCE Georgia Section’s found-ing by 13 years. This law made it a crime todischarge refuse of any kind into navigable wa-ters (or tributaries) of the United States without apermit. With the initial steps being taken to pro-tect natural resources late in the 19th century, thefocus of natural resource protection continued toevolve into other areas such as water treatment,wastewater treatment, and then branching intoother areas such as land management/protec-tion, solid waste management, and managementof specific hazardous and legacy environmentalissues. The evolution of environmental/naturalresource management in Georgia mirrors thestate’s many changes and challenges.

Since the focus of engineering frequently be-gins with protection of public safety, it is not sur-prising that the early focus of environmentalprotection can be traced back to the basics: sup-plying safe drinking water. In the late 19th cen-tury, water treatment consisted primarily of sandfiltration. By the early 1900s, the use of chlorina-tion to disinfect drinking water was already seeingwidespread use throughout the US. Locally inGeorgia, the Atlanta Canal and Water WorksCompany was established in 1875 to secure aconstant and plentiful supply of water for growthand fire protection for the city of Atlanta. The sys-tem began with one pump and one reservoir. Dueto rapid growth, the system became inadequate inonly ten years. In 1891, the Chattahoochee Riverwas selected as the source for Atlanta’s water by

Mayor William Hemphill. At the close of 1907,approximately 65 percent of Atlanta’s residentshad metered water. In 1923, a second raw waterreservoir was built and the Hemphill WTP was up-graded to 42 mgd by the addition of seven newfilters. In 1941, the filter rate was increased to athen astronomical 106 mgd.

The need for water, heightened by burgeon-ing demand in the metro Atlanta area, createdstress on the river systems that were called on tosupply vast quantities of water. The drive to con-trol water flow and mitigate Georgia’s notoriousdrought cycles came on the heels of droughts in1930-35 and 1938-44. With these droughtsfresh on the minds of Georgians, water needsfirst focused on the Coosa River with the con-struction of Allatoona Dam, creating Lake Alla-toona near Cartersville shortly after World WarII. The state’s attention then turned mostly to theChattahoochee River, which led to the UnitedStates Congress passing legislation in 1944 and1945 under the auspices of improving naviga-tion for commercial traffic on the Chattahoochee.This initiative established hydroelectric powerand recreational facilities on a series of lakesthat were created by building dams and estab-lishing reservoirs. These included Lake SidneyLanier, created with the construction of BufordDam (1957); Lake Walter F. George, createdwith the construction of Walter F. George Dam(1965); and West Point Lake, created with theconstruction of West Point Dam (1974). The newreservoirs were intended to serve a dual pur-pose: (1) augment existing power generation,and (2) provide an ample drinking water sup-ply. Their need was driven by population growthand the realization that the TVA power genera-tion infrastructure in extreme north Georgia, dat-ing back to 1931 with the completion of the BlueRidge Dam in Fannin County, was inadequate.The other TVA dam in Georgia, the Nottely Damin Union County (1941), has a modest hydro-electric capability and was primarily designedfor flood control.

T

The growth in Georgia’s population centersin the latter half of the 20th century, mostnotably in north Georgia, has been dramatic.In 2007, the number of public communitywater systems in the state of Georgia stoodat 1,731, serving a population of 7,879,320.The 2007 figures represent an increase ofmore than ten percent in the populationserved from 2003 figures. Populationgrowth, which drives increased water de-mand, has led to significant dam construc-tion in north Georgia, which significantlyimpacts human health as well as the envi-ronment. Between 2003 and 2008, Georgiasaw an 8.5 percent increase in the number ofstate-regulated dams (from 3,412 to 3,703)as construction boomed in Atlanta’s north-ern suburbs. The growing complexity ofGeorgia’s infrastructure has invariably led toconsequences. The Georgia Safe Dams Actwas enacted in 1978 after failure of the Kelly-Barnes Dam in Toccoa, Georgia, whichkilled 39 people at the Toccoa Falls Collegein 1977.

In addition to water storage structuressuch as dams, providing safe drinking waterrequires protection of the water resource toensure water quality requirements are met.The protection of Georgia’s surface water ledto the construction of wastewater treatmentplants, known by their euphemistic moniker,‘water reclamation facility.’ Starting in the1930s, the Intrenchment Creek, R.M. Clay-ton, South River, and Utok Creek facilitieswere constructed to support the city of At-lanta. Additional facilities followed through-out the state, most notably the Messerly andSpirit Creek plants in Augusta, the LowerPoplar and Rocky Creek plants in Macon,and the President Street plant in Savannah.As of 2008, there were 1,118 active waste-water permits in the state of Georgia, com-prising city/municipal, federal, and privatewastewater treatment and pretreatment fa-cilities. Since nearly all of these sites dis-charge to surface waters of the State ofGeorgia, their effluent is regulated by theGeorgia Environmental Protection Division.

Growing population has made it in-creasingly difficult to provide the state’s pop-ulation with a steady, predictable supply ofwater. According to the US Census Bureau,Georgia’s population in 1910 was approxi-mately 2.6 million. One hundred years later,the Peach State’s population has nearly

quadrupled and is approaching ten million.In north Georgia, where the primary sourceis surface water, population growth has cer-tainly exacerbated the water supply situation.This was evident during the drought of2007-2008, which resulted in significantwater use restrictions that were felt by nearlyall residents. In middle and south Georgia,where the supply is typically drawn fromgroundwater, growing agricultural uses havealso been affected by recent drought condi-tions. As of 2012, there have been numerousreports of water wells running dry due todrought conditions throughout middle andsouth Georgia.

The need for an adequate supply ofdrinking water is one of the major consider-ations that influenced the actions of theGeorgia General Assembly to establish theMetropolitan North Georgia Water PlanningDistrict in 2001. This District is one of 11districts in the state of Georgia. Subsequently,the Georgia Water Council and the GeorgiaGeneral Assembly developed and adopted theComprehensive State-wide Water Manage-ment Plan in 2008. In 2009, the ASCEGeorgia Section, in its Infrastructure ReportCard, graded Drinking Water a ‘C+,’ citingthe need for additional construction of watersupply reservoirs, improved management ofdrinking water infrastructure, better watersupply source protection, and more focusedstate-wide planning.

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

icant reduction in per capital disposal rates—nearly 25 percent, primarily due to the banon yard trimmings from household waste.During the 1990s, there was a pronouncedshift from municipally-managed solid wastefacilities to privately-funded sites. As a re-sult, at the close of 2004, Georgia had 26.6years of remaining permitted MSW landfillspace and 19.9 years of permitted construc-tion and demolition landfill space based oncurrent disposal rates.

With heightened public awareness andthe need for continued vigilance, the ASCEGeorgia section expects to play a moreprominent role in helping protect Georgia’snatural resources during the section’s secondcentury. We hope to be able to raise aware-ness through publication of periodic reportcards and public outreach as the state worksto overcome numerous challenges. v

20 The GeorGia enGineer

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012 21

NationalCompensationMatrixis finally here!

he 2012 National Com-pensation Matrix(‘NCM’) has been final-ized and published onMay 8, 2012. Section 7.7of the 2010 AASHTO

Audit & Accounting Guide references theNCM as a tool for determining reasonableexecutive compensation. The NCM was notpublished at the time the 2010 AASHTOGuide was written and came into effect. Acommittee was formed to prepare the NCM.Todd Jones, Audit Manager for North Car-olina Department of Transportation, and acommittee member described their work,“….it was a very large group effort that in-cluded the DOT auditors, the FHWA, theCPA community, the ACEC as well as wehired a compensation expert to help! Wehad weekly conference calls over a severalmonth period as well as a smaller task forcegroup met in Texas to help finalize theNCM. We wanted to make it as simple aspossible for firms and DOTs to use while atthe same time we wanted to provide a prod-uct that all could agree with.” ForrestCameron, CPA, External Audit Supervisorwith the Office of Audits at Georgia De-partment of Transportation, also played avital role in the development of the NCM.The committee developed the NCM usingcompensation data from four surveys specificto the A/E industry and three other nationalsurveys that included A/E firms.

Chapter Seven of the AASHTO Guideprovides details on executive compensation.It requires consultants to determine the rea-sonableness that is compliant with the crite-ria established in FAR 31.205-6. FAR31.205-6 explains that executives of consult-ants are permitted to charge reasonable com-pensation to government contracts as eitherdirect cost, indirect cost, or a combination

of the two. Amounts in excess of what isdeemed reasonable must be disallowed. Fac-tors that may be relevant to determining rea-sonableness include the size of firm, industry,and geographical area. To fulfill this require-ment detailed in the AASHTO Guide thereare two options. A consultant may:1. Prepare a compensation analysis as out-

lined in step-by-step instructions in Sec-tion 7.5 of the AASHTO Guide,including using nationally publishedcompensation surveys matching the rev-enue, industry, geographic location, andother relevant factors, or

2. Use the NCM in testing for compensa-tion reasonableness of certain executivepositions based on revenue.

Because the NCM is a composite of multiplesurveys, it cannot be used in option one.The consultant cannot use the data from twonationally-published surveys and use theNCM as a third survey. If a consultant pre-pares a fully compliant compensation analy-sis as outlined in Section 7.5 of theAASHTO Guide, the state DOTs will be re-quired to accept the consultant’s analysis asappropriate and compliant. Therefore, theNCM may not be used as a basis to contest,question or disallow compensation.

