Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Follow-up to Air Quality Presentation
No action.
II.
Subject:
Briefing and Discussion: Water Quality
The Committee asked staff to bring back water quality principles or
statements from other cities.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
May 15, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
Agenda: Briefing and Discussion: Land Preservation
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Nancy Carter, and Don Lochman
Susan Burgess
2:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Presentation: Water Quality Background Briefing
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves. He then turned the meeting over to Julie Burch.
I.
Follow-up to Air Quality Presentation
Ms. Burch advised the Committee that information was included in their agenda packets
(copy attached) as a follow-up to the presentation on air quality. Council member Foxx
requested air quality policy statements from other communities for review. The rest of
the material relates to Regional Clean Air Activities, including School Buses; CATS
environmental initiatives; and Federal and State legislative proposals.
II.
Briefing and Discussion: Water Quality
Barry Gullet then began the presentation on water quality (copy attached).
Carter:
What is the population of the towns that depend on the river?
Gullet:
1.2 or 1.3 million. It is projected to be more than 2 million in 30 years.
Carter:
Does Charlotte use over 50% of the water?
Gullet:
That is correct. If you take out the consumptive uses, Charlotte uses about
40%.
Foxx:
Do you have a sense of where the contaminants come from? What are the
largest contributors?
Gullet:
I believe I have a slide that addresses that further in the presentation. Let
me know if you need more information after that slide.
Carter:
Have you noticed a change in the water quality supply in the water table
the last three years or so due to the drought?
Gullet:
Actually the ground water tables have recovered from the drought. We
are closely watching water quality and have seen no significant changes.
Carter:
I asked that because I have heard some concerns from the East.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
Page 3
Foxx:
What is the quality of our water sitting naturally? Could we dip a cup in
and drink?
Gullet:
Tim Richards will be discussing streams in more detail later in the
presentation. Our water quality is better than it used to be, but that doesn’t
mean it meets drinking water standards. It may still make you sick if you
drink it directly from the stream.
Foxx:
The reason I’m asking is I was interested if contaminants have increased
or decreased and if it affects the way we manage wastewater for drinking.
If there is an increased cost?
Gullet:
The water quality in the lakes is fairly stable. There has been some
increase in silt sediment, mainly due to construction and some seasonal
changes with the weather. The water quality in the lakes is good. The
water quality in the streams has improved. We know that, for example,
because there are fish in Sugar Creek where there weren’t any before. So,
the streams are better. The lakes are the same.
Carter:
What is the economic benefit of clean water? What is the impact on our
region?
Gullet:
I’m not sure I can answer that question.
Carter:
When we are looking at a development, capacity is tied into the land use.
If we can’t expand the wastewater treatment plants or control run off,
where are we?
Gullet:
If we run out of capacity, we can’t get anymore. We’re done. We are
looking at some alternatives and making plans for the future.
Carter:
So, this could be one of the greatest limiting capacities in an area?
Gullet:
It could be.
Bean:
We can have no economic development if we continue to degrade the
streams because we won’t be able to get wastewater treatment plant
permits.
Carter:
Are we investing sufficiently now to meet our needs?
Bean:
Yes. In the future, it will cost more. We are looking at new technology.
We cannot afford to not start looking at the operating/capital costs for the
future.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
Page 4
Carter:
Are our plans sufficient for the 300,000 residents coming in?
Bean:
On the water side we’re okay. Wastewater is a different issue. We are
pushing capacity. If we don’t get held up with environmental issues, we
will be back in front of Council in the next twelve months to expand.
Gullet:
We are doing a lot to minimize pollutant loading from the streams.
Carter:
Regarding grease traps – several years ago we passed an ordinance or
incentive. Has that been sufficient or do we need to expand it?
Gullet:
We have been working hard to identify grease traps and the ordinance has
helped a lot in identifying the sources. We are then able to educate
customers. We are pleased with the amount of cooperation we have
received especially at apartment complexes. It is an expensive problem.
Foxx:
Does that help with respect to sewer overflow?
Gullet:
The sewer use ordinance is very broad, but it does include grease.
Foxx:
Who enforces it?
