Volume 20, Issue 4

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

NATURAL RESOURCES &

THE ENVIRONMENTg e o r g i A

ENGINEER®

CleAning up:AtlAntA’s

CompliAnCe with

FederAl Consent

deCrees eArns

extrA time

2 GeorGia enGineer

AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013 3

Publisher: A4 Inc.1154 Lower Birmingham RoadCanton, Georgia 30115Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com

Editor-in-Chief: Roland Petersen-FreyManaging Editor: Daniel SimmonsArt Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey

Georgia Engineering Alliance233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700Atlanta, Georgia 30303Tel.: 404-521-2324 • Fax: 404-521-0283

The Georgia Engineer Editorial BoardThomas C. Leslie, PE, ChairMichael L. (Sully) Sullivan, ACEC Georgia, PresidentGwen D. Brandon, CAE, ACEC Georgia, Chief Operating Officer

GSPE RepresentativesTim Glover, PE

ACEC/Georgia RepresentativesB.J. Martin, PE

Lee PhilipsASCE/G RepresentativesDaniel Agramonte, PESteven C. Seachrist, PE

GMCEA RepresentativeBirdel F. Jackson, III, PE

ITE RepresentativesDaniel Dobry, PE, PTOEJohn Edwards, PE

ITS/G RepresentativesBill Wells, PEShaun Green, PEKay Wolfe, PE

WTS RepresentativeAngela Snyder

ASHE RepresentativeJenny Jenkins, PE

SEAOG RepresentativeRob Wellacher, PE

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Al-liance 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. Opinionsexpressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept re-sponsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorseproducts or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with thewritten consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes shouldbe sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial ma-terial should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

g e o r g i A

ENGINEER

4 GeorGia enGineer

Advert isementsAECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . 11

Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Eco-Wise Civil Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Facility Design Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover

Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover

Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

HDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Kennedy Engineering ~ KEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RS & H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

STV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover

Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7 Sustainability & Value Engineering

9 The Case for Infrastructure Investment in 2013

10 Tackling Our Nation’s Fiscal Crisis

12 Atlanta Before Real Sewers

15 Micro-contaminants in Georgia Waters

17 Technology Enhancements andTraffic Management

22 Cleaning Up: Atlanta’s Compliance with Federal Consent Decrees Earns Extra Time

5AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

t a b l e o f

CONTENTS GEORGIA ENGINEER August | September 2013

22

12

28

26 Georgia’s Forests: Providing Trees for the EU and Sustainability for the US

28 Teamwork Tackles Challenging Riverbank Restoration

30 Highway Engineering, Plantations, and ArchaeologyWhere the Present Intersects the Past

33 First Leg in 98-mile Regional Trail System Opens to Public

34 Damming the Great Falls of the Chattahoochee River

36 Georgia Engineering News

37 ACEC Georgia News

40 ASCE Georgia News

41 ASHE Georgia News

43 GSPE Georgia News

44 ITE Georgia News

46 ITS Georgia News

6 GeorGia enGineer

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

Sustainability &Value Engineering

he World Commission onEnvironment and Develop-ment (a part of the UnitedNations) published Our

Common Future in 1987 and defined sus-tainable as “meeting the needs of the presentgeneration without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their needs,”and in 1994, John Elkington coined thephrase “triple bottom line”, which refers tothe consideration of the value of social (peo-ple), environmental (planet), and economic(money) resources. Value engineering, alsoreferred to as value analysis or value method-ology, is generally defined as a structured ap-proach to evaluating and optimizing projectsand processes by cutting costs, increasingprofits, improving quality, and enhancingperformance. SAVE International® states thatvalue methodology helps achieve balance be-tween required functions, performance, qual-ity, safety, and scope with the cost and otherresources necessary to accomplish those re-quirements. At first glance, it would seemthat protection of resources and value engi-neering are at odds with each other. Al-though economic resources are in the obviousforefront of this methodology, there is no ap-parent consideration of impacts to or value ofsocial and environmental resources. With di-minishing funding sources, increased demandfor infrastructure quality and capacity by acontinually expanding population, morestringent environmental regulations and re-quirements, as well as growing understand-ing by the general public that ourenvironmental resources are being depleted,the need to incorporate sustainable value intoproject and process development grows moreimperative.

A value engineering workshop utilizes asix phase job plan and seeks to find a bal-ance in function and cost in order to pro-

vide maximum value to a project or process.The SAVE International® standard job planincludes the Information, Function Analy-sis, Creative, Evaluation, Development, andPresentation Phases, which allow a multi-disciplinary team to gain a project orprocess understanding, identify and analyzerequired project or process functions, gen-erate ideas on all possible ways to accom-plish the identified functions, select feasibleideas for further development, prepare doc-umentation on the selected ideas for im-proving value, and finally to present therecommendations to stakeholders. Thereare opportunities to gain an understandingof and evaluate the value of social, environ-mental, and economic resources during avalue engineering workshop.

Information Phase ~ Gaining an under-standing of the project or process generallyincludes prior development history, analysisor engineering tasks completed to date, de-scriptions of alternatives considered, pro-posed project or process implementationcosts, as well as what is commonly referredto as constraints. Constraints may includebudgets, design standards and specifications,and environmental regulations (local, state,and federal). In addition, it is important forthe team to understand the context, espe-cially for a construction project, withinwhich the project would exist. This contextcould include social resources such as localresidents and business owners, communitycenters, parks, fire and police stations,churches or schools, and environmental re-sources such as wetlands, streams, threatenedor endangered plants and animals, or cultural(historic or archaeological) sites. Additionalinformation about other environmental re-sources, such as hazardous waste sites, areautilities, and noise or air quality sensitive lo-

cations could also be provided to establishthe project context. A clear picture of thecontext enables the value engineering teamto more completely consider the value of so-cial and environmental resources, as well ashow impacts and benefits to these resourcescould affect economic resources, such ascosts or profit.

Function Analysis Phase ~ Intended proj-ect or process functions are identified andanalyzed to understand the project from afunctional perspective; what must the projectdo, rather than how the project is currentlyconceived (SAVE International® ValueMethodology Standard and Body of Knowl-edge, 2007 edition). The intent of this phaseis not only to identify the functions, but toalso determine how they are related to eachother. Focusing on the need and purpose of

By Lenor M. Bromberg, PE, AVS, LEED® AP BD+C

T

7AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

8 GeorGia enGineer

the project, including applicable social, en-vironmental, and economic resources,through a functional analysis, the value en-gineering team can confirm that the projector process meets the objectives of the stake-holders. By assigning material or imple-mentation costs, performance attributes oruser preferences to each function during theanalysis, the team can identify ‘value-mis-matched functions’ to consider during theCreative Phase. For example, there may below-value functions that have a high cost.

Creative Phase ~ Once the functions ofthe project or process are identified and howeach are related to the other is understood,the value engineering team brainstorms togenerate ideas for all possible ways (regard-less of constraints or the probability of im-plementation) each function could beperformed and add value to the project orprocess. Working in a creative environmentwhere the team is not boxed in by con-straints may generate ideas that seem im-possible to implement, but may also lead tobreak-through ideas that not only add valueto the project or process, but yield great ben-efits to the associated social, environmental,and economic resources. These ideas mayinvolve suggestions of sustainable materialsor alternative construction or implementa-tion methods that have reduced environ-mental impacts. Other ideas may beassociated with efficient operations and lowmaintenance costs.

Evaluation Phase ~ Each of the creativeideas generated are reviewed individually toassess how each idea might affect project orprocess implementation costs (economic re-sources) or identified performance measures.During this evaluation, the effects of theideas on social and environmental resourcescan also be assessed. Those ideas having ahigher likelihood to improve or add value tothe project or process, as well as the social,environmental, and economic resourceswould move into the Development Phase.

Development Phase ~ Documentation isprepared for each of the value ideas that arebrought forward into the DevelopmentPhase, which describe the idea, how it adds

value to the project, benefits or impacts so-cial and environmental resources, and effectson the economic resources (project costs).Typical initial project costs could include en-gineering efforts, right-of-way, constructionmaterials and labor, and environmental per-mits and mitigation. Long term costs wouldbe related to life-cycle costs such as opera-tions, maintenance, and material replace-ment. In addition, costs associated withimpacts to social resources, such as changesin access to community facilities, propertyimpacts to disadvantaged populations (lowincome or minority populations, also re-ferred to as Environmental Justice popula-tions), other local residents or businessowners, and costs associated with impacts toenvironmental resources, such as wetlands,streams, protected plant and animal species,cultural resources, would also be provided inthe idea documentation.

Presentation Phase ~ At the conclusion ofthe value engineering workshop, the valueideas that were brought into the Develop-ment Phase are presented to the project own-ers, decisions makers, and stakeholders. Thispresentation time allows an overview discus-sion of each idea so that the decision-mak-ing team can gain an understanding of thesteps the team completes during the work-shop, as well as the ideas that are recom-mended for consideration.

By considering social, environmental, andeconomic resources during the value engi-

neering job plan, it is possible to bring sus-tainable value-added ideas to projects andprocesses. To be sustainable - to meet theneeds of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future genera-tions to meet their own needs - we must ap-proach the development andimplementation of projects and processeswith a balanced understanding of the currentand future needs of our society, impacts orbenefits to our environmental resources, andavailable economic resources required for im-plementation, operation, and maintenance.v

9AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

n the coming months, the debateover federal spending and debtwill surely accelerate in Congressand many other places. The econ-omy seems to be improving andunemployment is slowly declin-ing, and it remains true that the

economy is better, but not good.How will infrastructure investment fare

in this political climate? I suspect that infra-structure will be viewed by some as just moregovernment spending. In fact, not all gov-ernment spending is equal in its impact onnation income—or Gross Domestic Product(GDP)

So here is my case for infrastructure investment.The economic multiplier is the increase inGDP for $1 of financial ‘injection’ (govern-ment spending, capital investment, tax cuts,and such). Calculating a multiplier is com-plex. An econometric model at Moody’sEconomy.com estimated a multiplier for in-frastructure spending of 1.44 in late 2011 -$1 spent on infrastructure results in $1.44increase of GDP. A few years earlier whenthe economy was less robust, the multiplierwas 1.59 - you get a larger punch when thereis excess capacity in the economy. For com-parison purposes, the same 2011 report cal-culated much lower multipliers for certainpermanent tax cuts (0.32 to 0.53) and muchhigher for temporary unemployment insur-ance and food stamps (1.55 and 1.71 re-spectively). Reducing financial injections (asin cutting government spending, less capitalinvestment, or raising taxes) has the result ofdecreasing GDP.

A San Francisco Federal Reserve Bankreport in November 2012 summarized re-search on the multiplier for federal grants tostates for highways over a 20 year period,1990 to 2010. During that time, the averagemultiplier was about 2.0. Strikingly, theyfound that the multiplier for highway proj-ects in the 2009 federal stimulus programwas about four times that multiplier. Thisseems to confirm that the multiplier is higherwhen there is excess capacity in the economy,as there certainly was in 2009.

It is clear that investing in infrastructure willincrease GDP and employment.Sometimes short-term budget issues are putin the same mix with long-term financialproblems, which confuses the analysis andsolutions. It seems clear to me that there isa long-term financial problem with entitle-ment programs, such as Medicare and SocialSecurity (time will tell with Obamacare).

Currently, the Medicare trust fund isforecast to become insolvent in 13 years andSocial Security in 20 years. Both programsneed structural reform, such as increasing theretirement age, means-testing benefits,and/or increasing premium rates. This willbe a very difficult political task, but ifchanges are phased in over many years theimpact on individuals will be small.

Somehow, annual appropriations andbudget ceilings are separate and apart fromthe systemic reform needed in the entitle-ment programs—maybe it is just too hot tohandle. If anything is going to ‘leave ourchildren with a huge debt to pay down’ (assome are wont to say), it is the entitlements,where plenty of time remains to ‘fix theproblem.’ At the same time, infrastructureinvestment, with its high economic multi-plier, is held hostage by budget hawks.

Our infrastructure needs are urgent andimmediate. This is certainly clear to anyonewho must drive in the Atlanta region. Thenational 2013 ASCE Infrastructure ReportCard provides a clear, concise summary ofthe problem through the grades given severalcategories of public works:

Not only is there a need for more capacity in

these categories, but inadequate maintenanceis causing the ultimate cost of repair to in-

crease. Infrastructure investment is directedat real needs, with real consequences.

The total national debt is astronomical.It is commonly discussed in terms of per-centage of GDP. To provide perspective, thenational debt spiked at 35 percent of GDP asa consequence of World War I and at 122percent, following World War II. It hit atrough in 1974 of 32 percent and has peakedat 101 percent in 2012, as a consequence ofthe Great Recession and two wars. Becauseof budget cuts, additional cuts as part of the‘sequester,’ and the growth in the GDP as theeconomy has improved, it seems like the2012 peak will not be exceeded.

Since infrastructure has a high eco-nomic multiplier, $1 spent on this invest-ment, even if it is entirely debt, raises theGDP by $1.40, or so. This results in a de-clining debt to GDP ratio. There is anotheraspect of this type of investment. The coun-try’s capacity for supporting more efficientbusiness is enhanced. This increases thecountry’s long-term competitiveness in theglobal economy.

In budget and debt debates, it is allabout ‘whose ox is gored.’ Nonetheless, itseems clear that infrastructure investmenthas a beneficial impact on GDP and em-ployment, and affirmatively addresses ademonstrable problem for America citizens.v

The Case for Infrastructure Investment in 2013By Thomas C. Leslie

I

Airports D Schools D Ports C Water Supply D Roads DWastewater D Transit D

10 GeorGia enGineer

Thank you to the publisher and readers forallowing me to contribute to Georgia Engi-neer once again, with an update on some ofthe latest issues I’m working on in Washing-ton, D.C.

There has been no shortage of newscoming out of Washington lately with theIRS scandal, the NSA leaks, the problemsimplementing Obamacare, and the tensionsin Syria and Egypt. As we address all of these,we also must continue to tackle the biggestchallenge facing our country and our econ-omy—our skyrocketing debt and deficits.Early this year, I was placed on the Senate Fi-nance Committee, where I am now betterpositioned to implement meaningful solu-tions on tax reform, Medicare, and Social Se-curity. These issues affect every Americanand every business, and they must be part ofaddressing our debt and deficit problems. Ihave found that working across party lines isthe most effective way to move legislationforward, and I am happy to work with any-one willing to sit down at the table to reduceour nation’s crippling debt and deficits.