The final NCM provides a descriptionof positions and a breakdown of reasonablesalary by position and revenue. There is alsoan example of a schedule demonstrating thetesting of reasonableness. Likely, this will bethe type of schedule the state DOTs will belooking for. Consultants can create a similarschedule, and then populate the columns asthey relate to their firm. The 2012 NCM ap-plies to 2011 overhead reports. However,due to the late publication of the final 2012NCM you should contact your home state

DOT for further guidance if your overheadreport was submitted prior to the publica-tion. Forrest Cameron at Georgia Depart-ment of Transportation stated, “…any firmthat has a compliant compensation analysiswill have no further action. If the firm didnot perform a compliant analysis (say theyonly used the Ohio Matrix) then they shouldevaluate compensation based on the NCMand reissue the overhead if necessary.” Hecan be contacted at fcameron@dot.ga.govfor any questions relating to this matter.

At this time, the NCM does not includeindexing for geographic differentials. Theissue will be revisited when the NCM is up-dated in future periods. The NCM com-mittee anticipates updating the matrixannually. If the NCM is not updated for agiven year, the committee will issue detailedinstructions regarding escalation/indexing atthat time.

The NCM is accurate for consultantswith revenues that range from $1 million to$500 million. When revenue is below $1million the NCM will default to the data ap-plicable to $1 million. Consultants are beinggiven the benefit of $1 million revenues forcompensation purposes. Consultants withrevenues in excess of $500 million are ex-pected to perform their own compensationanalysis. Consultants should be aware thatthe Office of Federal Procurement Policy(OFPP) has determined that the maximumbenchmark compensation is $763,029 for

TBy Aimee Picciano-Walker | CPA Deemer Dana & Froehle

Aimee Picciano-Walker

22 The GeorGia enGineer

certain executives, which can be utilizedfrom January 1, 2011 forward. Within theFederal Register’s publication of this newbenchmark is a discussion on PresidentObama’s administration’s attempt to changethe benchmark formula. The benchmarkformula the administration is proposingwould lower the benchmark of the pay ratefor the most senior federal government exec-utives.. This proposal could have a signifi-cant negative impact on the allowablecompensation for consultants on indirectcost schedules in the future.

The NCM may be used by A/E firms to

prepare their compensation analysis. JanetteLennon, Corporate Controller for Kittelson& Associates Inc. in Portland, Oregon,whose firm prepares their own compensationanalysis, had this to say, “To ensure the com-petitiveness of our compensation packages,we rely on a comparison of regional and na-tional surveys and peer firm informationsharing. The NCM will now provide us withadditional survey data points for this analy-sis; however we will continue to prepare ourown analysis. Thus while this will be helpful,we anticipate the most significant benefitbeing agencies across the country accepting

the overall validity of our total compensa-tion, regardless of the weighting of individualcomponents of our compensation packages,much more readily.”

Deemer Dana & Froehle, LLP will beusing the NCM as a resource for auditing in-direct cost schedules and in assisting A/Efirms in compiling an indirect cost schedule.Also, in cases where a consultant does notperform a compliant compensation analysis,state DOTs may use the NCM as a bench-mark for determining reasonableness. Fol-lowing is the link to the 2012 NCM,including instructions and FAQs. v

h t t p : / / a u d i t . t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . o r g / P a g e s / d e f a u l t . a s p x

23AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

long-awaited surfacetransportation author-ization law to replaceSAFETEA-LU has fi-

nally been enacted. OnJuly 6, 2012, President

Obama signed into law a new transportationauthorization bill, Moving Ahead forProgress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), pro-viding a 27-month extension of the federal-aid highway programs funded out of theHighway Trust Fund through September 30,2014. The measure passed the House by avote of 373-52, and the Senate by a vote of74-19, demonstrating bipartisan support forthe new federal transportation bill. GDOTand other state and national transportationadvocates had urged a ‘long-term’ bill and in-creased funding but given the fiscal and po-litical realities, most advocates are thankfulthat the new bill at least extends the pro-grams for two years through Federal FiscalYear (FFY) 14. We are also thankful the billmaintains existing funding levels. This givesGDOT, transit agenciesf and local agencies arelative degree of certainty for developingtransportation programs for the next twoyears. The law provides exactly the same dol-lars of highway funding to Georgia (and toeach state) in FFY 13 as it received in FFY12 and a slight increase in FFY 14.

GDOT is pleased the law consolidatescore highway program categories and elimi-nates many special-purpose categories.Nearly 60 programs are eliminated or cov-ered under core programs. This gives sub-stantially greater flexibility in the use offederal funds. The bill limits core highwayprograms to the following four programs:1. National Highway Performance Pro-

gram ~ for an expanded National High-way System (including Interstate roads)and bridges thereon

2. Surface Transportation Program ~ for allfederal-aid highways and bridges

3. Congestion Mitigation and Air QualityImprovement Program

4. Highway Safety Improvement Program

In addition, the law directs US DOT to de-velop up to a 30,000-mile primary freightnetwork and increases the federal share forfreight projects included in state freightplans. It apportions nearly all funds to thestates by formula and does not earmarkfunds, which helps maximize funds to Geor-gia. Other states historically have receivedmore earmarks than Georgia.

GDOT particularly welcomes the nu-merous provisions intended to accelerateproject delivery. Several of the provisions willclearly enable a substantial reduction in timeand costsf and we are hopeful other provi-sions will also expedite delivery. We believeprovisions such as Categorical Exclusions forprojects in existing ROW and for those re-ceiving relatively small amounts of federalfunds will be effective towards this objective.Projects receiving less than $5 million in fed-eral funds or projects costing up to $30 mil-lion with federal funds less than 15 percentwill ‘automatically’ be placed in the Cate-gorical Exclusion level of documentation.

The bill requires states to develop anduse an asset management plan for roads andbridges on the National Highway System.GDOT already has the beginnings of a ro-bust asset management system. The bill di-rects US DOT to develop performancemeasures for Interstate and other NHS high-ways and bridges, for highway fatalities andserious injuries, for traffic congestion andmobile source emissions, and for freightmovement on interstate highways. The billrequires states and MPOs to utilize thosemeasures in planning and programming, toset targets for each measure, and to report onprogress towards achieving targets.

As the department continues its P3 pro-gram, we hope to draw on the greatly in-creased TIFIA loan program funding formajor projects and we will use the continuedability to use tolling for the planned man-aged lanes in Atlanta.

The new law generally continues thestructure of the transit program and overallfunding. It requires transit agencies to de-velop asset management systems and to settargets for asset condition measures devel-oped by US DOT.

While there is excitement in having anew law, it is very important to note that itdoes not increase the level of federal resourcesto address Georgia’s huge needs for highwayand transit infrastructure investment to sup-port economic growth. It is with some con-cern that Congress only temporarily filled theshortfall in user fee revenue needed to main-tain current funding, again drawing on gen-eral funds ($19 billion) to keep the HighwayTrust Fund solvent. This means the debatecontinues on how to fund the federal trans-portation program beyond FFY 14. Georgia,along with all states, would lose a largeamount of federal funds starting in FFY 15 ifCongress returns to ‘living within its means.’In other words, if funding is based on actualincome to the Trust Fund, Georgia stands tohave a 25-30 percent reduction starting inFFY 15. Only time will tell how Congresswill respond over the next several years.

All in all, GDOT is pleased with the re-forms in the new law and is ready to putthem in place in our planning, program-ming, and project development processes.We look forward to participating in the nu-merous US DOT rulemakings required bythe law—to help ensure efficient, productiveapplication of the law. v

GDOT Welcomes New Federal Surface Transportation Law ~ MAP-21

By Dan Gentry & Todd Long | Georgia DOT

A

24 The GeorGia enGineer

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

Hickory Log Creek Reservoir a Case Study in Sustainable Water Management

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 in-

dustrial 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.

T

Figure 2: Hickory Log Creek Dam

25AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

A single 42-inch diameter pipeline connectsthe reservoir and the pump station and pro-vides flow both into and out of the reservoir.The design yield of the project is 44 mgd onan average annual basis, split betweenCCMWA and Canton on a 75 percent-25percent basis, respectively. Developmentcost, including all permitting, engineering,construction, land acquisition, and mitiga-tion, is just under $100 million, averaging$2.27 per gallon per day supplied by theproject. Annual operating costs are antici-pated to be approximately $750,000. Theproject is managed by a Board of Managerscreated through a Joint Project Agreementbetween CCMWA and Canton.

HLCR represents a new concept in theplanning, development, and management ofnew and sustainable water supply sources.The project is designed to meet futuregrowth in water demand by capitalizing onunique opportunities presented by geogra-phy and configuration of existing water andwastewater infrastructure owned byCCMWA and its customers. Some of thecomponents of the proposed water resourcemanagement system are listed as follows:

Off-channel site location on HickoryLog Creek, a small tributary of the EtowahRiver just upstream of Allatoona Lake, a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reservoirauthorized for multiple purposes includingwater supply (Figure 3)

Potential for avoidance of capital, op-erating, and environmental costs of con-struction of new water infrastructurethrough coordinated HLCR–Allatoona op-eration and utilization of CCMWA’s exist-ing Allatoona intake and Wyckoff WaterTreatment Plant (WTP)

The Section 404 Permit to construct theHLCR project was received in 2004 after ap-proximately four years of Corps review. Thesite contained a small reservoir that had pre-viously supplied water to Canton Mills andthe city of Canton; therefore, many of theenvironmental impacts typically created

through reservoir construction were alreadyin existence at the time of the permit appli-cation. Nevertheless, mitigation was requiredfor wetland loss, stream impacts and threat-ened and endangered species (including threedarter species).