Gullet:
It is enforced through Utilities. We have grease inspectors who can issue
notices of violation. They work with the customer to solve the problem
and educate them.
Lochman:
You’ve mentioned the next five to ten years will be critical. Do you have
actual models to support what you foresee for funding?
Bean:
We have not run the models yet. The CIP program runs through the next
five years, but we know our bond capacity will be increasing because we
are retiring some debt.
Tim Richards continued with the presentation on stormwater.
Foxx:
What are the tangible costs of having impaired streams other than not
being able to get in them?
Richards:
We do not have quality values for that right now. We are doing a study
this summer of what happens if streams are impaired. But, I do not have
that information today.
Bean:
Some cities take their water from smaller streams, so their impact would
be great. We get our drinking water from two large lakes. It is hard to
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
Page 5
measure the additional costs of impaired streams.
Carter:
You mentioned 77% of our streams are impaired.
Richards:
All of our streams are Class C.
Carter:
So, you can’t go in them?
Richards:
It means 77% of our streams don’t meet the Class C standard. You
shouldn’t swim or wade in them.
Bean:
It is not a letter grade; it just means they don’t meet the standard.
Carter:
I thought was a grading system.
Richards:
It is just a classification letter. We can get you a matrix detailing the
classifications.
Carter:
Why can wildlife not be sustained?
Richards:
Sediment or it could be temperature. There might not be enough buffers
upstream.
Carter:
Could you provide us with a larger map of the impaired streams with an
overlay of the districts?
Richards:
No problem.
Foxx:
When you say “we” have to restore impaired waters, who is “we”?
Richards:
“We” is the City. We do have a collaborative plan with Mecklenburg
County.
Lochman:
Doesn’t some of that exist today with the Post Construction Controls
Ordinance?
Richards:
Some of the rules do. The rules that deal with flooding or storing water
from commercial sites. Post construction mostly applies to single family.
Lochman:
Will this be addressed with the Environmental GDPs?
Richards:
That is a separate ordinance, but we hope they will complement each
other.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
Page 6
Lochman:
What is the timeframe for these requirements to be implemented as an
ordinance?
Richards:
The Post Construction Controls Ordinance will have a cost study
completed this summer. It will be complex, but will give us better cost
estimates. We will take that back to the stakeholders the first of the year
and should be ready for implementation next summer.
Carter:
Are you researching different types of mitigation, concrete, different ways
to park, etc?
Hammock:
We have twenty separate sites we are using best management practices to
take water quality samples. We are mitigating stormwater from ultra
urban areas to single-family subdivisions. Some are working well, some
aren’t working so well. But, we are using that information to write a
design manual.
Carter:
Are cities like Portland and Seattle leaders?
Hammock:
Yes, but also Washington, DC has been looking at stream restoration, etc.
longer than us.
Carter:
Can you get us a list of cities you are looking at?
Hammock:
Yes.
Foxx:
What does TMDL stand for?
Richards:
Total maximum daily load (reference slide 29).
Audience:
How are you testing rain gardens for future projects?
Richards:
Residential and commercial uses.
Hammock:
We are testing all the water that is coming in and out for nitrogen,
phosphorus, etc. It is working pretty well and seems to be effective.
Audience:
We have heard concerns with ongoing maintenance; it doesn’t take too
much to clog.
Hammock:
We have found sand in the filters.
Mumford:
I would like to say to the stakeholders that all of these practices will be
fully discussed. We, as a Committee, are just getting a general overview
of these things. We do care about your concerns, but these committee
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 1, 2006
Page 7
meetings are not the appropriate venue for these discussions.
Foxx:
With the post construction controls, who is absorbing the costs? Does the
ordinance put the cost on the City or on the developer or is there some
cost sharing?
Richards:
Right now the cost is mainly absorbed by the development community.
They develop the site and the regulations require them to set aside a land
buffer or open space that is part of the development, so that is a cost. The
maintenance is taken on by the City. On a single-family site, the residents
would take care of the routine maintenance to make the area look nice, but
anything that needed to be replaced or fixed would be handled by the City.
In addition, in more urban areas we have other options for a developer to
pay if they have no room on their site. They could give money that would
be used in other areas. We will be working hand-in-hand with the
development community.