The spending habits of Washington andthe method by which Congress appropriatesfederal dollars also are major contributors toour nation’s fiscal crisis. That’s why Sen.Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and I reintro-duced bipartisan, commonsense legislationthat would fundamentally reform Congress’broken budgeting process. Our BiennialBudgeting and Appropriations Act would

convert the annual spending process to atwo-year budget cycle, forcing Congress tobecome better stewards of the taxpayers'money by placing Congress on a two-yearbudget cycle with one year for appropriatingfederal dollars and the other year devoted tooversight of federal programs.

I am proud to report that our biennialbudget legislation is gaining momentum. OnMarch 22, the Senate passed our legislationas an amendment to the Senate budget reso-lution with 68 votes, more than two-thirdsof the Senate. Although the budget resolu-tion is a non-binding blueprint, the vote onour amendment signals that there is broadbipartisan support for biennial budgetingand appropriations and that our standalonelegislation that would have the effect of lawhas a good chance of passing in the Senate.The passage of this amendment signaled abig win for the taxpayers of Georgia and thenation. I will continue to work to ensure thatthis legislation passes the U.S. Senate and theU.S. House, and goes to the president’s deskto be signed into law.

Tackling Our Nation’s Fiscal CrisisBy Johnny Isakson

11AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

Tackling our fiscal crisis is critical to en-suring the success of American businessesand job providers. The number one thing thefederal government can do to create privatesector jobs in the United States is to stop im-posing burdensome regulations on busi-nesses. Existing overreaching regulations andthe threat of more regulations in the futureare leaving businesses on the sidelines as theywait for a more predictable regulatory envi-ronment in which to invest their capital. Thecurrent regulatory environment is prevent-ing a robust recovery of our economy.

Last fall, I co-sponsored legislation thatwould impose a one-year moratorium on allnew federal regulations to give businesses abreak from costly, job-killing regulations andprovide a more predictable environment tofoster expansion and growth. Specifically, thelegislation imposes a one-year moratoriumon ‘significant’ new federal rules and regula-tions from going into effect if those ruleswould have an adverse impact on jobs, theeconomy, or our international competitive-ness. ‘Significant’ rules include those costingmore than $100 million per year. Exemptfrom the ‘time-out’ are rules that foster pri-vate sector job creation.

In addition to tackling the negative reg-ulatory climate in Washington, I am also ad-dressing many of the labor issues that alsothwart job creation in this country. As theranking Republican on the Health, Educa-tion, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s Sub-committee on Employment and WorkplaceSafety, I am concerned about the new Secre-tary of Labor Thomas Perez and concernedabout the numerous rulings issued by theNational Labor Relations Board in the wakeof a federal appeals court ruling in January2013 that two Obama appointees to theBoard were unconstitutional.

Additionally, I recently reintroducedlegislation that would reverse the NationalLabor Relation Board’s 2011 decision allow-ing as few as two or three employees to formmicro bargaining units, or ‘micro unions,’ toengage in collective bargaining with employ-ers. My legislation, the Representation Fair-ness Restoration Act, would reinstate thetraditional standard for determining whichemployees will constitute an appropriate bar-gaining unit, a standard that has been devel-oped through years of careful considerationand Congressional guidance.

When it comes to confronting our fiscal

crisis and turning around our economy sothat small businesses can create jobs again,Washington cannot continue to do thingsthe same way or pretend we do not haveproblems staring us in the face. We do, plainand simple, and we must act decisively tosend each other and the world the clear mes-sage that we are serious about tackling them.

I am grateful that I have been elected torepresent our great state, and I will continueto serve you as I always have—by calling itlike I see it and making the tough choicestoday because we don’t have the luxury ofmore time. We simply cannot leave today’sburdens to future generations.v

12 GeorGia enGineer

t its beginning, Atlanta was a very small settle-ment at a future railroad junction in a vast, in-land wilderness. In 1850, the population of

Atlanta was 2,572, and the city limit was a one-mile circle with itscenter at the junction of three railroads. No specifics are recordedabout Atlanta’s earliest water and sewer system, but it seems safe tosurmise that each dwelling had, at best, a dug well—shallow and rocklined for at least some of its depth—and a privy.

I would think that most people today associate a privy with an“outhouse”. To be clear on terms, ‘night-soil’ means the material thataccumulates in a privy pit and that is periodically removed and takento a dumping ground. The removal of excrement was usually limitedto nighttime because of the offensive nature of the material, hence the

Atlanta, Before Real Sewers

A

By Thomas C. Leslie

Table 1. Population of AtlantaYear Population Notes on City Limits1850 2,572 1 mile radius1860 9,5541870 21,789 1.5 mile radius in 18661880 37,4091890 65,533 1.75 mile radius in 1889, Inman Park annexed1900 89,872City of West End annexed 1894

Atlanta Night-Soil and Garbage Collection Wagons, 1893

Source: U.S. Census populationfor the City of Atlanta. Down-

loaded as Demographics of Atlantafrom Wikipedia, May 25, 2013

term ‘night-soil.’ Undoubtedly, a portion ofthe night-soil was simply dumped on vacantland or in drainage ditches.

During its early years, Atlanta was surelya dirty, smelly town. There was no runningwater nor an organized way to collect anddispose of night-soil. Very few roads werepaved, and they were dusty when it was dryand muddy when it rained. Horses, mules,cows, pigs, and chickens were common, andtheir excreta was mostly left to nature.

As early as 1860, the city’s wastewatermanagement strategy consisted of a light-handed ordinance to regulate privies, “Allprivies . . . shall have vaults three feet deepfrom the surface of the ground and shall bekept well limed and walled, or weather-boarded to the ground . . . “. By the early-1870s, the ordinance was expanded to hold“the actual tenant or occupant” liable forcompliance and subject to a $100 fine or 30days “in the calaboose.”

As more residents connected to the city’scentral water system after 1875, they in-stalled more and more water closets (thinkbathrooms with a sink, tub, and toilet).

A sewer system began to evolve in a hap-hazard way. Drainage ditches allowedstormwater to be channeled away fromhomes, buildings, roads, andother structures. As Atlanta grew,these drainage ways were linedwith rough stone, and many hadflat bottoms. Some residents builtsewer connections to thesedrainage ditches from theirhomes. Others simply directedthe flow from their water closet tostreet gutters or low land awayfrom the house. During the sev-eral decades after the Civil War,the drainage ditches evolved intocombined sewers, which carriedstormwater and human waste.Unfortunately, these sewers werenot part of a comprehensive sys-tem, and most had functionallydeficient design features. Manywere open channels. The roughstone construction provided pock-ets for deposition of organic mat-ter that was malodorous. With aflat bottom, the flow seldomreached a self-cleaning scourer ve-

locity. Sewer grades were set without the ad-vantage of knowing the end point. Atlanta’ssewers in the early 1870s have been describedas “mostly rock culverts, which carried fecalmatter, industrial by-products, and rainwa-ter away from hotels and factories near thecenter toward the outskirts of Atlanta.”(James Russell, Atlanta 1847 – 1890).

‘Public health’ was a relatively new no-tion in the mid-1870s that came to embraceboth the medical and engineering profes-sions. The Atlanta Board of Health was cre-ated to focus on this new discipline. It hadno real authority, but was appointed by citycouncil and provided advice on sanitary mat-ters. The Board’s 1882 annual report to CityCouncil found that a “system of removing thenight-soil from the city, inaugurated a fewyears ago, has steadily increased in popular-ity, despite some minor objections . . .”

While some residents began connect-ing directly to the city’s primitive sewer sys-tem, far more did not and relied uponprivies to receive human excreta. Periodi-cally, city workers would empty the privyvaults using hand tools and pails. Thewaste would be transferred to barrels onhorse-drawn wagons and taken to a dump-ing ground.

In 1879, city council approved a ‘sani-tary tax’ to fund enforcement of ordinancesrelated to “the health, cleanliness, and sani-tary conditions.” In 1881, this tax was raisedto $3 per year for all lots in a designated san-itary district, which in 1885 was described as“comprising (the city’s) central and mostdensely populated portions and the water-shed.” The city removed night-soil andgarbage from lots in the district. Althoughthe watershed tributary to the city’s PooleCreek water supply reservoir was largely out-side the city limits and residents were notcharged the sanitary tax, night-soil removalservice was provided. Clearly the city hadconcerns over an unprotected water supplyreservoir where water treatment was not pro-vided.

As shown in Table 2, the total numberof lots in the sanitary district expanded overthe 19-year period beginning with 1882; in1893, the district was expanded to encom-pass the entire city. It was not until 1900that the percentage of lots receiving night-soil removal service had declined to abouthalf of the total city.

In 1882, night-soil was removed by“four, two-horse dumping wagons with a ca-pacity of forty bushels each.” Lots were serv-

iced “weekly, semi-weekly oroftener.” The Board of Health cal-culated that 75,000 bushels ofhuman excrement were “collectedand withdrawn from the city dur-ing (1882)” and that twice thatamount of garbage was collected.With what seems to be some pridein this accomplishment, the Boardof Health observes in its annual re-port to City Council, “A few yearsago this service was not know (inAtlanta), and even now it is by nomeans as extensive as it should be. . . but the beneficial influence ex-erted upon the atmosphere of thecity by the abstraction of this enor-mous amount of putrid and de-composing matter may beimagined. (To do this) the placesof deposit should be visited andthe heterogeneous heaps inspected.The ocular as well as the olfactorytestimony will be convincing.”

Despite this stilted lan-

13AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

Table 2. Lots in Sanitary DistrictLots receiving

Year Total Lots Night-Soil Service % without Sewer1882 1,979 1,336 67.5%1883 3,025 2,067 68.3%1884 4,341 3,278 75.5%1885 4,735 3,616 76.4%1886 5,211 4,256 81.7%1887 5,634 4,679 83.0%1888 6,544 4,746 72.6%1889 8,394 5,865 68.7%1890 9,338 6,428 68.8%1891 9,897 6,509 65.8%1892 10,379 6,340 61.1%1893 15,365* 10,266 66.8%1894 16,476 10,338 62.7%1895 16,915 10,440 61.7%1896 17,404 10,704 61.5%1897 17,917 11,136 61.1%1898 18,395 10,797 58.7%1899 19,276 11,191 58.1%1900 19,801 10,073 50.9%

* Sanitary district expanded to include all lots in the entire city.Source: Annual Reports of the Atlanta Board of Health to the City Council.

14 GeorGia enGineer

guage, it is clear that piles of garbage and ex-crement were visually revolting and smelleddreadfully.

The report for the following year (1883)describes this work as the “systematic with-drawal . . . of (an) enormous mass of de-composing and poisonous material. Thenoisome and disgusting odors which for-merly pervaded some of our most prominentand fashionable thoroughfares have ceased toannoy and fret our fellow-citizens . . . .” Ap-parently some improvements were made tothe night-soil collection wagons so that in1885 the Board of Health reported that thesewagons were “once a traveling cess-poolemitting the vilest of stenches in their pas-sage through the streets . . . .”

In quick succession, the city abandonedtwo ‘dumping grounds’ due to citizen objec-tions and law suits. This confirms the apho-rism, “Everybody wants you to pick up theirwaste, but nobody wants you to put it down.”

By 1884 Atlanta had reached a dealwith Fulton County to buy a 50-acre site itowned which was about three miles west ofthe city. The city considered this transac-tion as providing a solution for ‘manyyears.’ (The site is now encompassed in thecity’s Maddox Park).

At the disposal site, the night-soil wasdumped/poured? into excavations four feetsquare and 16 inches deep and “immediatelycovered with dry soil.” As soon as practica-ble, the land was sown with grass and grainfor feed for the mules drawing the wagons. At the same time that the Board of Healthagitated for the expansion of night-soil re-moval services in the 1880s, they also urgedcity council to build proper sewers. The1882 annual report of the Board of Healthcalled for action: “Intelligent attention to thedetails of the whole question of sewerage is ofvital importance. . . . in this city the impor-tance of this subject is, year by year, assum-ing greater and more embarrassingproportions. . . Defective sewers are one ofthe certain sources of severe and fatal disease. . . .”

The 1883 annual report to City Coun-cil found that “Atlanta has wofuly (sic) neg-lected her sewerage.” Additionally, “Manyof the sewers laid prior to (1883) were en-tirely too small, and many others were builtof bad materials, rendering them entirely

worthless to the city.”In short the sewers were a mess, and not

very extensive. The City Council’s Commit-tee on Sewers and Drains urged a compre-hensive approach to the problem: “(T)hereshould be a more systematic method devisedin the construction of our main sewers so asto avoid the mistakes of the past.” Addition-ally, the committee recommended prepara-tion of a “contour” map and added, “ . . . hadthis been done at the close of the (Civil) warby competent engineers it would have savedmany thousands of dollars . . . .”

The 1884 Board of Health annual re-port recommended that the city: “ . . . securethe services of an expert and skillful sanitaryengineer . . . to prepare a plan for the sys-tematic sewerage of the city, based upon cor-rect engineering and sanitary principles . . . .”

The Board also declared, “Rough rocksewers are dangerous.” The city engineer ex-panded on this in his report, “I trust …thatthe day for rock culverts, especially dry, haspassed; they hold all the filth which accumu-lates in the interstices and crevices . . . .”

The 1885 Board of Health report re-peated its unfavorable critique of Atlantasewers, “Atlanta has never followed any sys-tem in constructing sewers. If for 20 yearspast the sewers built had been laid out andconstructed according to a well devised plan,the condition of our city . . . would be farbetter than it is today.”

The 1886 report of the city council’sSanitary Committee included a proposalfrom a Mr. Ernest W. Bowditch, “an able,skillful and practical sanitary engineer, of

Boston, Massachusetts” to prepare a sewerplan for the city. The proposal was appar-ently bottled up in the finance committeeand “has not come fairly before (city council)on its merits.”

It was not until 1888 that the city hiredRudolph Herring, a highly regarded, NewYork sanitary engineer to assist the city inpreparing a comprehensive plan for sewersfor Atlanta. His report was issued in 1890.It is the beginning point for the next chapterin the story of Atlanta’s evolving wastewatermanagement system.v

15AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

Micro-contaminants in Georgia Waters

ith the advent of high-tech in-strumentation, scientists arenow able to detect the presenceof chemical compounds inwater at concentrations in thenanogram per liter (ng/L) range.A nanogram is one billionth of a

gram. In a liter of water, one billionth of agram equates to one part per trillion. Mostwater contaminants (and disinfectants) aremeasured in terms of parts per million, a unitone million times larger than a part per tril-lion. Pharmaceuticals and personal careproducts (PPCPs) sometimes appear in theenvironment in concentrations on the orderof 10 to 10,000 ng/L. So, any discussion ofPPCPs is in terms of extremely small con-centrations.