Foundation preparation for the RCCdam began in 2005, followed by dam place-ment in 2006. Most of the quarter millioncubic yards of RCC was placed over approx-imately six months. Construction of the in-take and pump station on the Etowah Riverfollowed, along with the 7500-foot pipelineand the relocation of a road to an elevationabove the reservoir's flood pool. All im-provements required under the 404 Permitare completed, and at press date, a Supervi-sory Control and Data Acquisition(SCADA) system and a Reservoir Manage-ment and Operations Office have been de-signed and are prepared to advertise forbidding.

Perhaps the primary uniqueness of theHLCR project is its design to use a naturalsystem to move water instead of construct-ing additional infrastructure, saving millionsof dollars and preventing enormous envi-ronmental impacts. Instead of requiring con-struction of a new intake and raw water mainto CCMWA’s Wyckoff WTP, the projectwill release water into the Etowah River tobe withdrawn from CCMWA’s existing in-take downstream in Allatoona Lake. Thecapital, operating and environmental costs of

Figure 1: Hickory Log Creek Reservoir (Canton, Georgia)

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

26 The GeorGia enGineer

capacity expansion of the existing Allatoonaintake and Wyckoff WTP are expected to bemuch lower than costs of construction ofcomparable new pumping facilities at HLCRand a 20-mile transmission water main fromHLCR to the Wyckoff Plant.

The manner in which HLCR will beoperated is illustrated in Figure 4 and brieflydescribed as follows:• Natural inflow above mandatory mini-

mum release from Hickory Log Creekis stored in HLCR (1).

• Pump station (2) withdraws waterfrom the Etowah River to refill HLCRwhen river flow exceeds Georgia mini-mum instream flow requirements atCanton (4).

• HLCR releases water (3) to theEtowah River as needed to meet Geor-gia minimum instream flow require-ments and to refill CCMWA’sAllatoona storage account (7).

• Cobb County’s Noonday Creek andNorthwest Wastewater TreatmentPlants return flows to Allatoona (5).

• Allatoona (6) stores natural inflows,upstream wastewater treatment plantdischarges and HLCR releases to meetmulti-purpose objectives.

• Corps provides contracted storage inAllatoona for CCMWA use (7).

• CCMWA withdraws water from Alla-toona under State of Georgia permit atexisting intake (8) for treatment at itsWyckoff WTP.

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

This design requires development of a mech-anism to allow CCMWA to transfer waterfrom storage in HLCR to Lake Allatoona.The storage accounting system used by theCorps to monitor storage in Lake Allatoonawill need to be revised to provide CCMWAwith appropriate credit for water transferred

to Allatoona from HLCR.The HLCR project exemplifies basic

principles of sustainable design in the provi-sion of reliable public water supply by max-imizing the use of existing water andwastewater infrastructure under a currentcontractual arrangement for coordinated

water management. By avoiding the need toconstruct a new intake and raw water mainto the Wyckoff WTP, the HLCR project willexpand CCMWA’s current water supply ca-pacity at lower cost and with reduced envi-ronmental footprint than a comparablestand-alone supply source. v

Figure 4: Hickory Log Creek Reservoir Operation Schematic

27AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

28 The GeorGia enGineer

New Air Quality Rules thatCan Affect Your BusinessBy Matthew Traister, P.E. | O’Brien & Gere

29AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

ver the past couple ofyears, there have been ahost of new and pro-posed air quality regula-tions that have thepotential to significantly

affect the development of new constructionprojects and, in some cases, existing opera-tions. These regulations may affect industrialfacilities, hospitals, and even educational in-stitutions. In this article, we highlight a fewof the more widespread regulations and tryto give an idea of whom they could impact.

New National Ambient Air Quality StandardsThe New National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) target air quality con-centrations that each air quality regionthroughout the country is tasked withachieving and maintaining. Areas that fail toachieve a particular standard are consideredto be in ‘nonattainment,’ while those thatmeet or exceed the standard are consideredto be in attainment. For example, air mon-itoring has revealed that the metro Atlantaarea (including the following counties: Bar-row, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton,Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, Wal-ton) comprise a nonattainment area forozone. In practical terms, activities that gen-erate air emission are subject to more strin-gent requirements when they are locatedinside a nonattainment area.

The standards that drive air quality at-tainment are changing. In many cases, thesestandards are getting more stringent. On Jan-uary 25, 2010, the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency (USEPA)announced the promulgation of a new one-hour NAAQS for NO2 of 100 parts per bil-lion by volume (ppbv). Prior to that time,there had only been an annual NO2NAAQS of 53 ppbv, which USEPA has re-tained. Likewise, USEPA issued a new one-hour NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2),which has been set at 75 ppbv.

The new one-hour NO2 standard isconsidered to be particularly stringent, sinceunder a short-term standard, a source can-not benefit from the inherent averaging that

occurs due to the intermittent operations ofthe source of the air contaminant (differentproduction levels) and the natural variabilityin meteorological conditions.

The takeaway: If you are planning a com-bustion project, such as a new boiler instal-lation, including those involving natural gas,these new NAAQS may trigger the need toconduct air dispersion modeling as part ofthe project’s normal air permitting effort. Inmany cases, it is possible that an exceedanceof the NAAQS will be predicted by themodel. You may need a skilled environmen-tal consultant to help you navigate throughthis new regulatory landscape.

Emission Standards for ReciprocatingInternal Combustion EnginesOn February 10, 2010, and August 10, 2010,USEPA issued new Maximum AchievableControl Technology (MACT) standards fromcompression ignition (CI) and spark ignitionreciprocating internal combustion engines(RICE), respectively. These standards apply toemergency and non-emergency engines, atboth major and area HAP emission sources.

Similar to the NAAQS, the reach of theseregulations is incredibly broad and will likelyaffect most manufacturing facilities, data cen-ters, and educational institutions. There arenotification, recordkeeping, reporting, andemissions limits that may apply, depending onthe type and size of engine, whether your fa-cility is a major HAP source and other factors.The compliance date for CI engines is May 3,2013, while the compliance date for SI en-gines is October 19, 2013.

The takeaway: If you have a RICE engine,you should check to make sure you under-stand what regulatory obligations apply toyour facility.

Boiler MACTUSEPA is expected to issue final emissionstandards for industrial/institutional boilersand process heaters later this year. As withthe other regulations mentioned above, theseregulations will have broad implication onmany manufacturing facilities simply byvirtue of the ubiquitous nature of boilers. Itappears that there are to be two rules: one for

major HAP sources and one for area sources.For example, area sources of air pollution aretypically air pollutant emission sourceswhich operate within a certain locale. TheUSEPA has categorized 70 different types ofair pollution area sources. Regulatory re-quirements vary by the type of boiler fuel,whether your facility is a major HAP sourceor an area source and other factors. The firstcompliance date for both rules may havebeen as early as March 21, 2013 (althoughUSEPA has indicated it will not take en-forcement action against affected facilities).More likely, USEPA will extend the deadlinethrough future rulemaking to at least March21, 2013.

The takeaway: If you have a boiler orprocess heater, make sure you understandwhat regulatory obligations apply to your fa-cility and when they apply.

The FutureLooking toward the future, one would an-ticipate that the evolution of air regulationswill continue. It would appear that we arelikely to see tightening in standards again,such as we have seen with the NAAQS. Asthe compliance date approaches in 2013, wewill likely see a flurry of activity dealing withRICE. Lastly, the MACT standard for boil-ers will be finalized soon. These far reachingregulations will significantly impact a broadrange of facilities. While there has been littlerecent movement in the regulation of green-house gases, this could change, though prob-ably after the November elections. Facilityowners and operators would be wise to keepan eye on the ever-developing world of airquality regulations. v

O

Natural gas boiler ~ These boilers maybe subject to MACT regulations

30 The GeorGia enGineer

tlanta has no naturalphysical boundaries torestrain development,and, not surprisingly, theMetro-Atlanta region iscurrently one of the least

dense metropolitan areas in the U.S. and hasone of the longest average daily work com-mutes. The Livable Centers Initiative (LCI)program was begun in 1999 as a way to pro-vide an alternative to these prevailing devel-opment patterns. Through the LCI program,planning grants are provided to local gov-ernments and non-profit organizations inorder to prepare a plan for the enhancementof existing town centers, activity centers, andcorridors. This enables these areas to take ad-vantage of the infrastructure and private in-vestments already committed in thesejurisdictions—resulting in more balanced,regional development while reducing vehiclemiles traveled and improving air quality.Then, after the initial plan is complete, moremoney is made available to the jurisdictionsthat can help implement these plans.

When the Atlanta Regional Commis-sion (ARC) established the program in 1999,$1 million was committed annually from fed-eral transportation funds to complete the LCIarea studies, and the program dedicated anadditional $500 million to fund transporta-tion projects identified during the studies. Todate, more than $195 million in planningand transportation funds have been allocatedto over 110 distinct areas in the region.