Burch:
Do you want to give us any guidance for drafting the environmental
principles on water quality?
Foxx:
I think what we received today was a good format. I would like to receive
water quality statements, like the air quality statements, for the next
meeting. This was an excellent presentation.
III.
Next Meeting:
The next meeting is Monday, May 15 from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in Room 280.
Agenda:
Briefing and Discussion: Land Preservation
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, May 1, 2006 – 2:00 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
Debra Campbell
AGENDA
I.
Follow-up to Air Quality Presentation – Julie Burch
As requested at the April 17 meeting, attached are examples of Air Quality policy
statements from other jurisdictions. This information is provided as background to
the Committee for any guidance they may wish to provide to staff in drafting
environmental principles.
Also attached is additional information to follow-up from the last meeting: Regional
Clean Air Activities, including School Buses; and CATS environmental initiatives;
and Federal and State legislative proposals.
II.
Briefing and Discussion: Water Quality – Barry Gullet and Tim Richards
Staff will provide an overview on Water Quality and its importance to Charlotte and
the region.
This will be an interactive presentation in which Committee members are encouraged
to ask questions and engage in discussion throughout. Staff will be asking the
Committee for preliminary guidance for drafting of the environmental principles.
III.
Next Meeting:
May 15, 2006 – 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
Agenda: Land Preservation
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders Post Construction Stakeholders
Air Quality Statements
Examples of references to air quality
in local policies, principles and goal statements
Mecklenburg County Environmental Leadership Policy
The Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners desires that County government operate in a
manner that conserves and protects our air, water and land resources . . .
X Mecklenburg County Clean Air Policy
Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in March 2001, and endorsed by City Council in
June, 2001)
Mecklenburg County wishes to achieve and maintain clean healthful air as determined by
national, state and local ambient air quality standards for the well-being of its citizens and the
economic vitality of this community and shall act proactively at the county level to achieve this
goal.
Raleigh
Achieve and maintain a high water and air quality which will protect the health and welfare of
the public and maintain the balance of nature.
Seattle
Protect and improve the quality and function of the city’s air, land and water resources because
of their relationship to human health, wildlife and the region’s natural heritage.
Portland
Protect the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources . . . Ensure environmental
quality and understand environmental linkages when decisions are made regarding growth
management, land use, transportation, energy, water, affordable housing, indoor and outdoor air
quality and economic development.
San Francisco
(The goal is) to assure a level of air quality that has no negative impact on the health of humans
or the ecosystems of the natural environment . . . The City and other key decision-makers
(should) include air quality goals when making policy choices.
Santa Monica
Protect and enhance environmental health and public health by minimizing and where possible
eliminating . . . the levels of pollutants entering the air, soil and water . . .
Chicago
The City of Chicago will continue to conserve, protect and restore our region’s invaluable
natural resources by developing new programs, policies and practices geared to improving air
quality . . .
1
Tampa
The City of Tampa shall take the appropriate actions toward compliance with all national and
state ambient air quality standards.
Louisville
Minimize, reduce, or eliminate, as necessary and appropriate, through the land use planning and
development review process, air pollution from stationary, area and mobile sources . . . (with
specific related policies for traffic, clean air standards, mass transit, roads, rapid transit corridors,
air pollution, mixed use development, sidewalks and pollution prevention).
Minneapolis
We seek to provide clean air, clean water, clean soil, healthy homes and a good quality environment in every neighborhood throughout Minneapolis.
Toronto
The City recognizes the right of Torontonians to clean air, and recognizes its necessity for the
health and well-being of vulnerable populations and current and future generations.
Ottawa
Understand the role and value of the natural environment (land, air and water) in the community,
and consider the impact of economic and social activities on the natural environment . . . Provide
clean air that allows people to breathe easily and enjoy outdoor activities, and is air that does not
contribute to climate change.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Current Goal Statement
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses
and other sectors.
Previous Goal Statement
Clean Air: The air in every American community will be safe and healthy to breathe. In particular, children, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments will be protected from health risks
of breathing polluted air. Reducing air pollution will also protect the environment, resulting in
many benefits, such as restoring life in damaged ecosystems and reducing health risks to those
who subsistence depends directly on those ecosystems.