Let’s start with the overall good news.According to the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA), to date there is no ev-idence that PPCPs in the environment causeadverse human health effects. These com-pounds have probably been present in theenvironment ever since they were first man-ufactured. However, effects on humanhealth and on ecosystems are being carefully

studied. Some general sources of PPCPs in-clude prescription and over-the-counterdrugs, vitamins, cosmetics, and sun screenproducts. Because of the relatively new abil-ity to measure them, many of these sub-stances have now been detected in theenvironment.

PPCPs arrive in the environment in var-ious ways. They are excreted by humans andpets, they are flushed down toilets andwashed off into showers and baths, and theyare thrown away with household garbage.

Most of these waste streams are treated insome fashion. Of those treated in waterreclamation and potable water treatmentplants, the plant processes have varying ef-fects on removal of the large array of PPCPchemicals.

A study conducted at large Georgiawater treatment systems in 2009 by the Uni-versity of North Carolina (Singer, Weinberg,Yang & Flowers) measured concentrations ofnineteen selected PPCPs in various stages ofwastewater effluent, and in raw and finishedwater at a water treatment plant. Of all ofthese compounds, only two, an insect repel-lent (DEET), and caffeine were detected inthe water treatment plant source (untreated)water at levels above 10 ng/L. After potablewater treatment, only DEET occasionally re-mained at a detectable level, and this was atlevels under 10 ng/L.

This study measured the ability of vari-ous wastewater treatment processes to re-move PPCPs. Biological treatment andmembrane filtration were relatively effectiveat removing certain pharmaceuticals and caf-feine. Granulated Activate Carbon (GAC)reduced the concentrations of a wide varietyof PPCPs. Ozonation was effective at re-moving most of the remaining PPCPs.

Although PPCPs apparently pose littlerisk to human health, the possible effect on

W

By Steven C. Seachrist, P.E. • Asset Optimization Engineer • Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources

aquatic organisms is of some concern. En-docrine systems—which control metabolicactivity in animals—are sensitive to low lev-els of various pollutants, and studies are un-derway to determine if PPCPs contribute toendocrine disruption in the environment.PPCPs are designed to interact with cellularreceptors at low concentrations. Also,aquatic life is exposed continually to higherdoses than those found in treated drinkingwater, and the exposure occurs over multiplegenerations.

At the present time, no new regulationsfor water or wastewater treatment forPPCPs are on the horizon. Meanwhile,consumers should know that flushing excess

or out-dated drugs down the toilet couldadd to the presence of PPCPs in the envi-ronment. Septic systems and leaking sewerpipes allow some amount of untreatedwastewater to enter the ground or surfacewaters. Similarly, throwing pharmaceuti-cals into the trash could result in environ-mental damage, depending on the ultimatefate of the waste stream. And as discussedabove, not all PCCPs are removed by waterand wastewater treatment systems. The bestbet is to contact local waste managementauthorities to find out if there is a take-backprogram or other safe method of disposal.This goes for vitamins, cosmetics, and in-sect repellents as well. v

GeorGia enGineer16

17AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

n the Atlanta Region today wehave one of the most sophisti-cated traffic management sys-tems in the United States, yet themost recent Texas TransportationInstitute Mobility Report for2012 shows the Atlanta metro re-

gion to be the seventh most congestedurban traffic network in the country. Thatis looking at the dark side! This same re-port lists Atlanta at having one of the morereliable freeway systems, and this is nodoubt due to the large emphasis on coordi-nated incident management. The brightside is how much we have grown in popu-lation and economic activity over the lastthirty years. From 1982 to 2012, within thetwenty-two county Atlanta region our pop-ulation increased from 2,200,000 to4,360,000 or almost 100 percent. As a re-sult, the number of vehicular trips daily in-creased from 30,700,000 to 92,720,0002 oran increase of over 300 percent.

So how are we doing in terms of con-gestion relief? There are many ways to lookat congestion but the simplest measure is thedelay on our existing freeways and arterialstreets. In 1982 we had 4500 lane miles offreeway and arterial streets with 30,770,000vehicle miles of travel daily. Thirty-three per-cent were operating in ‘congested condi-tions.’ Thirty years later in 2011, there were9556 lane miles of freeways and arterialstreets with 49,501,000 vehicle miles oftravel daily. Fifty-nine percent were operat-ing in ‘congested conditions.’ So the con-gestion levels on the major roadwaynetworks in the peak hours have increasedslightly over 100 percent while our vehiculartravel has increased over 300 percent. Howhas technology helped to reduce congestion?

There are several reasons why we havebeen able to have remarkable growth and stillhave a reasonable level of mobility. Thesereasons include technological advances intraffic management technology, increasedroadway network, increased transit rider-ship, telecommuting, ride sharing, changes

in development patterns and changes in‘lifestyle.’ This article will focus on changesin technology and traffic management.

A Brief History of Traffic Management TechnologyAt the end of the World War, our urbanstreet infrastructure was worn out and inneed of major enhancement. The city estab-lished a new Traffic Engineering Departmentand the Georgia State Highway Departmentformed a new Traffic and Safety Division.There was amazing growth in vehicles (andpopulation) in the Atlanta region. Between1947 and 1955, we were still trying to dealwith traffic with fixed time signals, no inter-connection of signals on arterial streets, andno ‘real-time’ surveillance of traffic condi-tions except what the citizens and policecould provide by telephone and radio. One-way streets were just beginning to be in-stalled, and on-street parking was stillallowed on arterial streets.

By 1962, interconnected signal systemswere beginning to appear on arterial streets

but signal timing for each individual inter-section had to be manually changed in thefield and surveillance of intersection opera-tion had to be done in the field by signaltechnicians. One-way streets were recog-nized as the way to move traffic, and we hadfinally removed on-street parking from arte-rial streets. In 1956, the Interstate HighwayAct was passed by Congress and freeway de-sign was beginning at the State HighwayDepartment.

Mid 1960s Atlanta’s ‘PR’ SystemIn the late ’50s and early ’60s there was amove to apply computer technology to traf-fic management and control. The city of At-lanta installed its first computer-controlledsystem—the ‘PR’ system for signal opera-tions on Ponce de Leon Avenue. The systemfeatured an on-street master controller whichcontrolled 30 local intersections using sen-sors that measured actual demand and al-lowed the adjustment of signal timing plansto best meet that need. Communication be-tween the master and the local controller

Technology Enhancements and Traffic ManagementBy John D. Edwards | Contributing Authors: William Andrews, David Benevelli, Michael Robertson, Joe Thomas, Marion Waters

I

18 GeorGia enGineer

were by hard wire connections. The ‘PR’System was later applied to Peachtree Streetresulting in increased capacity of up to 1200vehicles per lane—very high for a surfacestreet. Perhaps more important was the factthat a local staff of traffic engineers couldsuccessfully operate a computer controlledsignal system.

1972 The Urban Traffic Control System (UTCS)In 1972, the Traffic Operations Program toIncrease Capacity and Safety (TOPICS) waspassed by Congress which provided fundingto improve the application of new technolo-gies to traffic engineering and management.This resulted in the rapid development ofcomputerized signals and signal systems.The Urban Traffic Control System (UTCS)hardware and software was deployed in thecity of Atlanta which allowed the remotecontrol of the system and each intersection.The city of Atlanta begin to consider a cen-tralized traffic control system which wouldallow: (1) real-time timing adjustment oflocal controllers; (2) monitoring traffic sig-nals from a central location, and (3) reducedtravel time and gas consumption by the trav-eling public. In 1973, the first real-time cen-tral control system came on-line in theAtlanta Stadium area. Northside Drive,Peachtree Street, the downtown area, andother areas of the city were to follow.

1981 The ‘Closed Loop Concept’Another advancement in traffic managementand control was the development of the

‘Closed Loop Concept’ which was pioneeredby Joe Thomas and the Atlanta Traffic En-gineering Staff. This control concept essen-tially used a ‘field-based master’ forindividual systems monitoring and control,leaving the overall control of the regional sys-tem to a centralized master. This resulted insignificant savings in costs for a computercontrolled system.

The 1996 Olympics Contribution toTechnology EnhancementsGeorgia, and more specifically the Atlantametro region, received a huge windfall fortransportation operational improvements inthe early 1990s. When Atlanta was selectedfor the site of the 1996 Olympic Games (in1990), the national transportation fundingbill passed in late 1991 (ISTEA) containedan extra designated funding set-aside of$58.1 million for an Advanced Transporta-tion Management System for the Atlanta re-gion. The staff of the city of Atlanta andGeorgia DOT formulated a vision for themodernization of the existing signal controlsystems as an Advanced Freeway Manage-ment System to be maintained and operatedby GDOT.

NaviGAtor Intelligent Transportation SystemAfter the 1996 Olympics were over, thework on the ITS system did not cease.Through the continuing efforts of the DOTand city of Atlanta leaders, the NaviGAtorIntelligent Transportation System was ex-panded to include a DOT Traffic Manage-

ment Center and now, many traffic man-agement centers are in operation in many ofthe local jurisdictions including Cobb

19AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

County, Dekalb County, Sandy Springs, andothers. The ATMS system includes 280miles of continuous fiber optic cable cover-age, 2000 plus Video Detection Cameras,535 closed circuit television cameras(CCTV), 141 changeable message signs(CMS), and 165 ramp meters. The Trans-portation Management Center (TMC)serves not only Atlanta, but also the entirestate of Georgia. It coordinates with all 159Georgia counties across seven GDOT Dis-tricts to provide a statewide traveler infor-mation system to motorists. IntelligentTransportation System (ITS) infrastructurewas also installed on I- 475 near Macon andis operated by a dedicated TMC in Macon.Information from the NaviGAtor system isdisseminated to the public through messagesplaced on the CMSs, the www.511ga.orgWeb site, and the 511 Traveler InformationService, which provides real-time informa-tion about traffic conditions, incidents, laneclosures, and travel times.

Traffic Signal SystemsFor the improvements that later becameknown as the NaviGAtor Intelligent Trans-portation System, more than 1000 traffic sig-nals in the five metro counties wereupgraded with more than 600 of these in thecity of Atlanta. All 600 were interconnectedusing newly upgraded existing copper com-munications and new fiber optic cable wherepossible.

Communications and MonitoringCameras to monitor key arterials such asNorthside Drive, Capitol Avenue, the Pres-idential Parkway, Ponce de Leon Avenue,and the downtown area surrounding theGeorgia Dome were brought on-line tomonitor traffic in real time. Four camerasmounted on the top of the Georgia Domewith large telephoto lenses were installed tomonitor pedestrian and transit movementsin the areas where the most concentratedpedestrian activities were anticipated.

With the full anticipation that this sys-tem would become the foundation for amuch larger system for freeway manage-ment and operations, fiber optic cable wasdesigned and installed along most of I-75and I-85 inside I-285 with special attention

to the common section through downtownAtlanta.

Video SurveillanceCameras, changeable message signs, and ve-hicle detection was installed on approxi-mately 48 miles of interstate freeways andmade operational just two months ahead ofthe July 1996 Olympics. System expansioncontinued and still continues today. Thecurrent system provides full CCTV coverageon approximately 280 miles of freeways withmore than 500 CCTV cameras in the metroregion and about that same number of milesand cameras on arterial roadways that are op-erated and maintained by local governments. 2000-2012 Technology Improvements toTraffic Management

The story of technology did not end in1996. While the implementation no longerproceeded at the pre-Olympic pace, muchhad been learned, and the benefits of the sys-tem had been well documented and provenunder the pressure of actual operation. Theoriginal traffic management center for Geor-gia DOT was installed soon after theOlympics. This was soon expanded to localtraffic management centers.

Local Transportation ManagementCenters (TMC)Clayton, Cobb, Dekalb, Douglas, Fulton, andGwinnett counties all have operating Trans-portation Management Centers. The cities ofAlpharetta, Roswell, Sandy Springs, andJohns Creek have similar facilities. These

transportation management centers provide24 hour monitoring and control of freewaysand arterial streets in the six counties.

CommunicationsPerhaps the greatest improvement in tech-nology related to traffic management is notsignals and signal equipment but in the abil-ity to communicate data, video, and infor-mation from remote locations in the field tocentral office locations and the general pub-lic through ‘smart phones.’ This has beenmade possible through fiber optics, the in-terconnection of many local and state trafficcontrol centers and ‘on-the-street’ hardwarethrough standardized software.

Now ‘Flipswitch Communications’ al-

lows persons in the talk group to easily com-municate with other elements in the group.While separate groups are available for fire,police, and public works—the 800 mhzTrunk System is much better than the old150 mhz band when everyone had their ownfrequency. Many city or county TMC’s haveor will have a Navigator Station that cancommunicate with the GDOT Traffic Man-agement Center - Cobb, Gwinnett, Clayton,and Dekalb already have an established sta-tion eliminating the need to go thru an ex-ternal Web site to pan, tilt or zoom a videocamera. With a Navigator Station, localTMC’s will have command and control ofany asset on the system.

Signal Equipment and SystemsTraffic Signal Coordination (TSC): Annualbenefits grew at a fairly steady pace of about$70 million per year between 1997 and 2004,but have remained relatively constant in theyears since. TSC technologies had high an-nual mobility benefit estimates of over$276.5 million, at 2007 deployment levels(2009 dollars). In the signal systems of the1960s-1980s, there was limited access to anindividual controller from a central location.Any timing and coordination changes had tobe done by hand in the field. All of the ‘in-telligence’ was concentrated in the central of-fice. Three events occurred in the 1980s andearly 1990s: (1) The ‘Closed Loop System’idea by Joe Thomas and the Atlanta staffstimulated the thinking of the need for stan-dardization in equipment specifications andmanufacture; (2) The National ElectricalManufacturers Association began to stan-dardize all traffic control equipment and tostandardize control software and (3) CAL-TRANS began to standardize all equipmentstandards and purchase specifications. Thisled to the standardization of all signal systemsand equipment and made the interconnec-tion of systems more practical. Secondly,since the 1990s, local signal controllers havehad coordination patterns, timing programs,detector inputs and other local intersectiondata stored in the local controller.

Dynamic Message SignsDynamic message signs allow the motorist toview estimated travel times to his/her destina-tion and in the case of a travel incident, to di-vert to an alternative route. National studiesindicate that annual benefits grew by roughly$100 million per year until 2003; growth hasbeen far more modest since. At 2007 deploy-ment levels (2009 dollars), these technologieshad high annual mobility benefit estimates ofover $543.1 million. Nearly a hundred mes-sage signs on the Atlanta freeway system pro-vide motorists information about trafficconditions, incidents, and travel times. Thevariable message signs can provide motoristsinformation on a real time basis and are in-valuable in incident management.

Video SurveillanceInformation and video is shared with other

20 GeorGia enGineer

21AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

agencies including many police departmentsand 911 centers. The information is alsoshared widely to virtually every news mediaorganization. One of the major advantagesin video surveillance is the ability to verifythe need for first responders. In one city theuse of video surveillance reduced the num-ber of first responder calls by 86 percent.Video surveillance is invaluable in conges-tion management as well.