While all LCI areas are uniquely differ-ent, all employ similar concepts of smart de-velopment such as:• Connecting homes, shops, and offices

through mixed-use developments

• Enhancing streetscapes, sidewalks, andgeneral community aesthetics

• Improving access to transit and multi-ple transportation modes, includingroadways, walking, and biking

• Expanded housing and employmentoptions

• Creating an outreach program that pro-motes the involvement of all interestedstakeholders in the formation of the plan

LCI Transportation ProgramThe ARC Board established the LCI pro-gram in 1999, making a commitment of$350 million for the implementation oftransportation projects identified throughLCI studies. In 2004, the ARC Board in-creased LCI transportation funds to $500million as part of the 2030 Regional Trans-portation Plan (RTP), and this commitmentwas extended through PLAN 2040, ARC’scurrent RTP. The first year of funding forLCI Transportation Program projects was FY2003. To date, more than $183 million hasbeen allocated for the preliminary engineer-ing, right‐of‐way acquisition, and construc-tion of 92 projects located in 54 LCIcommunities. Of those 92 projects, 62 proj-ects are authorized for construction or havebeen completed to date.

The LCI program uses federal trans-portation funds, specifically L230 SurfaceTransportation Program (STP) funds, whichare earmarked for urban areas with popula-tions over 200,000. As such, all LCI Trans-portation projects are required to provide aminimum 20 percent local cash match.

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

funding, totaling $34 million in federal fundsand an additional $12 million in local funds.The calculations contained in this report donot reflect these newly awarded projects, asthey are not yet programmed in the Trans-portation Improvement Program (TIP). Thenew projects continue to advance the goals ofPLAN 2040 and the LCI program to createsustainable, multi‐modal centers throughoutthe region. Of these 13 projects:• Eight (60 percent) are first‐time LCI Trans-

portation Program funding recipients

• 13 (100 percent) provide ‘complete streets’

• Seven (53 percent) are transit‐supportive

• Ten (77 percent) include innovative ele-ments such as cycle tracks and round-abouts

LCI Program Yields Results In 2010, the ARC distributed a survey to allLCI communities—this survey measured theprogress of the LCI program by quantifyingdevelopment as well as looking at changes inland use policies to support the plan’s imple-mentation. From the surveys it was deter-mined that since the first LCI grants wereawarded in 2000, 724 new developmentprojects have been identified, including:• 176 projects that are planned

Positive Impact of ARC’s LCI ProgramBy Jared Lombard | AICP.

A

Pedestrian underpass

• 150 that are under construction• 363 that have been completed

From these projects, more than 63,000 resi-dential units, 11 million square feet of com-mercial, and 40 million square feet of officespace are either planned, under constructionor complete.

To allow some of the densities and mixof uses found in the LCI plans, most jurisdic-tions need to adopt new regulations to makethese projects a reality. In some cases, failure tochange zoning codes and comprehensive planscan derail a plan from the start. Fortunately,most local governments are changing theirpolicies and regulations to allow the qualitygrowth 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 intotheir comprehensive plan

• 49 percent have adopted, or are in theprocess of adopting, special LCI zoningdistricts

• 43 percent have adopted, or are in theprocess of adopting, affordable or seniorhousing policies

• 80 percent have adopted, or are in theprocess of adopting, design guidelines.

Throughout 2008, ARC Land Use Divisionstaff used INDEX, an add-on to ARCGIS,to ‘paint’ existing land uses and recom-mended land uses in the ten selected LCIareas. The existing transportation system—existing roads, sidewalks, other pedestrianroutes, and the transit network—was addedfor each of the study areas.

Within each LCI study area, the studiesrecommended land use types that wouldcause an increase in population, with someareas experiencing dramatic increases due tolarge tracts of undeveloped or underutilizedland being redeveloped. The majority of ex-isting residential stock found in LCI areas isconsidered single family. The LCI plans rec-ommended increasing residential uses withinall the LCI study areas. However, due to theexisting development constraints withinthose areas, the majority of new LCI resi-dential construction would be three to six

stories of mixed use residential or town-homes. The increase of multi-family or at-tached residential product allows the studyareas to have significant increases in theirpopulation, making those areas more desir-able to retail developments such as restau-rants and other locally serving small retail oroffice developments.

Areas with a high concentration of jobsadded a considerable number of residentialunits by developing vacant lands and by re-developing underutilized properties such asparking lots. This type of development pat-tern resulted in significant changes in thejob-housing balance within those study areascausing a significant reduction in VehicleMiles Traveled (VMT). The findings sup-port that increased housing options in job-concentrated areas had the impact of

reducing per capita VMT, results of whichare illustrated in Chart 1, below. This is fur-ther supported by studies from Chicago, LosAngeles, and San Francisco, which haveshown doubling density can reduce drivingby more than 30 percent.

The study areas examined (with one ex-ception) showed decreased levels of VMT ofthe residents living within those areas. This hasbeen attributed to moving toward a more bal-anced jobs-to-housing ratio within those studyareas and an improved multi-modal trans-portation network within those communities.

For more information about the LivableCenters Initiative, including how to apply forquality growth funding, please contact DanReuter, at dreuter@atlantaregional.com or visittheir Web site at www.atlantaregional.com/lciv

31AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

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

32 The GeorGia enGineer

eorgia finds itself in themidst of a complex andcostly dilemma. As aheadwater state, virtu-ally all of the water thatflows across Georgia

land fell from Georgia skies. Although theSavannah River flows along Georgia’s bor-der with South Carolina, no rivers flow intoGeorgia from other states. Also, NorthGeorgia, where most of Georgia’s popula-tion resides, is the headwater area of thisheadwater state. What does this mean?Large drainage area water courses are scarce(and include existing multipurpose federalreservoirs)! In contrast to Georgia’s water-shed to land area ratio of 1.0 (no riversflowing into Georgia), Alabama boasts aratio of 1.7 (70 percent of the total water-shed contributing to Alabama rivers origi-nates in other states). South Carolina has aratio of 1.45.

Most of North Georgia is also underlainby crystalline rock that limits groundwaterdevelopment. Longer-term climatic cycleslead to reasonably frequent droughts with ex-tended durations and occasional extreme lowflows. In North Georgia, droughts are severeenough and streams and rivers small enoughto preclude direct stream diversion for watersupply without reservoir storage. Reservoirsare needed to store water during periods ofhigher runoff and release water when streamflows are insufficient to support both base-line environmental flows and water supplydiversions.

To compound the problems that Geor-gia water providers must face in developingadequate supplies for a growing population isa combination of more than 20 years of legalcontests with Alabama and Florida over thepurposes and appropriate uses of Georgia’sfederal reservoirs, along with growing gen-eral environmental advocacy in oppositionto reservoirs (a topic for another day).

This summary provides a very generalbackground against which Georgia’s water

providers must act in carrying out their man-dates to provide their customers with safeand adequate supplies of water. Individually,each of these factors makes the job of theGeorgia water provider a little more difficultthan considerations faced by its neighbors.In aggregate, the challenge for Georgia maybe significantly greater.

Despite these deep challenges, a duty toperform prevails, and the means to developadequate supplies to meet future demandswhile securing adequate environmental pro-tections is available. The impacts of the1999–2002 and 2007–2008 droughtsshould not be forgotten. These droughtswere considerable, and all droughts are un-predictable. Another major drought may bein the making now or could be more than adecade away. It is imperative to recognizethat droughts do not announce their arrival,their intensity, or their duration with suffi-cient forewarning to allow for developmentof additional sources of supply.

Growing communities need to be pre-pared to meet increasing water demands,with sufficient reserves to carry themthrough critical drought conditions similarto or perhaps, more prudently, worse thanthose that have currently been experienced.The debate over the man-made nature of‘global warming’ is unresolved, but it is clearthat we now recognize that climate is dy-namic (another story for another day).

Population growth places stress on all ofour infrastructure systems, requiring incisive,decisive, and timely action to keep facilitiesconstruction ahead of the growth curve.Among the most critical of infrastructure de-velopment concerns is water supply sourcedevelopment. Why? Over the past severaldecades, there has been steady movement inthe water supply planning regulatory process.Over time, permitting for reservoirs has re-quired the applicant to jump through morehoops, the hoops are held higher off theground, and they are getting smaller. Leadtimes well in excess of a decade are com-

monly needed to plan, permit, finance, mit-igate, design and construct intakes, pumpingstations, pipelines, a dam, and water treat-ment facilities. Simply put, planning needsto occur well in advance of need.

Reservoirs are designed to provide a de-pendable level of water supply (safe yield), astested against the most severe drought ofrecord. Safe yield is dependent upon rainfall,runoff, and infiltration characteristics, sea-sonal water use variations, reservoir watersupply storage, regulatory criteria used to de-fine critical drought test conditions, compet-ing uses for source water, required in-streamflow releases, regulated withdrawal limita-tions, and the cooperation of Mother Nature.

As water system demand starts creepingtowards a water system’s available yield, youare already late to the game of water supplyplanning. Given the critical nature of watersupply to public health, public safety, andeconomic well-being, it is imperative forwater providers to plan well ahead to developadequate supplies to meet potable waterneeds during an extended drought.