2
REGIONAL CLEAN AIR ACTIVITIES
Compiled by Centralina Council of Governments
SEQL and Clean Fuels Coalition
For
Charlotte City Council Committee on the Environment
April 25, 2006
The Committee on the Environment has requested additional information on “what other
areas are doing” to advance the cause of clean air. Centralina Council of Governments
staff have compiled the following activities which constitute the “current status” of clean
air efforts in the Centralina region.
1. Overall Support for the Environment Policy Resolution
The SEQL resolution addresses inclusion of the environment in decision-making. It
has been adopted by 75 jurisdictions in North and South Carolina, including the City
of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. It is included as Attachment A.
2. Clean Air Policies
•
A policy developed through SEQL has been adopted by Peachland, Granite
Quarry, Cherryville, Bessemer City, Kannapolis, Catawba County, Conover,
Hickory, Gastonia, Iredell County, Lincoln County, Huntersville, Salisbury,
Spencer, Troutman, Badin, Fairview, Weddington, most SEQL South Carolina
jurisdictions, and Centralina COG. A copy has been forwarded to the City under
separate cover.
•
The SEQL clean air policy is based on that developed through the Breathe
Stakeholder process initiated by the City in 2000. Both the City and County staff
reported that both jurisdictions had adopted the Breathe Stakeholders’ report and
approved the Breathe action plan, as of September, 2002.
3. Idle Reduction/Anti-idling Policies
•
Every public school system in North Carolina wishing to retain Department of
Public Instruction funding for fuels was required to adopt an anti-idling policy
this winter, although a number of school districts in this region had policies in
place before they were required. Those included Gaston, Lincoln, and Rowan, to
name a few. A copy of CMS’s policy has been forwarded to City staff under
separate cover.
•
Additionally, both Concord and Salisbury (as well as Centralina) have anti-idling
policies for fleet vehicles. Copies have been provided under separate cover.
1
•
As a part of the SEQL program, Centralina is collaborating with the Carolinas
Clean Air Coalition to promote “Clear the Air for Kids!” This is an outreach
program to PTAs and schools to promote education about idle reduction by school
buses (to assist with policy enforcement) and also to reduce idling in carpool lines
during the school year and other drive-through settings particularly in summer.
Schools in Mecklenburg, Gaston, Lincoln, and Cabarrus are interested in this
program.
4. Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits or Alternative Fuels for School Buses
•
Attachment B is a table showing the status of retrofits for school buses in the
Centralina region as of this date, as well as the status of funding to pursue retrofits
over upcoming months. Centralina is working with those counties that are not
currently funded, to secure funding for diesel oxidation catalysts and/or
particulate filters (as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel becomes available).
•
In addition to the buses being retrofitted with Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOCs),
CMS received a grant from a Toyota Supplemental Environmental Program (a
settlement with EPA) that provided funding for installation of particulate filters
and buy-down of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). This program has allowed
CMS to install the filters and use the fuel on 40 buses.
•
The State of South Carolina Department of Education received an EPA Clean
School Bus grant award to fund cleaner, more efficient replacement school buses
and diesel oxidation catalysts on a number of existing buses, as well as using
biodiesel fuel in some areas. While the exact distribution of funds statewide has
not been decided, it is probable that a significant amount of funding will be
allocated to the York County area due to their non-attainment status.
•
South Carolina’s Department of Education also has pending an award from a
Santee-Cooper Supplemental Environmental Project to purchase particulate filters
for installation on school buses, when ULSD becomes more available.
•
Among districts using bio-diesel are Gaston County, which makes its own biodiesel from cafeteria waste.
5. Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits or Alternative Fuels for Other Public Vehicles
•
CATS is pursuing extensive use of ULSD fuels and has retrofitted a number of
their buses with particulate filters. They have also purchased two hybrid buses.
•
The City of Gastonia has a CNG (compressed natural gas) bus, which also has
significantly lower emissions.
2
•
York Technical College is implementing diesel oxidation catalysts for heavy-duty
off-road diesel equipment (such as backhoes, etc.) owned by the City of Rock
Hill, York County, and Chester County using EPA funds.