Incident ManagementSeveral traffic management organizationshave been created in the Atlanta area to re-duce incident impacts on freeways and arte-rial streets. The Traffic Incident ManagementEnhancement (TIME) task force is a coordi-native inter-agency program, which includesthe HERO program and the Towing and Re-covery Incentive Program (TRIP) to reducethe time for clearing accidents on freewaysand arterial streets. Prior to TRIP, it requiredan average of 283 minutes from the begin-ning of an incident to open the roadway.During the first year of TRIP (2008), the av-erage clearance time dropped 58 percent to118 minutes. In 2009, the roadway wasopened in 97 minutes, a 66 percent im-provement. A study calculated the value ofTRIP by calculating the actual cost of eachTRIP incident in 2008 and 2009. TRIPsaved more than 165 minutes. Assuming a60-minute savings, the value of TRIP is$9,154,431, giving a benefit-to-cost ratio of10.98 to one. In addition to the monetarybenefits of the program, TRIP ensures thatqualified operators respond to the incidentscene with trained staff, the appropriateequipment, and a desire to do the job rightand open the road quickly. The value of theseother benefits should not be overlooked whenreviewing the benefits of the program

HERO ProgramThe Highway Emergency Response Opera-tors program is a Highway Incident Man-agement service patrol operated in metroAtlanta, Georgia by the Georgia Departmentof Transportation (GDOT). Both the pro-gram and the individual vehicles are typicallyreferred to by the acronym HERO. The pro-gram began in Atlanta in 1994 and has sincebeen expanded in association with GDOT's

Navigator Intelligent Transportation Systemprogram. The HERO unit’s primary purposeis to minimize traffic congestion by clearingwrecked or disabled vehicles from the road-way lanes and providing traffic control at in-cident scenes. The program operates on 31

References and Sources of InformationThe Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO), within the U.S.Department of Transportation’s (USDOT's) Research and Innovative Technology Ad-ministration, is responsible for conducting research on behalf of the USDOT and all majormodes to advance transportation safety, mobility, and environmental sustainability throughelectronic and information technology applications, known as ITS. ITS applications focuson both the infrastructure and vehicle, as well as integrated applications between the two,to enable the creation of an intelligent transportation system.

The USDOTs ITS Program supports the overall advancement of ITS through investmentsin major research initiatives, exploratory studies, and a deployment support program. In-creasingly, federal investments target opportunities or major initiatives that have the po-tential for significant payoff in improving safety, mobility, and roadway capacity.

routes covering 310 miles of freeway in the

Atlanta metropolitan area. The program op-

erates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Typ-

ically, HERO’s work over 100,000 incidents

per year.v

22 GeorGia enGineer

Cleaning Up:Atlanta’s Compliance with

Federal Consent Decrees Earns Extra Time

By Jo Ann Macrina, P.E. | Commissioner | City of Atlanta | Department of Watershed Management

Today, the city of Atlanta is managing its infra-structure—integrating water, wastewater, andstormwater management—in ways unimaginablea generation ago. This came about because prior to 1998, re-peated sewer spills plagued Atlanta's residents and business owners.Multiple and frequent violations of the Clean Water Act precipi-tated a number of lawsuits, ultimately leading to two federal Con-sent Decrees: a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Consent Decreeentered in 1998, and the First Amended Consent Decree dealingwith Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) entered in 1999. These un-funded mandates called for the near elimination of CSOs allowingfor a maximum of four annual overflow events as well as rehabili-tation and replacement of an aging system to reduce the numberand volume of overflows.

Even after successfully meeting the CSO Consent Decreedeadline of November 2008, Atlanta’s ability to remain in compli-ance with the SSO Consent Decree was uncertain. With strainedbudgets, mounting debt, and numerous other infrastructure needs,leaders recognized the necessity to alleviate pressure from the re-maining mandates at an estimated cost of $500 million. In April2010, Atlanta initiated its appeal for relief. The city’s team made abold request, a 15-year extension and promised in return to con-tinue all the work in good faith and completing major projects be-fore the July 2014 original completion date.

Could the municipality that was once used as a model of non-compliance successfully present itself as a model of compliance?

This photo was taken from inside the shaft of the SouthRiver Tunnel. The tunnel collects flows from existing sanitarysewers and transports them to a newly constructed pumping

station at the South River Water Reclamation Center. Thetunnel spans 9,000 feet with a 14-foot finished diameterand extends from the South River facility to Macon Drive.

The tunnel was brought online in 2011.

23AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

24 GeorGia enGineer

Model of ComplianceIt was necessary to prove without a doubtthat all of the CSO Consent Decree require-ments had been fulfilled as well as the SSOConsent Decree milestones up to the currenttime. Equally as important, the city neededto demonstrate the extraordinary financialburden placed on the rate payers with a po-tential for failure of other infrastructure dueto disproportionate spending.

Atlanta’s Department of WatershedManagement (DWM) successfully met everyproject milestone, changed procedures andprotocols to support a more effective opera-tion and maintenance program, establishedregular tracking and reporting of capitalprojects and maintenance, and trained em-ployees in applicable practices.

The multi-pronged approach to reduc-ing spills included repairing and improvingthe sewer system, adding sewer capacity, andseparating the combined sanitary fromstormwater collection system. Fifteen per-cent of the city’s collection system is com-bined and is the most challenging systemsince rain events can often overwhelm thedesign capacity, causing overflows.

Last year, the city finished a compre-hensive physical and video inspection of thesewer system to identify structural defects,infiltration, and inflow. The Sewer SystemEvaluation Survey, or SSES, involved morethan 1,600 miles of sewer lines and took tenyears to complete. Armed with the surveydata, Atlanta has repaired or replaced almost400 miles of the most critical defects duringthe sewer rehabilitation program. Surveyedsewers were categorized into six groups, withlines in greatest need of repair receiving thefirst attention.

To provide additional capacity, DWMcompleted 24 storage tank and tunnel proj-ects, such as Nancy Creek Tunnel and PumpStation, completed in 2005, providing reli-able long-term system capacity for variousoutfall and trunk sewers.

All told, the city has reduced the overallnumber of sewer spills to creeks and rivers byan amazing 80 percent.

Program Financing & Ratepayer BurdenTo pay for infrastructure neglect during pastadministrations, Atlanta raised billions inrevenues to meet Consent Decree mandates.Sewer improvements have been funded by acombination of large increases in water andsewer rates between 2004 and 2012, bond is-suances, low-interest loans from the state,and a special one-cent tax levy called the Mu-nicipal Option Sales Tax.

Atlanta's efforts to play ‘catch up’ withcollection system needs now translates to a40 percent budget allocation to debt repay-ment and the highest water and sewer ratesin the country. DWM is moving forward ona ‘pay as we go’ basis to avoid further debt. Inaddition, since the city experienced consentdecree myopia for the past 15 years, treat-ment plants and other linear infrastructurehave taken a back seat. For every dollar spenton the drinking water distribution system,four dollars were spent on the sanitary sewercollection system.

Breathing a Sigh of ReliefThrough strong leadership and wisdom,Mayor Kasim Reed made the crucial decisionto request an unprecedented extension to afederal consent decree and in September2012, received approval for an additional 13years. “Since 1999, the city of Atlanta hasdramatically reduced the number of sewerspills and significantly decreased the numberof rain-induced overflows into Atlanta’s riversand streams,” Mayor Kasim Reed said afterthe ruling. “The consent decree extension

will allow the city to continue vital infra-structure repairs that reduce sewage over-flows and protect our natural resources anddrinking water. I deeply appreciate the effortsof all parties in negotiating this agreement,which enables the city to complete its workwithout putting any further burden onratepayers.”

Going forward, the time extension as-sures that the department will be able to in-vest appropriately across its linearinfrastructure and treatment facilities. Thoseneeds can now be appropriately balancedwith remaining consent decree work com-pleted at a more sustainable pace.

“This schedule extension will enable At-lanta to ensure that the remaining improve-ments to the wastewater system arecompleted in the most cost-effective mannerwhile protecting public health and the envi-ronment,” said Jo Ann Macrina, WatershedManagement Commissioner. “These invest-ments in the city’s infrastructure will con-tinue to pay dividends for decades to come.”

Path Forward - Integrated and Sustainable Water ManagementAtlanta’s 13-year extension from U.S. Dis-trict Judge Thomas Thrash is the first Con-sent Decree schedule revision authorized bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyand Department of Justice. This reflects, inpart, Atlanta’s extraordinary success in timelycompletion of its obligations. “I think the ex-tension will put the city’s water and sewersystems on a sustainable basis,” Thrash said

“...it really is a remarkable accomplish-ment…”

- Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

25AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

in a 2012 interview with the Atlanta Jour-nal-Constitution.

DWM now has the breathing room todo business differently; more effectively andefficiently, more balanced.

Atlanta is actively implementing greenmethods to improve water quality and in-crease sewer system capacity. “It’s not justabout sewers, pipes, construction, bulldoz-ers, and building giant tunnels. It's alsoabout creating better creeks and streamsand watersheds,” Macrina said. Increased

emphasis is placed on green measures thataddress both sewer overflow issues and sur-face water management. DWM’s responseto recent flooding incidents is evidence ofthe shift in thinking within the departmenton best practices in addressing these typesof problems. Last year in the Custer sewerbasin in southeast Atlanta, rain gardens andbioswales were installed to help alleviate fu-ture flooding after a major rain eventcaused damage in the Peoplestown com-munity. Pervious pavers with an under-

ground drainage system will be installedlater this year.

Atlanta is evolving into a leader in inte-grated water resource management by suc-cessfully meeting its obligations under theconsent decrees while ensuring reliable andsustainable systems overall. It owes its suc-cess to strong leadership, an acceptance of itsenvironmental responsibility, and commit-ment to protect and make best use of limitedresources entrusted to it. v

Below is a photo of the Historic Fourth Ward Park in downtown Atlanta. In conjunction with the Atlanta Beltline development proj-ect, Watershed Management constructed a detention pond as the park’s centerpiece. This innovative infrastructure solution savedthe city more than $15 million versus a traditional storm water tunnel system, and is one of the many sustainable features of thepark, which opened in June 2011.

26 GeorGia enGineer

Got trees? n Georgia, we do. Lots of them.And in today’s world where is-sues such as the economy, cli-mate change, and sustainabilityare major concerns, where do allthese trees fit in, and what canwe do with them?

If you keep up-to-date with the latestheadlines, no doubt you’ve heard about theEuropean Union’s mandates for carbonemissions and transforming Europe into ahighly energy-efficient, low carbon econ-omy. Countries in the EU are committedto making 20 percent of their energy comefrom renewable sources by 2020. Woodand other forms of biomass pellets are re-newable, and when compared to the costof many other renewable sources, less ex-pensive. By using biomass in place of coal,plus wind, solar, and wave technology, it’spossible for the EU to reach its goal. Infact, according to former president, nobellaureate, and Georgia resident JimmyCarter, “The Europeans have learned firstand now they are buying pelleted wood, asyou know, to cut down on the amount ofcoal and other things that they burn. Ithink, in the future, the research done byHerty and others is going to make surethat we in Georgia and throughout theU.S. are going to use a lot more of thewood energy than we do now. With re-search and with a commitment, particu-larly with the White House and theCongress, I think we’ll see this done.”

Here’s where Georgia’s incredibleforests come into play. Georgia has over 24million acres of forests, with our treesgrowing nearly 40 percent faster than whatis being harvested. According to GeorgiaTech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute,Georgia’s forest industry had a total impactof over $25 billion in 2011, ranked second

in total compensation, and supported118,459 state-wide jobs.

Because of statistics like these, Georgiaand the Southeast are smart choices for theEU and pellet manufacturers. Why? First,the EU doesn’t have the climate or landmass to supply itself, so other options are anecessity. In addition, the US offers a sta-ble and friendly government and doesn’thave rainforests to endanger by cuttingdown trees. Also, much of US land hasmanagement practices in place ensuring asustainable feedstock. For Georgia forestersand land owners, trees are considered acrop and planted in straight rows, similarto the way corn is planted in states such asIowa. When the trees are harvested, moretrees are planted. If there is no demand forbiomass, the trees won’t be replanted. Pres-ident Carter explains it best: “This is an-other example of renewable energy thatcan be replaced and all the energy comesdirectly from the sun as the tree grows andmatures." And interestingly, 91 percent of

Georgia timberland is privately owned.Georgia boasts more acreage of privatelyowned forests than any other state. Own-ers range from small family farms thatcomprise a few acres to companies likePlum Creek that own hundreds of thou-sands of acres.

With our vast amount of acreage,Georgia stands as a prime example of astate utilizing its natural resources and cap-italizing on business opportunities bothabroad and at home. Currently, there aremore than six facilities in Georgia makingpellets for export to Europe. Located inWaycross, Georgia, and operating underthe name of ‘Georgia Biomass,’ the Euro-pean utility ‘RWE’ built one of the largestpellet producing facilities in the world. An-other facility, and a major player in the pel-let market, is Fram Renewable Fuels. Theyhave a mill located in Baxley, Georgia, andplan to build a second mill in Hazlehurst,Georgia. When in full operation, the Ha-zlehurst facility will use up to one million

Georgia’s Forests: Providing Trees for the EU andSustainability for the USBy Ms. Jill Stuckey | Director, Biomass Development | Georgia Southern University’s Herty Advanced Materials Development Center

Pictured above: Pine tree chips ready to be processed into pellets and sent toEurope. Photo by Jill Stuckey.

I

27AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

metric tons of raw material annually. Framhas done due diligence and has researchedseveral aspects of the pellet market. Withthe help of the Georgia Forestry Commis-sion and the US Forest Service, Fram hasdetermined there is more than sufficientgrowth, in excess of demand, to supply thenew facility. Currently, both Georgia Bio-mass and Fram Renewable Fuels transportpellets, by way of rail or truck, to ports inSavannah and Brunswick, Georgia, andthen on to Europe. Also, General Biofuels,Enova, and others have announced plansto build pellet mills in Georgia.

But why send so much of Georgia’snatural resource abroad? The answer, likemany things, relates to cost. What Ameri-cans pay each month to keep their lightson is roughly half of what many Europeanspay. For example, wood pellets priced at$250 per ton are more cost effective thannatural gas in most European markets.Georgia has the unique opportunity toprovide our neighbors across the sea with aless expensive, environmentally-friendly,alternative energy source. And that’s goodbusiness. Not only does pellet productionhelp the EU reach its energy goals, but itpromotes sustainable utilization of ourforests, jobs for our citizens, and money forGeorgia’s logistics industry and tax coffers.One of the keys to healthy growth is to sitethese mills in areas of high wood growthand low wood demand. We don’t want toharm our existing pulp and paper industryor other industries that utilize biomass.