Proactive water system managers com-monly initiate the water supply planningprocess well over a decade in advance ofneed. This allows them to take advantage ofavailable resources and opportunities, andavoid the pitfalls and escalated costs of re-sponding in crisis mode. It is important toremember that a growing population notonly increases water demand but also stimu-lates other development activities that caneliminate the best water supply reservoir al-ternatives from consideration.

Water use efficiency and conservationmeasures (demand management) should beused as initial efforts to manage demandgrowth and to slow the impending need foradditional supplies. Conservation and effi-ciency programs will also need to be ad-dressed as part of the regulatory review andapprovals process for a new source. Once de-mand management practices are in place, de-mand growth can be compared with available

Georgia Water Supply PlanningWatching the HorizonBy Dave Campbell1, P.E. | Schnabel Engineering

G

33AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

yield to estimate the timing and magnitudeof source development needed to meet de-mand growth over the planning period.

The length of planning period can beaffected by a number of variables, includingthe type of source development optionsavailable, longer-term growth projections,build-out population estimates, and eco-nomic and financial considerations. How-ever, it is typical to use a 40 year to 50 yearplanning horizon for reservoir projects. Themore difficult it is to locate and permit asource, the longer the recommended plan-ning period. This costly and torturousprocess is not one to be repeated often.

Water supply alternatives that can sat-isfy identified planning period needs are firstidentified and catalogued. Depending uponthe size and setting of the water system, al-ternatives may include new on-stream reser-voirs (recharged by watershed runoff ), newpumped-diversion reservoirs (recharged pri-marily by pumped diversions from a nearbyriver), expansion of existing reservoirs, sur-face influenced or confined aquifer groundwater, or a combination of these options.

Interconnections with nearby providerscan be a prudent plan to build added ro-bustness and dependability of supply. How-ever, unless the interconnection provides for

provisions of fairly priced water available inperpetuity, it should be considered a safetyfactor, not a reliable source of supply. Wherefeasible, regional water supply developmentoptions need to be given careful considera-tion, other options, such as desalination orwater reuse, have merit in much more lim-ited applications.

“Snake Creek Dam ~ Carroll County, Georgia ~ Safe and dependable watersupplies provide reliable drinking water, sanitation, fire protection,

and enhanced quality of life”

Approximately 60 percent of Continental US is currently suffering drought conditions

An initial screening is performed to

identify potential sites and sources, which arethen assessed on a qualitative basis to developa listing of candidate projects. A short-list ofsources showing promise, and lacking a fatalflaw, are then examined in more detail basedupon site investigations and conceptual stud-ies of environmental, technical, cost, publicsupport, water quality, and treatment needs,and other factors.

The permitting process that follows isgenerally comprehensive and time-consum-ing, even for a highly justifiable project. Also,planning and permitting activities almost al-ways become intertwined. Identification andpermitting of a new source of supply willgreatly benefit from experience in recogniz-ing both the opportunities and the con-straints related to site settings, costs,environmental impacts and mitigation op-portunities, land use, and public acceptance.Additionally, the planning and permittingteam needs to be appropriate for your hometurf, so that local, state, and regional regula-tory and political considerations are appro-priately identified and addressed.

What is most important for the watersupplier is that all of this translates into along lead-time and significant costs. Thelead-time and costs can be made muchlonger and costlier if this multitude of keyfactors is not given consistent and credibleattention.v

34 The GeorGia enGineer

W h a t ’ s i n t h e

N E W S

Solving Subsurface

Problems Since 1981

• 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

2012 ASHE Golf TournamentOn Thursday, May 17,ASHE held its annual golftournament at River PinesGolf in Johns Creek. Thetournament was a hugesuccess with 124 partici-

pants. Players were allowed to form theirown teams, which consisted of ASHE mem-bers, nonmembers, clients, and guests. Theteams were divided into two tiers, and firstplace was awarded to the top team in eachtier. The continued success of this tourna-ment would not be possible without the sup-port of our generous sponsors. This year, weset a record with 34 sponsors! All proceedsfrom the tournament went directly to theJim McGee Memorial Scholarship fund. Welook forward to another outstanding tourna-ment next year.

2012 ASHE Golf Tournament SponsorsPlatinum Sponsorship: T.Y. Lin International

First Place Sponsorship: Edwards-PitmanMcGee Partners

Food and Beverage: Edwards-PitmanMcGee Partners; Pond; Thompson Engi-neering

Hole Sponsorship: AECOM; Accura Engi-neering; American Engineers; Atkins;CH2M Hill; CHA; Cardno TBE; ColumbiaEngineering; ECS; Ecological SolutionsFlorence & Hutcheson; Gresham Smith andPartners; HNTB Corporation; KCI; Keckand Wood; Kimley-Horn and Associates;LPA; McKim & Creed; PSI; Parsons ; PhotoScience; RS&H; S&ME; Stantec; THC; Ter-rell Hundley Carroll; United Consulting;Wolverton & Associates

Longest Drive: Mulkey Engineers; T.Y. LinInternational

Closest to the Pin: AECOM; Ecological So-lutions

Door Prizes/Goodies: AECOM; AmericanEngineers; CH2M Hill; Clark PattersonLee; Gresham Smith and Partners; Kimley-Horn and Associates; Lowe Engineers; PSI;United Consulting Group v

Photo Science Purchases MJ HardenPhoto Science is pleased to announce that ithas entered into a definitive agreement topurchase the assets of MJ Harden (Mission,Kansas). “This agreement directly supportsPhoto Science’s ongoing growth strategycentered on services diversification and ge-ographic expansion,” stated Mike Ritchie,President and CEO. “Along with the loca-tion of our Colorado Springs and San Fran-cisco Bay area facilities, Photo Science isnow ideally positioned to serve our nationalclient base.”

In addition to enhanced client support,this agreement increases the firm’s flight op-erations to 13 aircraft. With significant ac-quisition staging from this new location,Photo Science is able to more efficiently sup-port our client’s acquisition requirements.Photo Science is now operating six large-for-mat digital framing cameras that includeboth the Z/I DMC and Vexcel UtlraCamsensors. Moreover, this acquisition brings thetotal number of LiDAR sensors to eight in-cluding four Optech Geminis, two LeicaALS-70s, and two Leica ALS-50II models.This acquisition strengthens our strategic re-lationship with GeoEye, while providingthem enhanced support for aerial services na-

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

Williams

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

35AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

tionwide and additional Geospatial Servicesprovided by Photo Science. v

Thermal Integrity Profiler wins Manufac-turing Innovation Project AwardPile Dynamics Inc. has announced that itsThermal Integrity Profiler (TIP) is amongthe winners of a Manufacturing InnovationProject Award.

The award is conferred by a partnershipbetween the city of Cleveland, Ohio, Cuya-hoga County (where PDI is located), theManufacturing Advocacy & Growth Net-work (MAGNET), and the NASA GlennResearch Center, and is part of the WhiteHouse’s Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy ‘Strong Cities, Strong Communities’(SC2) effort. Pile Dynamics was one of ninemanufacturers selected by an independentpanel of judges to work with NASA scien-tists on incorporating NASA technologiesinto their already successful products.“NASA is proud to be a part of a venture thatpromises to be a successful partnership be-tween the space program and local compa-nies in the city of Cleveland and inCuyahoga County,” said NASA Chief Tech-nologist Mason Peck at the May 23rd an-nouncement of the winners.

Following the announcement of theaward, PDI was honored by the visits of JayWilliams, Executive Director of the Office ofRecovery for Auto Communities and Work-ers of the Department of Labor, his SpecialAssistants Tom Kelly and Lauren Leonard,and SC2 representatives Grace Kilbane (De-

partment of Labor) and Carol Tolbert(NASA). The dignitaries toured the Pile Dy-namics facilities and were briefed on theThermal Integrity Profiler.

Developed as a joint venture of PDI andFGE, LLC from Plant City, Florida, theThermal Integrity Profiler is used to evalu-ate concrete foundations such as drilledshafts and augered cast-in-place piles. It givesinformation on the integrity and as-builtshape of the tested foundation, as well as onthe alignment of its reinforcing cage, bymeasuring the temperature of the concreteduring the cement curing process. TIP meas-urements are taken with a reusable thermalprobe that is lowered onto specially builttubes built into the foundation, or withThermal WiresTM tied onto the reinforcingcage prior to concreting. v

At News Conference announcing theManufacturing Innovation Award, from leftto 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.

Let’s Look ForwardFirst of all, let me say I am honored to beyour president for 2012-2013. Jim Hamil-ton and his predecessors, along with theirvery dedicated board members and our vet-eran staff, set the stage for some great thingsthis year and the future of our organization.I have learned a lot from these folks and planto seek their input on future issues.

I am taking this introductory article toshare my reasons for being excited aboutbeing ACEC/G President for this particularyear in our history. It seems that I find my-self coming into this job in the middle of avery dynamic period for the state of Georgiaand ACEC/G. So, here is some speculationon what will be hot and what will not. Be ad-vised that this discussion will be a mile wideand an inch deep because as I am writingthis, many of the issues are in the early stages,have just been announced, or will be knownsoon after publication.

Reorganization of ACEC/GYour board has begun implementing a planto dramatically reorganize how ACEC/G isstaffed, managed, and governed. The boardis committed to making ACEC Georgiamore relevant in three areas: (1) Legisla-tive/Regulatory Advocacy, (2) Business De-velopment, and (3) Firm Operations. We areconvinced that a more relevant ACEC/G willmake it possible to grow the organization asthe recession is ending because the value ofmembership will be high.