6. Hybrid and/or Alternative Fuels Use
•
In addition to the City of Charlotte, hybrid users in local government include the
City of Salisbury, City of Concord, Gaston County, Centralina COG, and soon to
be the Town of Marshville. The State of North Carolina has hybrid vehicles on
State contract.
•
In addition to the City of Charlotte, bio-diesel users in local government include
the City of Salisbury, the City of Monroe, the City of Rock Hill, the City of
Gastonia, and the City of Concord. Centralina has flex-fuel vehicles that can use
E-85. Some jurisdictions allow private fleets to purchase bio-diesel from their
pumps.
•
The State of North Carolina and UNC Charlotte also are adding hybrids and
alternative fuels use to their fleets.
7. Truck Stop Electrification
•
A project is currently underway to electrify a major truck stop in Rowan County.
Mecklenburg County has CMAQ funding for a truck stop on I-77. This project
will equip 50 spaces and reduce heavy-duty diesel emissions by multiple tons
each year (estimated 26-50 tons NOx reduction depending on usage).
8. Other Air Quality Actions:
The table below indicates the number of jurisdictions reporting as of June 2005 that
they are undertaking various actions in support of air quality education, emissions
reduction, or planning that supports long-term VMT reduction:
Action Item
Air Awareness
Enhanced Ozone Awareness
Local Air Quality Expertise
Support for Carpooling/Vanpooling
Flexible Work Hours
Tax-Free Commuter Benefits
Smoking Vehicle Enforcement
Clean Air Policy
Open Burning Limits
Diesel Emissions Reductions
3
Number of
Jurisdictions
Undertaking
20
23
14
15
15
3
12
29
46
8
Anti-Idling Policies
Gas Can/Lawnmower Trade-Outs
Air Quality Education for Teachers
Local Government Energy Planning
Energy Efficient Coatings for HVAC
Tree Planting/Preservation Standards
Connectivity to Support
Bike/Ped/Transit Use
Pedestrian-Friendly Streetscapes
Clean Cities Participation
Design for the Environment
4
16
1
2
12
8 approx.
37
22
42
24
2
Attachment A
A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
BY THE
WHEREAS, the __________________________________ is keenly aware of the
importance of natural resource protection and enhancement within our community;
and
WHEREAS, the degradation of natural resources, including air and water pollution
and the rampant consumption of open space does not recognize political boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, intergovernmental cooperation, on a regional basis, is essential to any
effort to protect and preserve the natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the protection and preservation of natural resources within __________
___________ and the greater region are essential to the general health, safety, and
welfare of community and regional residents; and
WHEREAS, improper management of natural resources is contrary to the ideals of a
healthy, economically vital and aesthetically pleasing community and region;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the __________________________
_______________________ adopts this resolution in support of SEQL: Sustainable
Environment for Quality of Life; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the _____________________________ through
its comprehensive and all other planning efforts, will seek to implement sound
environmental planning principles in a manner that furthers the efforts of SEQL to
the benefit of _______________ and regional citizens.
Adopted this _________________ day of _____________________, 2003.
___________________________________
Chief Elected Official
5
Attachment B
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Status for School Districts in Centralina
April 24, 2006
# buses
2000
1995
#
# activity
#
eligible for model or model or
newer
older
School System Buses buses Retrofited retrofits
Anson County
MSER grant 4/06 $46,000 - will be doing
DOCs on 46 buses this
summer & $23,000 for
biodiesel equipment
Cabarrus County
Catawba County *
CMS
Cleveland County
Gaston County
Hickory City
Iredell/Statesville
Funding
1196
178
240
29
259
192
213
111
360
22
MSER grant 4/06 - for
idle reduction program
& equipment
111
MSER grant 4/06 $81,000 - will be doing
DOCs on 81 buses this
summer. Currently
producing biodiesel
fuel for approximately
25 buses and will be
producing for 100+
soon
95
29
58
60
111
6
50
$50,000 grant
Idling Policy
YES
NO.