Some 80 years ago, Dr. Charles H.Herty developed a way to take our south-ern yellow pine tree and make paper, cat-alyzing the southern pulp and paperindustry. At his namesake, the Herty Ad-vanced Materials Development Center, apart of Georgia Southern University, we

work on ways to take biomass and developeven higher value products—such aschemicals, fuels, and pharmaceuticals. Wealso provide research and development as-sistance in the pulp and paper and pelletindustries. Herty has assisted companiesin the development of recycling processesfor both synthetic and natural fibers andhelped create innovative processes to addstrength to building and paper products.In terms of pellet research, our fully-inte-grated pellet line processes biomass to formpellets at a rate of one dry ton per hour.This, along with laboratory testing capa-bilities, allows us to fully characterize en-ergy pellets produced from a range offeedstocks. In this way, companies can re-duce technical risk from a thorough as-sessment of feedstocks and conversion

technologies. More importantly, the pel-lets produced at Herty can be field testedat the utility to confirm processability andperformance in test burns.

In the future, is it possible to find away to better utilize biomass right here inGeorgia, thereby bringing more jobs toour rural areas? I believe that it is possible.Our pulp and paper industry, after yearsof decline, and slow to no growth, ishealthy again. Our timber industry isstarting to see signs that the future isbright; housing starts are increasing, andthere is optimism of a strong lumber ex-port market. Georgia and other states likeher can find a way to fully embrace, re-search, and develop even more value-added products from biomass. v

28 GeorGia enGineer

Teamwork Tackles ChallengingRiverbank RestorationBy Paul Slovisky | Vice President for Operations | Aquascape Environmental

n the aftermath of the recent re-cession, Metro Atlanta was left lit-tered with stalled, unfinishedresidential developments. Inmany cases, infrastructure was putin place but funding was lost be-fore the home construction could

begin. In Bartow County, Riverside Planta-tion had met this fate. The proposed com-munity on the Etowah River had graded lots,paved roads, water, sewer, and stormwaterstructures, but building had been delayed forseveral years.

In 2012, the property came under thenew ownership of Rialto Capital, which thenretained Mr. Tad Braswell with East LakeAsset Management to ready the property forhome construction. In the original infra-structure design for Riverside Plantation, thebulk of the stormwater runoff from the de-velopment had been piped directly to theEtowah River. Mr. Braswell discovered thatthe existing concrete stormwater pipes andadjoining outfalls had failed in three loca-tions. These locations exhibited significantchannel incision immediately downstream ofeach of the stormwater outfalls. The on-going erosion had served to undermine theconcrete outfall structures and the existingstormwater culverts, while significantly de-grading the adjacent riverbanks. These fail-ures had created a mass wasting of theriverbank, with the head-cut features at eachfailed location contributing significant quan-tities of sediment to the river.

Based on this discovery, Mr. Braswellcontacted Kent Campbell of Eco-South totake the lead in developing a solution to ad-dress the stormwater issues within a frame-work of sensitivity to the river environment.Mr. Campbell assembled a team of profes-sionals to address the unique challenges ofthe project. On the engineering side, thefirm of McFarland-Dyer & Associates wastasked with developing plans to address theinfrastructure details. Due to the damage cre-

ated on the riverbank, the project also re-quired a ‘green’ approach to stabilizing theriverbanks, rather than the standard practiceof hard armoring. Mr. Campbell collabo-rated with Aquascape Environmental to de-sign and implement an appropriaterestoration plan for the damaged riverbankand associated riparian buffer areas.

RestorationA two-phase approach was designed to firststabilize each drainage feature and then re-store the degraded riverbank and associatedriparian buffer areas. In order to stabilize thechannel erosion at each of the failure loca-tions, standard concrete drop inlet structureswere installed to adequately transitionstormwater flows to the proper elevation/in-vert. Stormwater flows were then conveyedinto the Etowah River via a reinforced con-crete pipe culvert system terminating at astandard concrete headwall feature. These re-pairs were completed by W.E. Contractingof Acworth, Georgia.

Upon completion of the infrastructure

repairs, the next step was the effort to restorethe original contours of the damaged river-bank. Simply filling the eroded areas withcompacted fill/soil was not a viable optionbecause of the vertical gradient of the banks.An additional challenge was the fact that thelevel of the Etowah River fluctuates regularlywithin the impacted reach due to dam activ-ity associated with an electrical power stationupstream. The site conditions required arestoration method that would provide im-mediate stabilization and adequate soil com-paction, while avoiding a hard armoredapproach and allowing for a successful ripar-ian buffer re-vegetation. Aquascape Envi-ronmental determined that the mosteffective approach would be a Vegetation Re-inforced Soil System (VRSS) utilizing soilencapsulated, earthen lifts. To streamline ef-forts, W.E. Contracting equipment and op-erators remained on site to provide the‘heavy lifting’ for this process under the di-rect supervision of the specialized AquascapeEnvironmental restoration crew.

I

29AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

Building the LiftsAs with any building project, the key to suc-cess is to start with a solid, stable base. In thiscase it was essential to ensure the stability ofthe riverbank and the newly repairedstormwater culvert outlet structures. A track-hoe excavator was used to first install a baselayer of Type Three granite riprap (18"-36"stone) at the toe of slope of the riverbank.This rock was ‘trenched in’ at a minimumdepth of 18" below grade to anchor it inplace, and extended 1.5-3 feet above the nor-mal low water wark to account for the fre-quent water fluctuations. A layer of wovenfilter fabric was placed over the rock and se-cured with metal pins to prevent soil lossthrough the rock base layer. Custom metalangle irons were laid over the fabric-coveredrocks to hold a series of two-by-twelve-inchwooden batter boards. The batter boardswere placed on edge vertically to form a tem-porary framing to adequately compact the filldirt used to construct the lift layer. Typicallytwo batter boards are placed against the angleirons to construct a two-foot high frame inorder to achieve a twelve-to-eighteen-inchsoil encapsulated lift.

Next, three layers of fabric were placedover the rock with the extra lengths foldedover the batter boards. The layers were: coirerosion control matting (a natural fiber ex-tracted from coconut husks); TerraGrid fab-ric (a bi-axial geogrid soil re-enforcementmaterial used for its strength); and burlap.These fabric layers were secured into the ex-isting bank with two-by-four-inch woodenwedges. Soil was used to build up the lift,sloped slightly away from the river and to-wards the bank. The soil was compactedusing a hand-operated ‘Jumping Jack’ com-pactor and vibratory plate tamp. After solidcompaction, the extra lengths of the fabricslayers were pulled back over the soil lift withslight tension via the excavator and securedinto the riverbank with two-by-four-inchwooden wedges.

As the lifts are completed, the batterboards and angle irons are removed andreused to construct the next lift on top of theprior one. Each lift is set back about six totwelve inches in order to match the adjacentriverbank slope. Typically, dormant blackwillow and/or silky dogwood cuttings, six-

to-eight-feet long, are laid on top of the firstlift, with two-thirds of the cuttings coveredby the second lift and the outer one-thirdsticking out in the open air. However, due tothe urgent nature of this project necessitat-ing a summer installation, utilizing thosematerials was not an option. To compensate,Aquascape Environmental instead installedone gallon container, nursery grown vegeta-tion. A four-to- six-inch layer of an enrichedpotting soil mixture was installed betweeneach encapsulated lift to encourage the suc-cessful establishment of this vegetaton. Ad-ditional lifts were constructed in the samemanner as the first, to the appropriate bankheight for the site.

Upon completion of construction activ-ities, the entire site was temporarily stabilizedfor the summer months. This was achievedby hydro-seeding an appropriate combina-tion of native warm and cool season grassmixture and coverage of all exposed/dis-turbed areas with a layer of blown, shreddedhay mulch. Aquascape Environmental re-turned to the site during the following dor-mant planting season to complete there-establishment of the required minimum25’ riparian buffer with the installation ofappropriate native vegetation, including low-growing riparian shrub and herbaceous ma-

terials. Dormant willow cuttings were alsoinstalled within the VRSS areas to supple-ment the previously installed container ma-terial that was hit hard by droughtconditions experienced immediately after thecompletion of construction.

ResultsFollow up inspections of the site show thatwoody vegetation has become establishedand will continue to mature with age. It isexpected that the planted species will becomplemented by volunteer plant speciesover time. With the newly installed drainagestructures functioning as designed, it shouldbe difficult for observers of the riverbank todiscern the restored sections from the previ-ously existing areas within five to seven years.__________________________________Paul Slovisky is the Vice President for Oper-ations at Aquascape Environmental inWoodstock, Georgia. He holds a B.S. inEarth Sciences from Mercer University, andis a Certified Professional in Erosion andSediment Control and a Certified Profes-sional in Storm Water Quality. AquascapeEnvironmental has provided professional so-lutions for land and water resources in theSoutheast since 1990. v

30 GeorGia enGineer

Highway Engineering, Plantations, and Archaeology: where the present intersects the pastBy Brad Botwick and Rita Folse Elliott | New South Associates Inc. | Stone Mountain, Georgia

ool, filtered shade replaces thebright sunlight as one enters thewoods. A 400 year old live oakguards the entrance, in mute tes-timony to four centuries of pastlife here. Intermittent melodiesof song birds slowly muffle the

din of car and motorcycle engines from theadjacent four-lane road. The passage fromthe noisy 21st century to an earlier world isboth figurative and literal on these 20 acresof land. As early as 1750, colonists claimedthis property through English Crowngrants. A succession of more than 23landowners included this parcel in theirholdings. By the late 1700s, large planta-tions arose throughout this neck of landsouth of Little Ogeechee River, nearGeorgetown in Chatham County, Georgia.The plantations have since disappeared butthe ancient live oak remains, much olderand enclosed in a small patch of woods sur-rounded by encroaching residential andcommercial development. The press ofmodern Savannah, increasing population,the development of once rural areas, andthe continual demand for roads has led tosignificant congestion on State Route204/Abercorn Extension. For these reasons,the Georgia Department of Transportation(GDOT) has begun implementing plans tomodify the road to facilitate the circulationof traffic. It was this decision that triggeredfederal laws mandating archaeological in-vestigation of the site, enabling the rare op-portunity to document and interpret lifehere more than 200 years ago.

The study combines historical research,archaeological fieldwork, and laboratoryanalysis to better understand how the site’sformer occupants, including African-Ameri-cans enslaved on the plantations, lived. Theexcavation also incorporated a unique pro-gram of public outreach, including in-depthpublic tours, project content available

through social media, creation of a children’sbook, and development of an educator’s cur-riculum.

Archaeologists from New South Asso-ciates Inc., in consultation with GDOT,spent three months excavating the site andrecovering traces of the houses, storage pits,and other features and artifacts used anddiscarded by the inhabitants. These materi-

als provide significant information abouthow they lived. Enslaved African-Americansin general left little account of their livesand experiences, and archaeology is one ofthe few ways we have to learn about howthey lived and formed communities forthemselves within the constraints of planta-tion slavery.

No specific historical data about the set-

C

tlement at the Abercorn site were found, butland records indicate the property wasowned by the Wilson, Spencer, and Scottfamilies during the mid-1700s to mid-1800s.The plantation main houses associated withthese properties were constructed away fromthis archaeological site, suggesting that theslave settlement was placed near the fieldswhere the enslaved worked and did not formpart of the more stereotypical version of asouthern plantation dominated by theplanter’s house with slave houses and othersupport structures arrayed nearby. Civil Warmaps show a small cluster of buildings in thegeneral vicinity of the site, which might rep-resent the settlement, although the buildingsare not labeled and it is not known who livedin or used them.

Archaeological fieldwork has recoveredevidence of three structures, including twohouses with brick chimneys and one smallbuilding with a trench foundation. As smallas this latter building was (it measured onlyabout 15 x 10 feet) it may represent a housefor enslaved African-Americans. If so, itmight be expected to accommodate as manyas ten people. It is probable that in additionto brick chimneys, houses at the site werebuilt with clay chimneys supported with logand stick frameworks. A large clay borrowpit found near the settlement was probablyused to collect material for these chimneys.Archaeologists have also found storage facil-ities consisting of large cylindrical or bowl-shaped pits measuring about three feet indiameter and up to three feet deep. Severalother pits of various sizes have uncertain

functions but are similar to those found atslave occupations in coastal Georgia andSouth Carolina. Pits like these were used bythe enslaved to store root crops and otherfoods through the winter.

Artifacts have not yet been analyzed,but they include a wide range of householditems including European and American-made ceramics and glass bottles, metal im-plements, such as cast iron kettles, buttonsand other clothing fasteners, and otheritems. Artifacts that have known manufac-turing dates indicate the site was occupiedthrough the Civil War and at least to the lastquarter of the nineteenth century, an indi-cation that Freedmen may have returned tothe plantation land after the war. Archaeol-ogists collected soil samples that are ex-

pected to provide evidence of plant and an-imal foods used by the site’s inhabitants, andnumerous oyster shells indicate that theymade use of nearby estuaries for subsistence.An iron trap and a few pieces of lead shotindicate that the inhabitants also huntedsmall animals and birds for food. Analysis ofartifacts and field data is very preliminary atthis time, but the site is expected to yieldimportant information about the lives ofAfrican-Americans enslaved on Georgiaplantations, including how they organizedsettlements and used their domestic yards,their degree of autonomy in such matters,and how they differed from slaves who livedcloser to the planter’s house.

Because this study was conducted withpublic funding and on behalf of the public,GDOT and New South Associates enthusi-astically incorporated a program of publicaccess to allow visitors to participate in toursof the site during excavations and follow thework on internet social media, includingFaceBook and the worldwide Web. Thisprovided an unusual opportunity to sharethe history of the area and the unique waysthat archaeological study can uncover anddocument that history. A total of 1,098 vis-itors came to the site during a nine week pe-riod, participating in four 90-minute toursdaily. Visitors included neighborhood resi-dents, city of Savannah and ChathamCounty staff and employees, homeschooledstudents, eight classes of undergraduate and

31AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

32 GeorGia enGineer

graduate students from three universities,196 students from two local elementaryschools, members of museums and historicalorganizations, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, fed-eral agency staff, employees of private cor-porations, journalists, and members of thearmed forces. The experience illustrated thepublic’s intense interest in ChathamCounty’s past and its universal surprise todiscover that unlike the federal protectionsoffered to the Abercorn Site throughGDOT, most archaeological sites in historicSavannah and Chatham Counties remainunprotected due to the lack of any city orcounty ordinances. These sites are subject todestruction without archaeological excava-tions that save the unique and valuable in-formation they contain about our collectivehistory.