At the same time, we are committed tohelping create a more inclusive version of theGeorgia Engineering Alliance. The vision ofthe study group working on this effort is toadd more engineering associations to thecoalition and to provide it with the ability tospeak with clarity and unity.

Board of RegistrationAt the GEA Summer Conference, Secretaryof State Brian Kemp spoke to us about hisrevised strategy for streamlining the registra-tion boards and the administration of licens-ing and enforcement. He is seeking inputfrom the engineering community to help de-velop what he envisions as a more efficientprocess where routine applications and ad-ministrative issues can be handled in a per-functory manner with quick turnaround andless manpower. I anticipate that our involve-ment will be as part of the new GEA coali-tion, working with the other associations tobe sure our concerns and suggestions areheard. This particular issue demonstrates theneed for a unified coalition of all engineeringassociations.

Health CareThe national news media has focused in-tensely on the Supreme Court decision re-garding the health care law. Hopefully,

Congress will be able to develop legislationto help reduce factors contributing to theadded costs, or perhaps develop a ‘Plan B’that is more business friendly than the orig-inal. I am sure that ACEC National willkeep us informed and help us understand theoptions for providing health care for our em-ployees.

Infrastructure InvestmentSome pundits believe that just getting pastthe upcoming national elections will provideneeded ‘health care’ for the economy. Otherspropose new infrastructure spending as partof a recovery strategy. Will there be another‘stimulus’ bill for infrastructure? If so, ACECNational will certainly be in the middle ofhelping develop one that benefits our mem-ber firms.

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

36 The GeorGia enGineer

Edgar G. Williams, PEPresident ACEC/G

ACeCNews

37AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Perhaps Water Resources will now take onmore prominence in ACEC/G’s agenda.ACEC/G leadership, along with Georgia As-sociation of Water Professionals, GeorgiaMunicipal Association, and the Associationof County Commissioners of Georgia, havebeen in early discussion with new EPD Di-rector Jud Turner about potential streamlin-ing of the environmental permitting andplan review processes. At its 2012 summerconference, the Georgia Municipal Associa-tion approved legislative policy recommen-dations stating, “GMA recommends anexpedited permitting process and project re-view that will result in efficiencies atEPD…” ACEC/G has been asked to par-ticipate with the other stakeholders in devel-oping revisions to the permitting process thatprovide proper safeguards while at the sametime maintaining reasonable project imple-mentation schedules.

ACEC’s national legislative agenda in-cludes protection of existing funding levelsfor the Clean Water Act SRF Program andthe Safe Drinking Water SRF, plus promo-tion of new financing alternatives for waterand wastewater projects. An ACEC webinarin July provided explanation of proposed‘WIFIA’ financing (Water Infrastructure Fi-nance and Innovation Act) and changes inthe rules for ‘PAB’s’ (Private Activity Bonds)that allow them to be used more competi-tively for water and wastewater infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court declin-ing to hear the appeal confirms that ‘watersupply’ from the Chattahoochee and LakeLanier is an allowed use. This will allowGeorgia, the other states, and the Corps ofEngineers to finish their negotiations regard-ing the operating strategy for Lake Lanier andallow completion of Governor Deal’s WaterSupply Plan. Member firms involved inwater supply can look forward to multipleprojects that will result, and all firms in theregion will benefit from the removal of thecloud over economic development.

Transportation FundingAs this article is being written, many of ourmembers are anxiously awaiting the outcomeof the Transportation Referendum vote. Re-gardless of how the vote is determined, trans-portation funding will continue to be very

important for Georgia and our memberfirms. GMA’s approved policy recommen-dations for Transportation Finance seem toanticipate less than unanimous approval ofthe referenda across the state. The policyreads, “While the option of a regional salestax made available in the Transportation In-vestment Act is a step in the right direction,it is only one solution…..however, it is pos-sible that voters may not support the regionaltransportation sales tax in every region. Thestate must work with local and federal lead-ers on a ‘Plan B’ to explore additional fi-nancing alternatives for state and localtransportation projects.”

Working closely with Congress, ACEChas been on the front line of efforts to get amulti-year transportation bill passed thissummer and in keeping Congress informedof our concerns. In spite of political and eco-nomic challenges, it appears that a decent billis going to pass. ACEC will deserve a lot ofcredit for this successful outcome.

Vertical ConstructionThe strongest practice area for the comingyears may be Vertical Construction, whereour MEP and structural firm members maketheir living. In November 2011 we heardfrom Linda Daniels, Vice Chancellor for Fa-

cilities of the Georgia Board of Regents, atour monthly membership meeting. Manymeetings with her department resulted fromthat networking opportunity. Also, mem-bers of ACEC/G are participating on the ed-itorial board for the State ConstructionManual. It appears that institutional, com-mercial, and industrial design activities andconstruction are building momentum as theeconomy improves.

Balance Among our Practice AreasI am sure you are aware of the effortsACEC/G has put into the TransportationReferendum and transportation issues ingeneral for the past few years. However, as Imentioned above, some things in the workscould cause a shift in some of that ‘energy’ toour other practice areas. I predict that goingforward events and circumstances will resultin much more balance among all the prac-tice areas represented by ACEC/G.

Whatever your firm’s focus, know thatyour Board is committed to a robust and rel-evant ACEC/G. We look forward to work-ing with you to leverage your investment inACEC/G membership for better results inAdvocacy, Business Development, and FirmOperations. 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, PastPresident; 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, DirectorNot Pictured:  Scott Gero, Don Harris, Doug Robinson

38 The GeorGia enGineer

AsCeNews

Jim Wallace, P.E., PresidentAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: jmacrina@dekalbcountyga.gov

PRESIDENTJim Wallace, PEjrwhaw@comcast.net

PRESIDENT-ELECTLisa Woods, PELisa.woods@jacobs.com

VICE-PRESIDENTKatherine McLeod Gurd, PEKatherine.gurd@aecom.com

PAST-PRESIDENTJo Ann Macrina, PEjmacrina@AtlantaGa.Gov

TREASURERRebecca Shelton, PErebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

SECRETARYErnie Pollitzer, PEepollitzer@bellsouth.net

DIRECTORS

Northeast Georgia Branch:Paul Oglesby, PEpaul@georgiacivil.com

Savannah Branch:C. J. Chance, PEcchance@hgbd.com

South Metro Branch:James Emery, PEjemery@troupco.org

INTERNAL AFFAIRSKeith Cole, PEkeith.cole@mindspring.com

EXTERNAL AFFAIRSDan Agramonte, PEdaniel.agramonte@obg.com

YOUNGER MEMBERSJulie Secrist, PEsecrist@loweengineers.com

TECHNICAL GROUPSJohn Lawrence, PEJohn.lawrence@atcassociates.com

www.ascega.org

2011 - 2012 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Sustainability: ASCE’s PositionIn e Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025,published by ASCE in 2007, the civil engi-neers’ role in a sustainable world is describedas follows:

“The global civil engineering professionhas increasingly recognized the reality ofshrinking resources, the desire for sustainablepractices and design, and the need for socialequity in the consumption of resources. Civilengineers have helped raise global expecta-tions for sustainability and for environmentalstewardship. The profession has led world ac-ceptance of green design and has been in theforefront in making environmental consider-ations part of life-cycle and cost-benefitanalyses. Civil engineers have urged clients touse new, environmentally-friendly technolo-gies to improve the quality of life in urban

environments. Designs routinely incorporaterecycling, either by using recycled materials,or by making project components recyclableat the end of their useful life. New processes,less harmful to the environment, have beenimplemented, and most new construction isbased on green and smart-building technolo-gies. Many new buildings actually producemore energy than they consume.”

ASCE has been a national and interna-tional leader in promoting the integration ofsustainability into engineering education andpractice. What follows is a summary of themajor sustainability-related actions that thesociety has taken over the past decade. Eachaction has a Web site reference for additionalinformation. The reader is strongly encour-aged to visit these Web sites to obtain a fullerunderstanding of the range and depth of

ASCE’s commitment to building a sustain-able future.