Schools
11
YES
YES
28
26
YES
YES
150
28
YES
YES
YES
53
9
32
Kannapolis City
Lincoln County
Mooresville City
Newton Conover
120
Rowan County
Stanly County
Union County
216
35
273
45
MSER grant 4/06 $48,000 - will be doing
DOCs on 48 buses this
summer
78
116
68
52
135
94
164
7
CMAQ grant
County
Altrusa Club
YES
7
YES
YES
YES
23
7
9
YES
YES
YES
33
26
38
480
Environmental Initiatives
The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) has making significant strides in lowering vehicle
emissions and promoting environmental stewardship in its operating practices since its
inception. Some of the major initiatives and programs that CATS has implemented recently
include:
1) Early Implementation of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD)
o Since June 2003, CATS has been introducing ULSD into its fleet. Currently, CATS
fuels more than 60 vehicles with ULSD, which is currently trucked in from
Doraville, Georgia. CATS also partners with CMS on the ULSD purchase so that
the CMS fleet with diesel particulate filters installed can operate on ULSD. In
October 2007, CATS entire fleet will be using ULSD as part of the EPA mandate.
The use of ULSD in diesel vehicles alone will reduce the soot in diesel exhaust by
up to 20 percent.
2) Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) Installation
o In June 2003, CATS began a pilot program to install DPF’s on three pilot buses
operating on ULSD. The pilot was so successful in reducing emissions that all
new buses since 2005 have come with DPF’s already installed. Furthermore,
CATS has obtained grant funding to purchase over 90 DPF’s in the coming year to
retrofit older buses with a useful life of more than ten (10) years. DPF’s in
conjunction with ULSD fuel have proven to reduce 90 percent of Particulate
Matter (PM), Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide emissions
3) Hybrid Bus Pilot Program
o In August 2005, CATS put into service two (2) hybrid buses as part of a pilot
program. To date the vehicles are performing as expected and provide many
benefits to the operations and well as CATS customers. These include: improved
fuel economy, lower emissions, and a smother and quieter ride for customers.
The fuel economy alone has improved by as much as 50 percent depending upon
the operating environment.
4) Hybrid Staff Car Program
o Since hybrid cars have been available to purchase off of City contracts, CATS has
been an active participant in this program. To date CATS has purchased six
hybrid staff cars and when appropriate the hybrid technology vehicle is the one of
preference.
5) Anti-Idling Policy
o In October 2004, CATS implemented an Anti-Idling Policy for all of CATS vehicles.
CATS owned transit and service vehicles are not permitted to idle for more than
10 minutes at a CATS Operations Facility and/or while in service (including
Charlotte Area Transit System
April 2006
layover) and not idle for more than 5 minutes in an enclosed area, unless in an
extraordinary operating condition. This has proven to be very effective in reducing
the fuel consumption of CATS revenue vehicles by as much as 20 percent.
6) “Clear the Air” Program
o Since 1997, the transit system has conducted an annual “Clear the Air”
campaign during the heavy Ozone season. This annual program includes radio,
billboard and newspaper awareness on the issues of ground level ozone.
Numerous transportation fairs are conducted with local businesses encouraging
employees to share-the-ride especially on Ozone Action Days. CATS coordinates
the “Clear the Air” Program to promote alternative methods of transportation
within the region from May to September each year.
7) New Facility Practices
o As CATS has brought new facilities on-line, environmental stewardship has been
at the forefront of the design when practical. Examples of these include:
ƒ Park and Rides – As part of the new park and rides being built by CATS,
rain gardens have been incorporated into the design for storm water
retention.
ƒ Maintenance Facilities – At the new South Tryon Bus Facility, CATS
installed of catch basins rather than storm water drains in maintenance
bays. Furthermore, at both South Tryon and Davidson Bus Facilities,
recycled water is used for washing and reverse osmosis water for rinsing
of bus fleet.
Charlotte Area Transit System
April 2006
Environment Committee
Federal and State Initiatives on the Environment
Federal Initiatives
Clear Skies Act of 2005 – (S.131)
(Cosponsors: Sen. James Inhofe and George Voinovich)
Description: The Clear Skies legislation is President Bush's proposal to reduce pollution
from power plants nationwide. It is a "cap and trade" program that caps pollution at
a certain amount. It is also a multi-pollutant approach, regulating more that one
pollutant.