Archaeologists will complete a reportabout the important discoveries at the site.The artifacts and the field notes will be cu-rated in perpetuity as a significant collection,where it can be studied indefinitely into thefuture to provide us with new understand-ings of past life at the Abercorn site. The

400-year old oak will be preserved as a her-itage tree and will remain as a reminder ofthe history and past occupants of the site.The tree stands as a symbol of the benefitsthat can accrue through the intersection ofengineering, design, preservation, and pub-lic awareness. v

33AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

ommunity members and com-missioners alike are excited aboutthe completion of a new recre-ational trail in Douglas County,Georgia. Since its ribbon-cuttingon May 10, 2013, the new 0.75-mile trail is already attracting

walkers, runners, joggers, and cyclists look-ing for a chance to escape, breathe some freshair, and exercise as they explore the shadypathway. The trail is located in a DouglasCounty mega-park and runs near the smoothChattahoochee River, providing users with ascenic route as they take in the beautiful nat-ural landscape of Georgia.

Even though the completed trail is onlythree-quarters of a mile long, it is extremelysignificant in that it marks the first segmentin a much larger planned multipurpose trail—the Chattahoochee Hill Country RegionalGreenway Trail, which is proposed to span98 miles through Douglas, Carroll, Coweta,and Fulton Counties. The overall trail net-work will promote active, healthy lifestyles,as well as provide an alternative transporta-tion option among all four counties.

The completion of Douglas County’ssegment of the trail sets the stage and buildsmomentum for the region’s future plans, asthe new trail displays a detailed image ofwhat the community can expect to see oncethe entire trail system is finished.

“Completing this pilot segment is agreat accomplishment,” said Sara Huie, proj-ect manager with facilities and infrastructureconsulting firm RS&H who led the design.“It’s a vision of what the whole trail systemwill eventually look like.”

In order to enrich the area through en-vironmental and cultural features, the firstpiece was designed with its own unique iden-tity and distinctiveness, added Huie. The de-sign team worked closely with a unique groupof representatives from the four counties todecide on an overall theme with the goal ofenhancing the park’s existing character, while

paying particular attention to the environ-ment and surrounding natural resources, likethe river and animal habitats, she said.

“The look and feel was an important as-pect of the project, since the theme will likelybe carried out across the many features of theentire trail system,” Huie said. “We wantedto carefully select an overall theme that rep-resents and matches the surrounding subur-ban and rural character of the region.”

The team selected features that blendinto the natural environment. For instance,outdoor furniture, like benches and trash re-ceptacles, incorporate natural elements likewood grain. Through color and style, fea-tures such as signage, furniture, bike racks,and water fountains mesh with the naturalenvironment without intruding or takingaway from the peacefulness of the naturallandscape that guests will enjoy.

According to Huie, the team also devel-oped standards for the trail’s identification,

directional, regulatory, and mile-maker signs,which allow for quick and easy navigationand wayfinding. Now that these standards arein place, they can be carried over to the newsections as more segments are added to thetrail, creating a consistent, recognizable iden-tity for the 98-mile regional trail network.

To ensure construction would not dis-turb the park’s character, the trail carefullyloops around ponds and other natural fea-tures, avoiding disruption of the land. Thesegment was built as an addition to thepark’s existing hiking trail in order to pro-vide guests with another route and the op-portunity to enjoy a smooth, pavedfoundation for a variety of physical activi-ties. The trail is also wheelchair accessible,allowing all users to comfortably enjoy thewoods and the entire park.

Fitting seamlessly into the surroundingenvironment, the first section of the 98-miletrail was a successful groundbreaking projectthat everyone in the community will enjoy.The trail encourages healthier and more ac-tive lifestyles through outdoor activities,while connecting people with nature.

“Eventually, when more segments of thetrail are built and connected, it will be a greatadditional mode of transportation for resi-dents and visitors of all four counties,” saidHuie. “It will also be a unique recreationalopportunity giving people access to one ofGeorgia’s great natural resources—the Chat-tahoochee River.” v

First Leg in 98-mile Regional Trail System Opens to PublicBy Krystal Modigell | RS&H

e trail’s features, like signage, representnatural colors and styles that blend into the

environment.

e start of the trail features an inviting trail-head and rest area.

C

34 GeorGia enGineer

ne hundred and thirty-one yearsago, engineers and workmen werebusy constructing the largest ma-sonry dam in the south. In 1882,the brand new Eagle and PhenixDam would stretch 1,000 feetfrom Columbus, Georgia to

Phenix City, Alabama. The dam at the FallLine created a mill pond one mile long and30 feet deep that provided reliable power inthe form of falling water for the city’s factoryand mill turbines. Fast forward to 2013, theEagle and Phenix Dam and another historicdam at City Mills have just been removed inan effort to restore the river and create criti-cal habitat for aquatic life. In addition, anurban white water course has been createdthat brings rafters and kayak paddlers to theregion to run the newly freed rapids at theGreat Falls of the Chattahoochee River.

The Eagle and Phenix and City MillsDams were part of a National Historic Land-mark District that included significant his-toric industrial buildings and structuresalong the river in Columbus. As part of theagreement reached between the project spon-sor Uptown Columbus Inc. and the U SArmy Corps of Engineers, the historic damswere thoroughly documented before re-moval. Southern Research, Historic Preser-vation Consultants Inc. conducted theHistoric American Engineering Record(HAER) Level One Recording for bothdams. The work included historians, a his-toric architecture, industrial archaeologists,underwater archaeologists, 3 D laser scan-ning, and tree ring analysis.

In October of 2011, Southern Re-search’s team of investigators began docu-menting the two masonry dams before theywere removed. Our underwater archaeologyteams used Side Scan Sonar and divers tosearch the river bed for archaeological fea-tures before the dams were breached. As eachmasonry dam was breached, teams of ar-chaeologists entered the recently exposed

river bed of the Chattahoochee River toidentify and record the previously inundatedearly mills and dams. Beginning in 1828,Columbus’ mill and factory owners havebeen building dams into and across theChattahoochee River to divert or impoundwater for power. New dams would be con-structed downstream for more head and sub-sequently inundate the earlier ones upstream.When the Eagle and Phenix Dam and CityMills Dam were removed and the waterdrained, three old mills and eight dams wereidentified dating from 1828 to 1869.

Before the Eagle and Phenix Damspanned the Chattahoochee River in 1882,there were at least three earlier attempts toharness the river for the industries in Colum-bus. In 1848, a wood dam a quarter of a mileupstream of the Great Gorge was built anddiverted the river into a large head race orcanal to power the turbines of the textile fac-tories. This power distribution system con-sisted of a wood frame dam in the river andsubstantial stone walls to contain the waterin the headrace. In 1856, another attempt tospan the river resulted in the construction of

Damming the Great Falls of the Chattahoochee RiverW. Dean Wood | Southern Research | Historic Preservation Consultants Inc.

O

a larger wood frame dam downstream atwhat was referred to as the Great Gorge ofthe Chattahoochee. Yet another wood framedam was constructed in 1869 when theColumbus factories were rebuilt after theCivil War. These wood frame dams werecommonly used to impound streams andrivers until the late nineteenth century. Theyare a heavy timber frame structure, triangu-lar or wedge shaped that has the upstreamside faced in boards. They used the force andweight of water flowing over their sloped sur-face to exert a downward force on to thebedrock in the river bed. These self loadingdams made from local long leaf pine timberswere constructed six times in Columbus be-tween 1844 and 1870.

The Long Leaf Pine used to constructthe wood dams was harvested locally. We es-timate that it took 2,000 timbers between 34and five feet long and 12 inches square toconstruct the wood timber frame for thedam in 1869. The Long Leaf Pines are highlyresinous and since the timbers had been un-derwater for at least 130 years, the woodpreservation was remarkable. We have beenable to employ tree ring analysis to date someof the wooden dams and features we foundafter the masonry dams were removed. Thegrowth rings on the wood dam timbers werematched to two known data bases from theregion allowing us to see when approxi-mately the trees began life and what year theywere harvested. This not only allows us tochronologically date the wood dams, millsfoundations, and other features but we canalso observe very local climate fluctuationsfrom the 1660s to the 1850s.

The earliest wood dams from 1848 to1869 were always subject to very high main-tenance, and breaches due to flooding werecommon. Damages to the wood dams werecause for great concern in Columbus, as theinability to furnish water to power the millsand factories would idle these facilitiesthrowing hundreds of workers out of work.It wasn’t until 1882 that the Eagle andPhenix Manufacturing Company dedicateditself to damming the Chattahoochee Riverwith a modern stone gravity dam. The mas-sive weight of a twenty foot thick, 15 to 30foot high and 1000 foot long masonry damon the bedrock of the river would anchor itfor 130 years to come.

Ongoing historical research about thedam is beginning to shed light on the con-struction activities when the masonry Eagleand Phenix Dam was built in 1882. Thechief engineer for the Eagle and Phenix Mill,Mr. John Hill, designed the dam and super-vised the effort. According to an 1882 articlein Columbus’ Enquirer—Sun newspaper,the work employed as many as 250 menevery day during peak construction. Thenewspaper boasted that, when finished, itwould be the largest masonry dam in thesouth, presumably owing to its length of1,006 feet. John Hill was able to manage theproject’s budget by using the most modernequipment and technology available at thetime. The new Ingersoll steam rock drillswere employed to drill hundreds of holes inthe rock. This modern innovation allowedfor accelerated drilling as compared to handdrilling, thus saving time and money. Theholes were filled with dynamite for blasting

apart rock in the river bed to be used in theconstruction of the dam. Another cost effec-tive innovation was the use of an electricalcharge to simultaneously set off multiplesticks of dynamite. The enormous rocks usedin building the dam were lifted from thedownstream quarry using four boom der-ricks then transported to the dam on smallgage railroad cars capable of hauling up totwo tons per car. Railroad cars were also usedto transport mortar to the dam from themortar beds.

Uptown Columbus Inc. and SouthernResearch will continue the work of record-ing and documenting the Eagle and Phenixand City Mills Dams throughout 2013.When the documentation is complete, thehistory of the water powered industry atwhat was once called the Great Falls of theChattahoochee will be told in a series of in-terpretive exhibits and curriculum based les-son plans for our community’s schools.v

35AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

36 GeorGia enGineer

ENGINEERING NEWS

Richard earned hisBachelor of Civil Engi-

neering and Master of Science in Civil Engi-neering (Geotechnical) degrees from theGeorgia Institute of Technology and has over30 years of experience in the fields of geot-echnical engineering, environmental consult-ing, and construction materials testing. He isa Fellow of the American Society of Civil En-gineers and has received his Diplomate, Ge-otechnical Engineering board certificationthrough the Academy of Geo-Professionals.His background in both the technical andmanagement arenas, as well as his previous ex-perience with ATC, have made for a smoothtransition, and we are proud to have him aspart of our team. You can reach Richardat:.richard.curtis@cardno.com or at (770)427-9456 v

Cardno ATC

Richard Curtis

georgiA

Florence & Hutcheson is Now ICA EngineeringFlorence & Hutcheson Inc. will now beknown as ICA Engineering Inc.

The name change is the final step in theacquisition of F&H in a strategy by ICA tocreate a more innovative delivery of engi-neering, operations, and maintenance serv-ices for all transportation infrastructure assets.

“Over the past three years, F&H andICA have merged services, ideas, and culturesto create an integrated company able to pro-vide complete infrastructure services,” saidButch Eley, CEO of ICA. “Together we forma stronger, more dynamic enterprise that isable to deliver enhanced efficiencies and costsavings to our clients, maximize the value, andextend the lifespan of infrastructure assets.”

Infrastructure Corporation of Americasmaintains public transportation infrastruc-ture, including roadways, bridges, toll ways,rest areas, and welcome centers. The addition

of F&H’s award-winning engineering serv-ices has allowed ICA to take a holistic ap-proach to creating and sustaining infra-structure assets that are vital to the U.S.economy. The broadened expertise allowsthe company to begin with initial project de-sign, work through the construction phase,and ultimately to develop an operations andmaintenance plan that will maximize the lifecycle of the infrastructure asset and save tax-payers’ money.

ICA Engineering specializes in the com-plete spectrum of civil engineering and envi-ronmental services for the infrastructure of thebuilt environment with an integrated sensi-tivity to the natural environment. ICA Engi-neering has offices in Kentucky, Georgia,North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama,Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Florida.

Founded in 1965 in Paducah, Kentuckyby Bob Florence and Dave Hutcheson, theoriginal F&H team rapidly began serving theKentucky Transportation Cabinet and mu-nicipalities throughout Kentucky. The F&Hfootprint first expanded beyond Kentucky in

the 1970s when work was contracted withdepartments of transportation first in Ten-nessee and North Carolina and then ex-panded throughout the Southeast.

Over the years, F&H developed a solidreputation with federal, state, county, andmunicipal agencies, as well as industrial,commercial, and private developers andproperty owners. The firm is known forcombining technical resources and a widescope of services to implement the mostcomplex and extensive projects with the flex-ibility to ensure responsive, one-to-one clientservice and proactive, visionary solutions.

“F&H is known for exceptional andpassionate client service; ICA has quickly be-come known as a market innovator,” saidMark Acuff, President of Engineering Serv-ices. “Our clients are excited that the projectmanagers they’ve come to trust and rely onnow have additional capabilities to offer thatwill save them time and money.”

ICA and ICA Engineering employabout 750 people in offices across the South-east and Midwest. v

Cardno ATC ispleased to announceRichard L. Curtis,P.E., D.GE, F.ASCEas their BranchManager in Atlanta,Georgia

37AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

Stay the Course! That is the slogan of thenewly elected 2013-2014 Board of Directorsof ACEC Georgia.

I am honored to be the new Chairmanfor the coming year and am very excitedabout the great young talent that has joinedthe seasoned veterans to make up this year’sboard. The board and staff pledge to makethis another successful year for ACECGeorgia.

But before I begin discussing what isahead, let me say thanks to our outgoingChairman, Eddie Williams, his Board of Di-rectors and our fabulous staff for a job welldone. That group of outstanding profes-sionals prepared a roadmap for the futurethat will continue to make this organizationa destination place. The visionary work that

group of people put in place will continue usall on the road to success. ACEC Georgia’svalue proposition will focus on (1) Advocacy,(2) Business Development and (3) Firm Op-erations going forward. All of the initiativesunder taken in the future will fall withinthese principles and will provide benefit toour members.

Let’s start with Advocacy. ACEC Geor-gia will continue to build both the federal andstate level partnerships with our representa-tives to make sure that our voices are heardwhen it comes to engineering business needs.This also includes working with other engi-neering societies as well as the contractors and

ACeC Georgia

Political Advocacy• Advocating at all levels of government to advance policies that impactthe business of engineering in Georgia.