In the POLICY area, ASCE has:• Modified its Code of Ethics to include

“..improving the environment by ad-hering to the principles of sustainabledevelopment...” (www.asce.org/in-side/codeofethics.cfm)

• Adopted a policy on the Role of theEngineer in Sustainable Development,which defines sustainable developmentand provides working principles forimplementation. (Policy Statement418 - www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy.cfm)

• Adopted a policy on Capacity Build-ing, which promotes the building ofindigenous capability in the develop-

39AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

ing world. (Policy Statement 506 -www.asce.org/pressroom/news/pol-icy.cfm)

• Adopted a policy on the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, which supportsthe Goals as related to improving thequality of life through science and en-gineering. Policy Statement 517 -(www.asce.org/pressroom/news/pol-icy.cfm)

• Described the critical role of engineersin a sustainable world in its report one Vision of Civil Engineering in 2025.(www.asce.org/files/pdf/professional/summitreport12jan07.pdf )

• Included as a goal in its Strategic Planthat the society will, “Facilitate the ad-vancement of technology to enhancequality, knowledge, competitiveness,sustainability, and environmental stew-ardship.” (www.asce.org/inside/next_plan.cfm)

In the area of PRACTICE, ASCE has:• Provided leadership in initiating the

PERSI (Practice, Education, and Re-search in Sustainable Infrastructure)Project, to help its member organiza-tions address sustainability consistentlyin their practices and standards, and todevelop metrics for measuring sustain-ability performance. (www.persi.us)

• Established the Civil EngineeringForum for Innovation (CEFI), whichaddresses such issues as the role of in-novation in achieving sustainability,and applying innovation and knowl-edge for resilience. (www.asce.org/cefi)

The Vision of Civil Engineering 2025 cannotbe fully achieved without the active involve-ment and commitment of ASCE’s Sections,Branches and Student Chapters, which rep-

resent the current grass-roots strength andfuture national leadership of the society. Theunderstanding and participation of civil en-gineers in these local elements of the society,from our young engineering students to oursection and branch leadership, will be criticalin meeting the society’s ‘Vision’ over the nexttwo decades. It is with this understandingthat the Georgia Section of ASCE has or-ganized a Sustainability Committee andwould like to extend an invitation to allmembers of the section to join in the work ofthis committee. We believe that the work ofthis committee will contribute to the impactthat sustainability can have on the quality oflife in our state. Remember, it is very diffi-cult to have a meaningful committee if onlythe committee chair is active. To become partof this effort, please contact the Section Pres-ident, Jim Wallace, or the President-Elect,Lisa Woods. Their contact information is onthe Section Web page (ascega.org). v

Read articles on-line at:THEGEORGIAENGINEER.

40 The GeorGia enGineer

GsPeNews

David W. Simoneau, P.E. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

“Now is the time for all good men to cometo the aid of their party.” Introduced byCharles E. Weller as a typing drill for his stu-dents, through the years it has been used asa call to action by others. I want to borrowthe action theme and ask all of the profes-sional engineers in Georgia to stand up andbe counted.

I know that is asking a lot during thesedifficult economic times. However, all of usneed to remember that one of our majorstrengths in influencing others is our num-bers. I have sat in many politically orientedmeetings and seen the group that had theoverwhelmingly larger numbers affect theoutcome in their favor. According to the Sec-retary of State’s office, there are 19,813 pro-fessional engineers in Georgia. If we were tobelieve that often quoted statistic that tenpercent of the people do 90 percent of thework, we would have over 1900 active mem-bers. Well, I believe that all engineers shouldbe engaged in the improvement of their pro-fession. If half of them were members ofGSPE, we would be able to express to any-one who asked that we directly represent over9,900 engineers in Georgia. In reality, werepresent all of you. When I discuss ouropinions on registration, ethics, upcominglegislation or other matters that affect theprofession of engineering in Georgia, as thePresident of GSPE I am speaking for you.Because I believe everyone should have inputinto issues addressed on their behalf, I askyou to join me and GSPE.

My theme for this year is ‘Be Involved!’My message is that all engineers should be-long to and participate in at least three or-ganizations. These should be the society thatrepresents your profession, the society thatrepresents your technical field of expertise,

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

For many of you the civic group is yourpriority. You may be an active member ofyour church, help with a local charity, partic-ipate in a civic organization such as the Op-timists, Rotary, Exchange Club, Kiwanis,etc… For others, it is the technical societythat allows you to stay current with your ca-reer. Since I can think of at least 20 organi-zations and do not want to slight any ofthem, I will not attempt to list all of thegroups that this includes. For me it is theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers. How-ever, the one part of the formula that is oftenneglected is the professional society that rep-resents every engineer for the advancement ofengineering, ethical behavior by all in ourprofession, and protection of the professionof engineering through positive promotionand legislative activities. We have all workedhard to be professional engineers, respectedin our communities, and are proud of our ac-complishments. Years of education and expe-rience, hours of studying and testing haveallowed us to be a part of a very select group.When we seal and sign a document we knowthat it is correct and complete, and thosearound us expect it to be that way. So, stepup and be counted as a member of the Geor-gia Society of Professional Engineers and theNational Society of Professional Engineers.At the national level NSPE represents you asI do in Georgia. Because many of you, likeme, are registered in more than one state, weneed that national perspective and coopera-tion.

Each of us should share the responsibil-ity to make engineers such a respected groupthat not only will people listen when wespeak, they will seek us out because they

know we are responsible trustworthy mem-bers of society. I look forward to the daywhen everyone recognizes what we alreadyknow. Engineers are the ones that makethings work.

This year as I travel around the state, Ihope to meet many of you and get yourinput for ways we can improve. I want tohear your concerns about problems that faceour profession. I want to hear your successesin promoting the positive side of engineer-ing. I hope to share with you my experiencesin working with young students to encour-age them in science, technology, engineering,and mathematics. In short, I want to get toknow you. However, if I do not get to meetyou personally, please send your ideas andcomments to me at dsimoneau@gspe.org.

This new year brings new challenges,and I am excited about the possibilities weface to make the Georgia Society of Profes-sional Engineers bigger, better, and stronger.Join me! v

41AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

WtsNews

Jennifer King, PE, PresidentWomen in Transportation Seminar

President Jennifer King, PEjjking@hntb.com HNTB

Vice President-Programs Laurie Reed, PElreed@hntb.com HNTB

Vice President-Membership Tonya Saxontsaxon@itsmarta.com MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, PEangela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.comWolverton and Assoc

Treasurer Marissa Martin, PEmarissa_martin@gspnet.comGresham Smith Partners

Director at Large Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E.bschwartz@lpagroup.com The LPA Group

Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, AICPheather.alhadeff@perkinswill.comPerkins + Will

Director at Large Jennifer Harper, PEJennifer_harper@urscorp.comURS Corporation

Director at Large Helen McSwain, PEhmcswain@matcjv.com PBS&J

Immediate Past PresidentEmily Swearingen, PE URS CorporationEmily_swearingen@urscorp.com

Platinum LevelJacobsHNTB CorporationMARTA

Gold LevelEdwards-Pitman

Environmental IncJAT Consulting

Services Inc.

Silver LevelHJAIAAtkinsCroy EngineeringGeoStatsPSI

Bronze LevelAtlanta RegionalCommissionGeorgia Department

of TransportationGresham Smith

PartnersKimley Horn and

AssociatesMcGee Partners Inc.Reynolds, Smith

and HillsStantecSTV/Ralph

Whitehead & Associates

Wolverton and Associates

WTS would like to thank our 2012 sponsorswho help make all of our programs possible!

International ConferenceThe WTS International Conference held inDenver, Colorado, in May was a rousing suc-cess with over 400 people in attendance. ‘El-evating Transportation to New Heights’ wasan appropriate theme for this conference thatincluded sessions on transportation funding,living and sustainability, and moving goodsand people worldwide. Atlanta members in at-tendance included Jennifer King, Laurie Reed,Jenny Jenkins, Marsha Anderson Bomar, Dav-eitta Jenkins, Regan Hammond, Alison Gon-zalez, Beverly Scott, and Liz Sanford.  TheAtlanta Chapter was also proud to sponsortwo of our local scholarship winners (JamieFischer and Amanda Wall), who were honoredwith National Scholarships at this event. 

ASHE – WTS Tennis TournamentIn May, WTS teamed up with ASHE to hostour first joint tennis tournament. Membersof both organizations had the chance to showoff their tennis skills (or lack thereof ) whilenetworking with other professionals in the in-dustry. Though no one was recruited directlyfrom the courts to the professional tennis tour,we believe that good times were had by all(both participants and the lucky spectators).

Public Sector Membership DriveIn an effort to increase public sector mem-bership in chapters across the nation, WTSInternational is hosting a Public SectorMembership Drive in October. Duringthis month, public sector members can joinat half the normal rate. More informationregarding membership can be found atwww.wtsinternational.org/members/mem-bership-benefits or by contacting Member-ship Chair Tonya Saxon attsaxon@itsmarta.com.

Call for Volunteers Fall is a very busy time for WTS Atlanta andour members.  First, we will be hosting ourAnnual Scholarship Luncheon this October.We need the help of all of our members tomake this event a success. We will begin hold-ing calls on a regular basis beginning Thurs-day, July 12.  Please let us know if you areinterested in chairing or helping with any ofthe following committees.  It is a great way toget involved with WTS Atlanta and to helpwith an amazing event.  We will need helpwith the following committees:Scholarship CommitteeNominations and Awards CommitteeCorporate Tables CommitteeSilent Auction Committee

Additionally, we will be electing a new boardto serve the 2013-2014 term. Board posi-tions are described in the by-laws which areavailable on our Web site at www.wtsinterna-tional.org/atlanta . If you have any questionsor might be interested in running for a posi-tion or to serve as nominations chair, pleasecontact Jennifer King (jjking@hntb.com or404.946.5727) for details. v

42 The GeorGia enGineer

iteNews

John Karnowski, PEGeorgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

I am a do-it-yourselfer. I always have been.It not only applies to household projects butmost things in general. I guess that’s the wayI’m wired. I’ve been tinkering with thingssince I developed fine motor skills… some-time in the late nineties, I’m told.

When I was four, I tried to help my dadmove the wheelbarrow that contained theChristmas tree into the carport while he wasin the house. I tipped it over and, believingI was in for it, ran and hid in the sandbox forsomething like a gazillion years or until theheat died down.