More information:
http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/
The Library of Congress: THOMAS
New Source Review (H.R. 1873)
(Cosponsors: Rep. Jeb Bradley, NH, Rep. Jim Davis, FL, and Rep. Jim Cooper, TN)
Description: New Source Review is a federal regulation that affects very large
stationary (industrial) sources of air pollution in nonattainment areas. When New Source
Review requirements are in effect, any changes or modifications at permitted sources
must be assessed to determine if they will result in pollution increases that
trigger stringent control requirements.
In Mecklenburg County, we currently have twelve sources that emit enough pollution to
be subject to the federal permitting program and only a subset of those would be subject
to New Source Review requirements due to our ozone nonattainment status. Mecklenburg
County Air Quality is responsible for administering the New Source Review regulation in
Mecklenburg County.
More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/naa.html
The Library of Congress: THOMAS
1
State Initiatives
Duke Energy and Smokestacks
Clean Smokestacks Act: In June 2002, the N.C. General Assembly enacted the Clean
Smokestacks Bill, officially titled the Air Quality/Electric Utilities Bill (SB 1078), which
requires significant actual emissions reductions from coal-fired power plants in North
Carolina. Under the act, power plants must reduce their nitrogen oxide emissions by 77%
in 2009 and sulfur dioxide emissions by 73% in 2013.
According to Mecklenburg County Air Quality, this initiative is a progressive piece of
legislation. Duke Energy is complying with the requirements as are other energy
providers in the State.
More information:
http://www.ncair.org/news/leg/
2
Water Quality
Background Briefing
Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
May 1, 2006
Questions
• Is water quality important?
• What are our water resources?
• Who is using the water?
• How’s our drinking water?
• What happens after we flush?
• What are the rules?
• Where does the rain go?
2
Is Water Quality Important?
3
Water
Resources:
Water
Resources:
Rivers
Lakes
Rivers
and and
Lakes
4
Alexander
Caldwell
Lake
Hickory
Burke
Lake
James
Lake
Rhodhiss
Catawba
Mcdowell
Lincoln
Iredell
Lookout Shoals
Lake
Lake
Norman
Gaston
Lake
Wylie
Duke Power Manages
11 Lakes & 13 Dams
on Catawba
Mountain
Island
Lake
Mecklenburg
York
Chester
Lancaster
Great Falls &
Rocky Creek Lakes
Fishing Creek Lake
Fairfield
100% of
Charlotte’s
water comes
from the
Catawba River
Lake Wateree
Kershaw
5
Lak
e
Who’s Using the
Water?
Jam
es
Lak
e
Rho
dhis
s
Lak
e
Hick
ory
LO
e
Lak
S
KR
OR
T HF
OU
R
IVE
OU
OK
TS
A
HO
LS
an
m
r
No
MOUNTAIN
ISLAND
LAKE
yle
W
e
Lak
6
IBT
Catawba
Basin
IBT
Rocky River
Basin
IBT
7
How’s Our
Drinking
Water?
8
Water
Resource:
Creeks and
Streams
9
How Does Water Get Dirty?
• Two types of pollution
– Point Source
– Non-point Source
• The way we live and use the land will
either
– Make the water dirtier or
– Make the water cleaner
10
Wastewater
Treatment Plants
McDowell Creek
Mallard Creek
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
McAlpine Creek
11
Drinking Water or
Wastewater?
12
Preventing
Sewer
Overflows
13
Regional Initiatives Help Protect Water Quality
14
What are the Rules?