• Monitoring the regulatory issues and government agency actions thataffect engineers.

• Working for a more pro-business climate and defending against unfairbusiness practices.

• Fighting to protect the professional engineering practice.

Business Development• Providing networking opportunities, meetings, and programs that putyou in contact with potential clients, industry peers, and the leaders ofthe engineering profession.

• Hosting the Georgia Engineers Summer Conference, TransportationSummit, P3 Summit, and other programs that expand your professionalknowledge and network.

• Offering informative and relevant seminars, programs, and webinarswith presentations from leaders who affect our industry andcommunity.

Firm Operations• Providing a forum for the exchange of business and professionalexperiences.

• Offering programs and resources on best business practices formember firms.

• Sponsoring the Future Leaders Program to build the next generation ofleaders within member firms and the engineering profession.

• We provide executive development training for emerging leaders andfirm management.

The Value of ACEC GeorgiaServing your firm’s business

interests through:

News

Engineering Firm Operations: Staff Development, Best Practices, and TechnologyJay Wolverton, PE

Chair

ACEC Georgia

38 GeorGia enGineer

architects on legislation that affects our in-dustry. Having a strong PAC, both locallyand at the state level, goes a long way in ourvoice being heard. Please support the PACas it is a great way for our voice to be heard.

The second initiative is Business Devel-opment. This will entail creating new pro-grams, social events, and networkingopportunities for our members designed tohelp us grow our business. The recently heldP3 Summit is a great example where we had‘the engineer’s clients’ on the stage talkingabout current business issues and how theysee the future landscape and the engineer’s

involvement. This is just one example ofhow ACEC Georgia will look for ways tohelp you grow your business.

Last but not least is the Firm Operationsinitiative. This deals with the day to daymanagement and operation of an engineer-ing firm and includes items such as technol-ogy, human resources, health insurance, riskmanagement and legal and contracting is-sues. With this initiative, firms will get ex-posure to best practices type programs andthe latest developments associated with firmoperations.

We continue to grow our membership

as both new and returning firms want to beinvolved with ACEC and all we have to offer.This is bringing in both new talent and somegreat returning talent as well to help us shapethe future of ACEC.

Our charge to you......get involved!Come and help us design some of these newinitiatives or refine the existing ones in placenow. We look forward to all of our membersfinding their place to get plugged in. Be aparticipant in the new ACEC Georgia. Be aparticipant in helping to shape and drive ourfuture. The journey is going to be great.Come be a part. v

The 2013 Georgia Engineers Summer Con-ference held June 13 -16 at The Lodge andSpa, Callaway Gardens in Pine Mountain,Georgia, exceeded the planning committee’sexpectations. Based on initial feedback,ACEC Georgia, ASCE Georgia Chapter,and GSPE members benefited greatly fromexpert speakers during four tracks of profes-sional development hours, appreciated timewith current and prospective clients, gainedvaluable and state of the art business infor-mation from sponsors and exhibitors, andenjoyed getting away with their families inan informal setting.

What attendees are saying about theirconference experience:• “Top notch entertainment this year at

the Gala! We need to invite that magi-cian back!”

• “The speakers this year were excellent,especially Dr. Tutterow on the State ofthe Economy”

• “Everyone here seems to be enjoying thesessions and the networking!”

• “I have learned so much this year, thetopics are great!”

The 2014 Georgia Engineers Summer Con-ference will be held at the popular Ham-mock Beach Resort, Palm Coast, Florida,June 12 – 15, 2014. This is a not-to-missconference for earning your PDHs during areporting year and for creating family vaca-tion memories. v

2013 Georgia Engineers Summer Conference Planted Seeds for Success! anks to the following sponsors and exhibitorsfor helping to make the conference successful!

Platinum SponsorDeemer Dana & Froehle, LLPSponsor/ExhibitorsACEC Business Insurance TrustACEC Life/Health TrustCrow Friedman GroupEvonik Cyro LLCMetro GeospatialSouthern Polytechnic State UniversityTHC IncWolverton & Associates Inc.

ExhibitorsA4inc. /The Georgia EngineerApplied Software TechnologyAuburn Univ. College of EngineeringFoley Products CompanyGeorgia Concrete Paving AssociationPhoto ScienceRedVectorSettimo Consulting Services Inc.T. Wayne Owens & Associates

THC Sponsor, Michael Moore and Kelli Weigle

Rob Jacquette, Golf Chair at Picnic and Golf Awards Event

Drew Settimo; David McFarlin, ConferenceChair; and Mindy Wall

Gregg Bundschuh and Lee Edmond, Hospitality Sponsor

Kathy Belcher, Programs Manager Discussion with Facility Staffer

39AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

President & CEO, Michael Sullivan(404) 537-1337 sully@acecga.org

Chief Operating Officer, Gwen Brandon(404) 537-1415gwen.brandon@acecga.org

Member Services Manager, Kathy Belcher(404) 665-3539kathy.belcher@acecga.org

Accounting Manager, Mia Wilson(404) 537-1275 mia.wilson@acecga.org

Chair, Jerry (Jay) Wolverton (Wolverton& Associates) (770) 447-8999,jay.wolverton@wolverton-assoc.com

Chair-Elect, Darrell K. Rochester(Rochester & Associates Inc.) (770) 718-0600, dkrochester@rochester-assoc.com

Treasurer, Roseana Richards (Pond &Company) (678) 336-7740,richardsr@pondco.com

Secretary, Charles Ezelle (Thomas &Hutton Engineering Co.) (912) 234-5300, ezelle.c@thomasandhutton.com

Vice Chair, Don Harris (URS Corpora-tion) (678) 808-8804,don.harris@urs.com

Vice Chair, John A. Heath (Heath & Line-back Engineers Inc.) (770) 424-1668,jheath@heath-lineback.com

Vice Chair, Doug Robinson (Walter P.Moore) (404) 898-9620, drobinson@walterpmoore.com

National Director, David Wright (Neel-Schaffer Inc.) (678) 604-0040,david.wright@neel-schaffer.com

Director, Anita Atkinson (Patterson &Dewar Engineers) (770) 453-1410,aatkinson@pdengineers.com

Director, Jim Case (Uzun & Case Engi-neers Inc.) (678) 553-5200,Jcase@uzuncase.com

Director, David Estes (Ayres Associ-ates), (404) 658-9320, estesd@ayresassociates.com

Director, Scott Gero (AECOM) (404)965-9726, scott.gero@aecom.com

Director, Robert (Rob) Lewis (HNTBCorp.) (404) 946-5735,rtlewis@HNTB.com

Director, David McFarlin (Long Engi-neering Inc.) (770) 951-2495, dmcfarlin@longeng.com

Director, Kevin McOmber (Clark Patter-son Lee) (770) 831-9000, kmcOmber@clarkpatterson.com

Director, Taylor Wright (Atkins NorthAmerica) (770) 933-0280,taylor.wrightt@atkinsglobal.com

Past Chair, Edgar (Eddie) Williams (Keck& Wood) (678) 417-4000, ewilliams@keckwood.com

CONTACT US at ACEC GEORGIA (404) 521-2324 acecga.org

40 GeorGia enGineer

Greetings!I can’t believe I’m wrapping up my year asyour president! I would like to take a mo-ment to thank my board members. You havetirelessly done an excellent job with all of ourprograms this year. anks also to all of ourwonderful members for making it a greatyear. I’m really looking forward to becomingPast President and it is with every confidencethat I pass the gavel over to the wonderfulKatherine McLeod Gurd!

Report CardWe have begun updating our Georgia Infra-structure Report Card, slated for a January2014 release! Rebecca Shelton and DanAgramonte are leading this effort so please

contact them if you’re interested in gettinginvolved.

ASCE Georgia Section 2012-2013 Annual Meeting and Awards CeremonyWe will be hosting our ASCE Georgia Sec-tion Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremonyat Zoo Atlanta during lunch on Friday, Sep-tember 13th. Cost for the banquet will in-clude admission to the zoo for the day. Pleasecheck our Web site for registration details.

Remember…Please join us at our Annual Meeting andAwards Ceremony! Please check out ournew Web site, www.ascega.org, for more in-formation.

I would like to extend a sincere thankyou to our sponsors—Belgard Hardscapes,

JACOBS, Hayward Baker, AECOM, Heathand Lineback, ASCE Region 5, ASCE Foun-dation, LB Foster, Evonik, Applied Technol-ogy Group, CH2MHILL, and John GroupInternational. Please contact me if you areinterested in becoming a sponsor.

In closing, please e-mail me at any timeif you have questions, concerns, suggestions,or would like to volunteer! Take care! v

AsCe Georgia

Lisa S. Woods,

P.E., President

American Society

of Civil

Engineers,

Georgia Section

www.ascega.org

News

lisa.woods@jacobs.com

PresidentLisa S. Woods, P.E.JACOBSlisa.woods@jacobs.com

President-Elect Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E.AECOMKatherine.Gurd@aecom.com

Vice President Rebecca Shelton, P.E.Gwinnett County DWRrebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

Treasurer Dan Agramonte, P.E.O'BRIEN & GEREdaniel.agramonte@obg.com

External Director Keith Cole, P.E.keith.cole@mindspring.com

Internal Director Christina Vulova, P.E.Consultant ~ Civil & Geotechni-cal Engineeringcvulova@gmail.com

Secretary Ernie Pollitzer, MS P.E.epollitzer@gmail.com

Technical Director Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling RMorales@LBFoster.com

Younger Member DirectorJulie Secrist, P.E.TY LinJulie.Secrist@tylin.com

Savannah Branch Director C. J. Chance

NE Georgia Branch Director Matthew Tanner, P.E.Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net

South Metro Branch DirectorGreg A. Wombough, P.E.Oasis Consulting Servicesgwombough@oasis-cs.com

Past-PresidentJames R. Wallace, Sc.D., P.E.AMEC (retired)jrwhaw@comcast.net

www.ascega.org

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2012 - 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

41AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

Another summer has arrived and our ASHEorganization continues to thrive. With thissummer brings change. Our nominatingcommittee has selected ASHE’s new slate ofofficers, directors, and committee chairs andall were inducted at our June membershipmeeting. We welcome a new group of vol-unteers to our association and look forwardto continuing to grow and flourish as thestrongest Highway Engineers association inthe Southeast. Michael Bywaletz will takethe helm as the 2013-2014 President, andwill be sure to impress! As I write this last ar-ticle (whew), I realize that I only have fondmemories of the past two years as president,except maybe writing these articles. It hasbeen a pleasure serving with such great and

dedicated leaders on our board that un-selfishly have dedicated countless time andenergy to advance our section, and more im-portantly, made the job of president easy. Itwas also a great honor to serve as the presi-dent for such a great group of people that en-compasses our membership. From when oursection was founded that fall night at therestaurant at Crooked Creek in 2008 to thevibrant membership of over 400 we havetoday, our ASHE section has flourished be-cause of our membership. So again, and Iwish a could be a little more eloquent in ex-pressing my thoughts, but I sincerely thankevery member of our ASHE section for al-lowing me to have the honor of being yourpresident over the last two years!

Now to recap the last couple of months.It was a busy spring and early summer full offun events and great opportunities to learnand network. In addition to our membershipmeetings, we had two very successful events,our annual Golf Tournament and our secondannual Tennis Tournament. Both were verywell attended, and although it seems like itrains more here than it does in Seattle, wehad great weather. The golf tournament wasagain held at River Pines and was a sell outwell in advance (this is your reminder to signup early next year so you don’t miss it).

Also, in early June, ASHE held its an-

nual national conference in Lake Placid, NY.The weather in New York was not quite ascooperative as it has been for our section

President ~ Ron OsterlohPond & Company

First Vice President ~ Michael Bywaletz,Gresham Smith and Partners

Second Vice President ~ Brian O’Connor,Gresham Smith and Partners

Secretary ~ Karyn Matthews, GDOT

Treasurer ~ Richard MeehanLowe Engineers

Past President and Regional Rep ~ TimMatthews, GDOT

Director ~ Shawn Fleet, Heath and Lineback

National Director ~ Nikki Reutlinger Atkins

ChairsNominating Committee Chair ~ TimMatthews, GDOT

Program Chair ~ Rob Dell-RossCity of Roswell

Membership Chair ~ Scott JordanCobb County

Scholarship Chair ~ Sarah Worachek,Gresham Smith and Partners

ASHE Student Chapter Liason ~ KevinRiggs, Gresham Smith and Partners

Technical Chairs ~ Dan Bodycomb,AECOM; Chris Rudd, GDOT

Communications Chair ~ Jenny Jenkins,McGee Partners

Social Chair ~ Elizabeth ScalesThompson Engineering

Golf Tournament Chair ~ Ashley ChanHNTB

Web site Chairs ~ Mindy Sanders, HatchMott MacDonald; Pervez Iqbal, HNTB

Ashe Georgia

Ron Osterloh, PE

President

American Society

of Highway

Engineers /

Georgia Section

News

Tier 2 First Place: (L-R) Samuel Serio, Peter Coakley, Ben Buchan, Garrick Edwards

42 GeorGia enGineer

events, highs in the 40s and rain every day,but it was still a great event put on by ournorthern colleagues. As the national confer-ence attendees have come to expect, theGeorgia Section impressed. We wereawarded the Gene Smith award for the sec-tion that has added the highest number ofnew members (40) and we came in a closesecond to the section with the most atten-

dees at the conference. On the extracurricu-lar side of things, the Georgia Section hadrepresentatives on both the winning golf

team and bobsled team! The next conferencewill be held in Bismarck, North Dakota andwe strongly encourage any member able toattend to come join us. It is a great learningexperience and an opportunity to get toknow your organization better.

Also, our past section presidents havebeen asked to serve on nationally. NikkiReutlinger has been elected to serve as a na-tional director and Tim Matthews is chair-ing the new section committee. Our section’snext goal is to make a push for hosting thenational conference again in 2018, our sec-tion’s 20th anniversary. We are already look-ing for chairs and volunteers, so if you areinterested, let us know.

Last but most important, our renewalperiod is now open and we need all membersto renew by August! It is an easy process. Ifyou didn’t get an e-mail, just go to the newWeb site (www.georgia.ashe.pro). Let’s keepour membership strong.

Thanks again and good luck toMichael (don’t forget the articles are dueevery two months). We look forward to see-ing you soon. v

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

August 20, 2013Bowling Tourney

September, 2013Membership Meeting

October, 2013Membership Meeting

November, 2013Transportation Summit

December, 2013Holiday Social

*Check the Web site for dates, changesand other events.