When I was eight, I dismantled the mi-crowave to see how it worked. Note: itworked fine until then. Who knew it con-tained a toxic amount of beryllium?

When I was 17, I took apart the carbu-retor on my 1978 Honda Civic to clean itbecause, hey, it looked dirty. The very cuteneighbor girl chose that moment to comeover and talk to me for two hours about howshe had just broken up with her boyfriend…it took me three days and six Polaroid pic-tures of another neighbor’s engine to figureout how to put that thing back together.

When I discovered a little rotting woodin the corner outside my shower, I started aproject that would eventually take me elevenmonths to complete. I ripped out my showerand bathtub, removed the wall between them,replaced the linoleum with ceramic tile, re-placed the sink with two basins and a newvanity, and installed a tiled shower. I did allthe plumbing, dry wall, grouting, caulking,and griping myself. (Full disclosure: I think mywife also helped with some of the griping.)

I’ve roto-tilled lawns, replaced trans-missions, laid sidewalk, rebuilt my kitchen,built a porch, rewired buildings, and evenassembled my son’s Radio Flyer red wagonwith optional side railings. And, the lessonI can tell anyone so like-minded is: Leave it

to the professionals.I wasn’t strong enough to lift the wheel-

barrow with the Christmas tree. I wasn’t ex-perienced enough to put the microwave backtogether without extra parts left over. I hadno right to think I ever had a shot with thegirl next-door so I should have just waited todismantle the carburetor… or taken it to amechanic. I had to hire Tile with Style to fin-ish the shower (they’re in Duluth… greatoutfit… check them out). I hate yard workand ended up with brown patches in myyard. I dropped a 200 lb transmission on mychest and nearly suffocated myself. I fused ascrewdriver to an electrical box in a fire-works-like example of ‘don’t touch that.’ AndI had three screws leftover from the wagon.I’m sure I could have saved time and maybeeven some money if I left it to the profes-sionals.

The engineers reading this article mightsay, “Of course you can do it yourself, you’rean engineer.” At the same time, the geotech-nical engineer will tell the structural engi-neer, “Let me figure out the bearing capacityand you stick to your moment.” (Just a bit

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

I’ve heard of general civils completing atraffic study; surveyors laying out a subdivi-sion; bridge designers identifying wetlands;and most egregious of them all, Robin driv-ing the Batmobile. It can happen; those do-it-yourselfers out there will always find a way.It doesn’t mean the traffic study will passmuster in permitting, the subdivision willdrain properly, the cattails will be seenamongst the weeping willows, and the BoyWonder won’t wreck the car while texting onhis Bat iPhone. (Note to self: call Appleabout developing a Bat iPhone.)

The truth is that often times—maybenot always but enough to make this point,we would be better off leaving it to the pro-fessionals. If you have the time and budgetto get an expert in, you should do it. Yes, justbecause you took Materials from Dr. Lai atGA Tech 20 years ago, doesn’t mean you cancalculate the footing depths for your frontporch. Believe me, I know, and so does theGwinnett County building inspector.

Similarly, if you have the personality of

43AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

Board Position Member E-mail PhonePresident 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 Phone2012 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

Georgia Tech Liaison Paul DeNard pdenard@dot.ga.gov (404) 635-8278

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

a damp rag when in front of people at a pub-lic meeting, get a professional facilitator todo it. Ultimately, your project will be betterreceived and you will come across as the realprofessional you are. If you think all vehicleslarger than a FedEx truck are ‘18-wheelers,’

get an expert to design your loading bay orstart looking over your shoulder for a Team-ster with a grudge. And, just because you candodge traffic like Frogger, let a count com-pany put out those ATRs. (Note, if you don’tknow 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

Congratulations to us! ITS Georgia has beenrecognized as Outstanding State Chapter ofthe Year by the Intelligent Transportation So-ciety of America. Special recognition is inorder to past-president Marion Waters, theboard of directors, committee volunteers,and our hard working members for winningthis prestigious award.

We were up against the largest chaptersin the country including California, Texas,New York, and Florida, among others. Thisis the second top prize awarded our chapterand reflects the quality of the organizationand the leadership position taken by ourstate when it comes to innovation in trans-portation.

To read more about the accomplish-ments of our ITS Georgia state chapter, scanthe QR symbol with your smart phone, orvisit http://www.itsa.org/aboutus/statechap-ters/award-winners.

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

2012 at beautiful Callaway Gardens.Our theme, ‘Connecting DOTs...Con-

necting people to technologies,’ will chal-lenge our conference attendees to think outof the box in new ways to connect the pub-lic with existing and future ITS technologies.

As always, the conference will provide avariety of technical sessions featuring leadingtransportation professionals from Georgiaand around the country, with informativepresentations and thought-provoking panel

44 The GeorGia enGineer

Scott Mohler, P.E.ITS President

ITS News

ITS Georgia Board Member John Hibbard

45AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2012

PresidentScott Mohler, URS Corporation

Immediate Past PresidentMarion Waters, Gresham, Smith andPartners

Vice PresidentTom Sever, Gwinnett DOT

SecretaryKristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc.

TreasurerChristine Simonton, Delcan

DirectorsMark Demidovich GDOT Susie Dunn ARCKenn Fink Kimley-HornEric Graves City of Alpharetta John Hibbard AtkinsCarla Holmes Gresham SmithPatrece Keeter DeKalb CountyKeary Lord Douglas County

DOT Bayne Smith URSGrant Waldrop GDOT

State Chapters RepresentativeKenny Voorhies Cambridge

Systematics Inc.Ex OfficioGreg Morris Federal Highway

AdministrationJamie Pfister Federal Transit

Administration

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIPOur 2012 Sponsors

TempleArcadis

Gresham Smith and PartnersTraficonAtkins

World Fiber TechnologiesSerco

UtilicomSouthern Lighting and Traffic Systems

URSKimley-Horn and Associates

Control TechnologiesTelventDelcan

Cambridge SystematicsStantec

Grice ConsultingSensys NetworksDaktronics

discussions. There will be numerous oppor-tunities for professional networking and ourvalued exhibitors will be on hand presentingthe latest ITS products and services.

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

Among some of the confirmed presen-ters is ITS America President Scott Belcherwho was heavily involved in getting a federaltransportation bill passed. We’ll also look overthe horizon at future vehicle technology andresearch at Georgia Tech. GDOT and localtransportation agencies will tell us their plans,and we’ll learn about the latest ITS apps. Formore information, visit www.itsga.org.

August and October Monthly MeetingsMark your calendars for August 30 and Oc-tober 25 for monthly chapter meetings. OurAugust meeting will focus on ITS in transit,and in October we’ll delve into the technol-ogy and behind the scenes activities for vari-able speed limits on I-285. See you there. v

46 The GeorGia enGineer

SEAOGNews

Kurt Swensson, PE, SE PresidentThe Structural Engineers Association of Georgia

SEAOG has a busy schedule for the comingyear, with new subcommittees, new initia-tives in education for exam candidates, andSE Licensing, in addition to our regularmeetings.

The following membership meetingtopics are planned for the fall of 2012:• September 20 ~ Prequalified Steel Mo-

ment Connections for Seismic Designwith Patrick J. Fortney, Ph.D., P.E.,P.Eng.

• October 18 ~ Use of Laser Scanningand Surveying with Tate Jones

• November 15 ~ Project Spotlight: GT’sAlexander Memorial Coliseum Replace-ment with John Hann, PE and KurtSwensson, PE

In addition to the membership meeting pre-sentations, SEAOG will begin providingtraining for the new 16-hour licensing examrequired for structural engineers. We willhave two classes ready in preparation for thefall exam:• Wood Design ~ Wednesday, August 29

from 4:00-7:00 pm

• AASHTO Design ~ Wednesday, Sep-tember 12 from 4:00-7:00 pm

It is the intention of SEAOG to add othercourses in the future to cover additional top-ics. These classes will be priced very afford-ably so young engineers can afford to attendthem in conjunction with the now very ex-pensive exam and will be given about a monthbefore each exam. Several of our strategic part-ners have generously helped us in the creationof these seminars, and we would like to rec-ognize Woodworks and Heath & Lineback

Engineers Inc. for their help.During the 2011-2012 year the board

has made some changes to our organizationin order to provide more opportunities andbetter service to our members. The boardcreated subcommittees to coordinate activi-ties in the separate areas of service, and thissummer we will be increasing the subcom-mittees 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 2013-

2014)

This spring, SEAOG held elections, and ournew 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

This fall we will be sending two representa-tives to the NCSEA Convention October 3-6, in St. Louis, Missouri. SE Licensing islikely to be a major topic of discussion.

Mark on your calendars that next year’sNCSEA National Convention will be in At-lanta September 18-21, 2013 at the WestinBuckhead.

SEAOG would like to note our appre-ciation for the many efforts put forth over

the years from our two board members whoare stepping down: John Hutton, PE andPaul Shelton, PE. Their many accomplish-ments and initiatives go well beyond thescope of this article.

In summary, the Structural EngineersAssociation of Georgia begins our 2012-2013 year in good health and looking for-ward to an active and exciting year ahead. Weencourage you to keep tabs on our eventsand activities at www.seaog.org. v

http://www.georgiapower.com/commercialsavings

http://www.haywardbaker.com