US EPA
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
US FWS Endangered Species Act
FERC
Power Act
NC DENR
NPDES Permits
SEPA
Water Supply
Water Quality
Erosion
SC DHEC
Other NC & SC Resource
Agencies
Local
NPDES
NC WRC
Historic Preservation
Others
Zoning
Development Standards
Sewer Ordinance
Post Construction Controls
15
Local Water Quality Initiatives
• Capital Investments
– Land Purchases /
Watershed Protection
– WW Treatment Plants
– Sewer Overflow Reductions
– Stream Restoration
– Storm Water Quality
Management
– Greenways / Open Space
– BMP Monitoring & Research
– Other Capital Projects and
Partnerships
• Regulatory / Planning
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
GDP
SWIM Buffers
Zoning / Land Use
Development Standards
Post Construction Controls
SEQL
FERC Relicensing
TMDL’s
Compensatory Mitigation
Bank
16
Stormwater Overview
• Although our lakes are of high quality, the
•
•
•
streams leaving Charlotte have some
issues
Majority of local streams are impaired
Urbanization causes stream impairment
Efforts to slow and reverse these impacts
17
Why do we care about clean water
& stable streams?
– Federal Mandates
– Drinking water supplies
– Fish, wildlife, open space connection, loss of
land from erosion
– Quality of life
18
Why do we care about clean water
& stable streams?
– Economic growth and development
– Protection/prevention is cheaper than
restoration and clean-up
• Storm Water fees
• Real Estate costs
19
Why are our surface waters impaired?
•
•
•
•
Development activities
Sediment, nutrients, and bacteria entering
Catawba or Yadkin Rivers
Increased volumes and velocity of storm
water
Harm to fish, drinking
water supplies, and
the area along
stream corridors
20
Stream Erosion / Sedimentation
The Affects of
No Controls
Stream Buffer Loss and Channelization
Algae bloom
21
er
y Riv
Rock
Impaired Streams
(NCDWQ 303d listed)
ek
re
ll C
e
w
Do
Mc
•Impairment due to:
reek
ks C
Clar
Yadkin River Basin
Catawba River Basin
• Sediment
• Bacteria
k
ee
Cr
Irw
in
Cre
ek
• Biological impairment
(erosion and poor fish habitat)
McKe
e Cree
k
ng
Lo
• Not “swimmable and fishable”
ek
re
eC
n
i
lp
cA
M
Goose Creek
• May eventually see mandated
management plans
Litt
le S
uga
r Cr
eek
Sugar Creek
k
ree
ar C
e
l
C
N Fork Crooked Creek
Legend
Charlotte
Cornelius
Davidson
Huntersville
Matthews
Mint Hill
Pineville
Streams Listed on NC 303(d) list
River Basin Drainage Divide
N
2
0
2
4 Miles
22
Attempts to Address Impairments
• Current City Responsibilities
– reduce bacteria
– control sediment from construction sites,
– educate the public, and other activities
• Pending Requirements
– reduce stream erosion, biological impairment,
nutrients, and sediment from development (Post
Construction Controls)
• Future Regulations may dictate that we restore
impaired waters
23
Post Construction Controls
• Measures that clean and reduce storm
water runoff
– storm water detention basins
– open space
– vegetated buffers
– BMP’s.
• Address environmental impacts of storm
water runoff in areas of new development
or redevelopment.
24
Examples
Structural BMP’s are often
incorporated into the landscape or as
amenities
Wet Ponds / Detention Basins
Bioretention Areas
Open space / stream buffers
25
Complementary Initiatives
• General Development Policies –
Environmental Chapter
– Consider and minimize environmental impacts
– Identify and protect sensitive areas
• Urban Street Design Guidelines
– Connectivity and stream crossings
– Surface water controls
• Post Construction Ordinance
– Path to development
– Provides options for redevelopment and key
development areas
26
What are the implications of not protecting
local surface waters?
ƒ Federal mandates / fines /
lawsuits
ƒ Annexation
ƒ Impairment of streams and water
quality
ƒ Downstream flooding
ƒ Quality of life
ƒ Economic impacts
27
Surface Water Issues
• Effective post construction controls
• Effective Capital programs to help reverse
the affects of impairments that have
already occurred
• Protection and preservation is cheaper
than restoration
28
Water Supply, Wastewater Plants, and Storm Water are Related
Water Supply
Water
Quality
Reuse
Wastewater
Land
Use
TMDL
NPDES
Stormwater
Land Use Impacts All Three
29
Summary
• Our lakes are cleaner than our streams
• Water resources are shared resources
• Land use decisions affect water quality
• Preventing pollution is more effective
than cleaning it up
30