Tier 1 First Place: (L-R) Paul Murphy, Randy Sanborn, Tyler McIntosh, Tommy Montgomery

43AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

It is my pleasure once again to serve as thepresident of this organization. Through thelast seven years, it has been an honor to par-ticipate in the leadership of GSPE across thestate of Georgia. I look forward to repre-senting the organization this year at ourmany events.

We are off and running with what issure to be another significant year for the en-gineering profession in Georgia. As always,GSPE will be working diligently on your be-half to further the concerns of professionalengineers across the state. Through the years,we have learned that there are always goingto be issues that require attention on our be-half. Our leadership through our legislativecoalition will always be actively engaged inthese opportunities.

We are an active and dynamic organiza-tion that gets better with every ounce of en-ergy put forth through our volunteers. Thatis why as president this year, the first thing Iwould like to do is thank all of our currentvolunteers/leaders, and encourage all of youreading this article to get involved in the ful-filling work of supporting engineering. Wehave exciting opportunities on our commit-tees that offer everyone an option to activelyparticipate in our events and leadership. Ifyou have any questions about how you canparticipate, please contact me attwingate@wkdickson.com, and I will workto find the initiative that matches your in-terest. This past May GSPE held its annual

planning session to review our current statusand our goals for the coming year. The lead-ership had a common voice coming out ofthe planning session. Offer opportunities formembers to engage in planning and leader-ship growth. We have identified a full list ofcommittees to support our events and out-reach and encourage each of you to contactus to find out where you can assist.

As you will see in the calendar of eventsoutlined, there is no shortage of opportuni-ties for participation. Our local chapters willbe meeting as well and providing interestingtopics for you at your local level. Mark yourcalendars and get engaged in the eventsbelow.• MATHCOUNTS Golf Tournament

September 20, 2013, Durham LakesGolf Club, Fairburn, Georgia. TheGeorgia Society of Professional Engi-neers holds the annual MATH-COUNTS golf tournament as afundraiser for the state MATH-COUNTS endowment.

• PDH Day October 25, 2013, Georgia.Tech Student Center, Atlanta, Georgia.The Annual PDH Day seminar is an ex-pedient program that is modestly pricedto assist engineers in securing profes-sional development hours in a comfort-able environment. There are multipleconcurrent tracks for technical disci-plines and professional business. Lunchis provided for all attendees

• New PE Recognition and Awards Din-ner. October 2, 2013, Georgia TechHotel & Conference Center, Atlanta,Georgia. The New PE Recognition andAwards Dinner honors the newly li-censed Professional Engineers in thestate of Georgia and GSPE membersthat have made outstanding contribu-tions to the profession.

• PE Exam Lunch October 25, 2013 andApril 11, 2014.

• Engineers Week Day at the CapitalTBA. The engineering profession ishonored at the Georgia State Capitol.This day highlights the impact that en-gineers have on the state including theeconomy and the public health andsafety.

• Engineers Week Awards Gala Banquet.February 15, 2013, Georgia Tech Hotel& Conference Center. An evening thatbrings together engineers, engineeringcompanies, and their clients to highlightand award superior work on projects, inthe community and individual accom-plishments.

• MATHCOUNTS Local CompetitionsJanuary 2014 – February 2014 (Checkwith your Local GSPE Chapter forExact Dates)

• MATHCOUNTS State Competition-March 17, 2014, Georgia Tech StudentCenter.

With a decline in students entering collegeto major in Engineering and/or Technologyfields, the GSPE has become a strong advo-cate and host of the Georgia MATH-COUNTS to encourage students at themiddle school level to strive for excellence inmath and science.• GSPE Chapter Meetings• Check with your Local GSPE Chapter

for Meeting Dates• GSPE Leadership Planning Meeting

TBA

GSPE Leadership, committee members,and members meet to coordinate and planthe upcoming year of goals, events, andbenefits for GSPE members and engineersin Georgia.

Participate and enjoy the value of member-ship in GSPE. v

gspe Georgia

Trey Wingate,

P.E., President

Georgia Society

of Professional

Engineers

News

44 GeorGia enGineer

In this month’s installation of news regard-ing the Georgia Section of the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (GA ITE), Iwanted to capture how well GA ITE is doingat approximately mid-year. We set severalgoals as a section this year, and we’re well onour way to accomplishing them.1. I wanted GA ITE to reach out to sev-

eral other professional organizations in-volved in transportation and partnerwith them on meetings or conferences.GA ITE has done a good job of this in

the past with partnerships with theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE) and the Intelligent Transporta-tion Society of Georgia (ITSGA) as twoexamples. This year GA ITE has al-ready had a Winter Workshop inAthens, Georgia with the American So-ciety of Highway Engineers (ASHE).We have also had a partnership withITSGA to host another Legislative Re-ception with Governor Nathan Dealand other legislative representatives. OnThursday, August 8 GA ITE will host amonthly meeting with the GeorgiaPlanning Association and we will havea speaker from the Atlanta RegionalCommission.

2. Another goal this year was to have an-other session of our GA ITE leadershiptraining. Our last session was a coupleof years ago, so we wanted to have an-other session to provide up and comingleaders an opportunity to learn leader-ship skills. Some say leaders are bornthat way, and some say leaders are

shaped by their surroundings and re-sources. Either way, GA ITE wants ourpotential leaders to have plenty of toolsand resources to lead in their environ-ment. This leadership training is sched-uled for October 25 – 26 at The Lodgeat Simpsonwood in Norcross, Georgia.This leadership training model has beenadopted by the Southern District of ITEand has been used by other ITE sectionsin the southeast United States.

3. Over the years, GA ITE has worked toprovide training and networking op-portunities in other areas of Georgiaoutside of Atlanta. In continuing thisgoal, I asked our GA ITE TechnicalCommittee to put together at least oneTechnical Exchange in a non-Atlanta lo-cation that would provide participantswith training in a transportation tech-nology. The Technical Committee is ac-tively pursuing this for the fall of thisyear, and more details will be availablesoon.

ite Georgia

Dwayne

Tedder, PE

Georgia Section,

Institute of

Transportation

Engineers

News

Members networking after tour

45AUGUST | SEPTEMBER 2013

4. We also wanted to have ‘just one more’event to celebrate the 50th anniversaryof the Georgia Section of ITE. We hada big time gala in March of this year.Please see the previous issue of GeorgiaEngineer Magazine for a full write-upand photos.

5. A continuous goal that GA ITE has yearafter year is to provide awesome net-working and relationship building ac-tivities that get our members interactingand learning from each other. GA ITEhad a very well attended event on May16 at SweetWater Brewery in Atlanta,Georgia. We had engineers mingle withfellow engineers for a relaxing eveningand a few cold ones at SweetWaterBrewery. There were tours of the brew-ery, and we even got a few photos of thefun. Our Activities Committee also hadtwo more networking and volunteeringevents recently. GA ITE had a volun-teer shift at the Atlanta Dogwood Festi-val, and we had a team trivia at Firebirdin June.

Also coming up this year we have severalevents that I wanted to highlight. 1. The GA ITE Summer Seminar oc-

curred on July 22-25. More details willfollow on this event in the next issue.

2. The September meeting of GA ITE isscheduled to be held at Southern Poly-technic State University (SPSU) in Ma-rietta, Georgia. More details will be sentto members and it will be on our Website.

3. The Annual Meeting for GA ITE hasbeen scheduled and a location has beenchosen. We will be heading back to theBuckhead Club in Atlanta, Georgia onTuesday, December 10. We are lookingforward to another great year-end eventwhere we pat ourselves on the back a lit-tle and have a good time networking,socializing, and recognizing our accom-plishments. At that time we’ll inductour new board and officers.

So, come on out and get active in ITE. We

have a ton of committees, so we can findsomewhere for you if you want to volunteer.We also pledge to do our best to provide the

most value for our members. Seewww.ite.org or www.gaite.org for ways to be-come a member. v

Board Position Member E-mail PhonePresident Dwayne Tedder dwayne.tedder@urs.com 404.406.8791Vice President Jonathan Reid reid@pbworld.com 404.364.5225Secretary/Treasurer Andrew Antweiler aantweiler@roswellgov.com 678.639.7540Past President John Karnowski jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com 770.368.1399District Representative David Low dlow@roswellgov.com 770.594.6422District Representative Carla Holmes carla_holmes@gspnet.com 678.518.3654District Representative Jim Tolson jtolson@dot.ga.gov 404.635.2849Affiliate Director Patrick McAtee pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com 404.574.1985

Committee Activities Chair(s) E-mail PhoneAnnual Report Jim Tolson jtolson@dot.ga.gov 404.635.2849Audio/Visual Mark Boivin markboivin@alltrafficdata.net 404.374.1283Awards/Nominations John Karnowski jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com 770.368.1399Career Guidance Brendetta Walker bhargro@bellsouth.net 404.364.5235Clerk Elizabeth Scales escales@thompsonengineering.com 404.574.1985Comptroller Jim Pohlman pohlmanj@bellsouth.net 770.972.9709Engineers Week Steven Sheffield stevenwsheffield@gmail.comFinanceGeorgia Engineer Magazine Dan Dobry ddobry@croyengineering.com 770.971.5407Georgia Tech Liaison Paul DeNard pdenard@dot.ga.gov 404.635.2843Historian Charles Bopp charles_bopp@hotmail.com 678.380.9053Host Vamshi Mudumba vamshim@laiengineering.com 770.423.0807Legislative Affairs Bill Ruhsam bruhsam@maai.net 678.728.9076Life Membership Don Gaines dgaines@gcaeng.com 404.355.4010Marketing Shannon Fain shannon.fain@stantec.com 770.813.0882Membership Sunita Nadella sunita.nadella@parsons.com 678.969.2304Monthly Meetings Jonathan Reid reid@pbworld.com 404.364.5225Newsletter Vern Wilburn vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com 678.423.0050 Past Presidents Todd Long tlong@dot.ga.gov 404.631.1021Public Officials Education Scott Mohler scott.mohler@urs.com 678.808.8811Scholarship Mike Crawford mike.crawford@jacobs.com 678.333.0319Southern Poly Liaison Bryan Sartin bryan_sartin@gspnet.com 678.518.3884Summer Seminar Sean Coleman sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com 404.419.8781Technical/Web site France Campbell france_campbell@gspnet.com 678.518.3952Winter Workshop Larry Overn larry.overn@stantec.com 770.813.0882

Members networking after tour

46 GeorGia enGineer

We return to beautiful Callaway Gardensthis year for the 2013 ITS Georgia AnnualMeeting and Exposition, September 14 - 17.

The theme for this year’s meeting is‘From Vision to Operations, Living in theFuture.” We plan to present a roadmap onhow to create, plan and implement your vi-sion for improving the safety and efficiencyof transportation systems large and small,urban and rural.

Last year’s meeting was very successfulwith 125 registered attendees, 24 exhibitors,and 17 sponsors. We hope to better thosenumbers this year.

Kicking off this year’s meeting will beGDOT Commissioner Keith Golden. TheCommissioner will deliver our keynote ad-dress and present his ITS vision for the de-partment and state. Commissioner Goldenhas been involved in every aspect of ourtheme from planning to operations.

Scheduled topics and speakers at presstime are:Rural ITS – Dee Taylor, City of Gainesville• I-75 FDOT, District 2, Rural Deployment

– Paul Mannix, Atkins• TDOT Rural ITS Deployments – Speaker

TBD • TDOT Rural ITS – Nathan Vatter,

TDOTProduct Info – Moderator TBD

• Camera Security – Matt Powell, MOOGVideolarm

• QPL – Putting the Pieces Together – Del-can perspective – Speaker TBD

• Columbus TIA – Director of engineeringfor Wireless – Ron Hamlet

Project Delivery – Cynthia Burney, GDOT• Systems Engineering – Eddie Curtis,

FHWA• GDOT Design Build – John Hancock,

GDOT• FDOT Design Build Lessons Learned –

TBD, FDOT Central OfficeArterials – Eli Veith, City of Alpharetta • Highway 9 Lessons Learned – France

Campbell GS&P • Cobb County Highway 41 – Brook Mar-

tin, Cobb County and/or Marc Start,URS

• ALDOT Highway 280 – Brett Sellers,ALDOT

Signals – Muhammad Rauf, City of Roswell• NTCIP – What does and Doesn’t Work –

Speaker TBD• Signal Software – Alan Davis, GDOT• Flashing Yellow Arrow Lessons Learned –

Steven Cummins, City of Lexington, Ken-tucky

Scan the QR code for the annual meetinghome page or visit www.itsga.org. Join ustoday. Visit itsga.org/contactjoin.html and be-come a member organization of ITS Georgia.

Please join us at our monthly meetingsand bring a friend. We’ll keep you posted ontimes and locations on our Web site and bye-mail. If you are not on our e-mail list, thenvisit www.itsga.org. v

Control TechnologiesMetrotechTempleArcadisGresham Smith and

PartnersHNTBWorld Fiber

TechnologiesAtkinsDelcan

Kimley-Horn and Associates

SensysSouthern Lighting

and Traffic SystemsURSTelventCambridgeSystematicsGrice ConsultingWolverton &

Associates

Our monthly meeting dates for theremainder of 2013 are:

ITS Georgia MissionWe believe that ITS is a valuable tool for im-proved management of any transportation sys-tem, regardless of the inherent complexity ofthe system. ITS can help operate, manage, andmaintain the system once it has been con-structed.

We believe that ITS should be systemati-cally incorporated into the earliest stages ofproject development, especially into the plan-ning and design of transportation projects.

We believe the best way to achieve this sys-tematic incorporation into the process isthrough a coordinated, comprehensive pro-gram to ‘get out the word’ on ITS to con-stituencies that might not otherwise considerthe relevance of ITS to their transportationsystem.

its Georgia News

Scott

Mohler, P.E.

ITS President

PresidentScott Mohler, URS Corporation

Vice PresidentTom Sever, Gwinnett DOT

SecretaryKristin Turner, Wolverton

and Associates Inc.

TreasurerChristine Simonton, Delcan

Immediate Past PresidentMarion Waters

Gresham Smith & Partners

DirectorsMark Demidovich, GDOT

Susie Dunn, ARCEric Graves, City of Alpharetta

Carla Holmes, Gresham Smith & PartnersWinter Horbal, Temple Inc.

Keary Lord, Douglas County DOT Michael Roberson, GDOT

David Smith, Dekalb Co. TransportationPrasoon Sinha, ARCADISGrant Waldrop, GDOT

State Chapters RepresentativeShahram Malek, Arcadis

Ex OfficioGreg Morris, Federal Highway

AdministrationAndres Ramirez, Federal Transit

Administration

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP

August 22September 14-17 Annual Meeting

October 31

OUR 2013 SPONSORS

http://www.georgiapower.com/aande

http://www.haywardbaker.com