Field Investigations, Service Requests & Emergency Response (IC-F(1))
Prepared by: Andrew DeCristofaro
Annual Report for FY2017
Purpose:
The purpose of this program element is to respond to service requests and emergency situations and to conduct field investigations as necessary to identify and eliminate pollution problems and protect and restore water quality conditions.
Background:
Water quality field investigations, including responding to service requests and emergency situations have been an important component of the Charlotte Phase I Program since its beginning in FY1994-1995. Service requests include water quality problems/concerns called in by citizens, other local government departments, and other entities usually during normal working hours (8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday). These service requestsare responded to immediately if polluted surface waters, active discharges and/or spills are reported. The standard response time is withintwo (2) days if the request is for information only. Responses to service requests often lead to the discovery of pollution problems; therefore, they are very important to the success of the program.
Service Requests:
During the 23 years from FY1994-1995 through FY2016-2017, a total of 11,044service requestshave been responded to in the City of Charlotte. Five-hundred and seven (507)service requests were responded to in the City of Charlotte during FY16-17 (see Graph 1). A spatial representation of service requests activities for FY16-17is presented in Figure 1. The lowest number of service requests (271) observed in the City of Charlotte over the 23year period occurred during the fiscal year 2010-2011, whereas the most were received during FY01-02 (692). The annual average number of service requests received over the review period is 480. The general trend in the number of service requests hasdeclined over the past 23years although the pattern is somewhat erratic. During FY12, FY13, and FY14, the number (358, 362 and 355 respectively) remained nearly constant. However, during FY15, FY16, and FY17 a notable increase (432, 476, and 507 respectively) was observed. This observation may be due to specific public education campaigns that have been initiated periodically by CMSWS that have increased public awareness regarding specific surface water issues. Extreme weather patterns alsotend to result in an increased number of calls for service.The general downward trend in the number of service requests received as compared to the 23-year tracking period could also be related to the 311 reporting system that went into effect in July of 2008. Perhaps the 311 system is directing calls more accurately to respective Departments. For instance, prior to 311, a citizen may have called CMSWS regarding a water leak that should have been directed to Charlotte Water.
Efforts to promote public awareness continue through CMSWS media and outreach programs with the goal of educating citizens’ so they can recognize potential environmental issues so that they may be reported and investigated for resolution. At the end of FY12-13, a new “Water Watchers App” was launched that gives the public the ability to report potential water quality issues via smart phones. It is anticipated that this technology will result in an increase in the number of issues reported as the public becomes more aware of this technology.
In addition to outreach programs targeted at the general public, CMSWS has a robust municipal employee training program. During FY17, 763municipalemployees received training on storm water best management practices including how to identify and report potential storm water and water quality pollutant issues. Many of the service requests received are generated through City and County staff.
Service request data is documented in City Works Server which has been operational since September 2012. City Works enables users to enter detailed information concerning the caller/requester type. As a result, all calls for service can now be tracked by caller type. (i.e. citizen, staff, State, EPA, etc). These types of service requests are now included in the report data as these requests are equally as important as those called in by citizens in terms of identifying and eliminating sources of surface water pollution. Table 1 summarizes the source of service requests received during FY17. This information is useful in directing future outreach campaigns to increase the number of potential surface water issues that are reported.
Graph 1
Table 1
FY2017Service Request Source Summary
Caller Type / Number of Service Requests*
Citizen / 233
Staff / 103
Charlotte Fire Department / 40
Charlotte Water / 41
Charlotte Storm Water Services / 51
State – Division of Water Resources / 9
Other / 17
Business / 7
Towns / 0
Environmental Protection Agency / 5
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept. / 1
TOTAL / 507
*Source summary data includes all types of service requests in Charlottejurisdiction.
Figure 1
Emergency Response:
Water quality emergency situations include vehicle accidents, spills, and illegal discharges that pose an immediate risk to the environment or public health. Such incidents called in during normal working hours are usually logged in as servicerequests; however, they are designated as emergency responses in City Works by checking the appropriate box. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services - Water Quality Program (CMSWS) has staff on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to emergencies. Response to all reported emergency situations is immediate. CMSWS’ role in emergency response is to ensure that spills are contained and cleaned up and that public health and the environment are protected. From FY94-95 through FY16-17CMSWS has responded to 1,221emergency situations within the City of Charlotte. During FY2017, CMSWS responded to 41emergency situations within Charlotte’s jurisdiction. The least number of emergency situations responded to during the 23-year review period was 22 during FY09-10, whereas FY98-99 had the most emergencies at 114 (see Graph2). The average annual number of emergency responses is 53. The general trend over the past 23years is downward, which is somewhat unexpecteddue to the growing transportation infrastructureand thru-traffic in and around Charlotte. The majority of emergency responses observed over the review period are related to transportation incidents. Figure 2 provides an illustration of the distribution of emergency responses during FY16-17.
Graph 2
Figure 2
Spatial Distribution of Emergency Responses within Charlotte’s Jurisdiction
Activities:
IC-F(1)a: The FY2017 activities under this program element were implemented on July 1, 2016 and conducted through June 30, 2017. Andrew DeCristofaro and John McCulloch met with Kristen O’Reilly and Craig Miller on August 18, 2016 to discuss the program. Policies and Procedures were reviewed and revised and staff training was conducted on August 22, 2016.
IC-F(1)b: This annual report was completed on July 26, 2017 and fulfills the requirement of this task.
Figure 3 illustrates sub-basins with the highest numbers of service requests responded to duringFY2016-2017. Note that the legend is color coded to represent the number of activities conducted by sub-basin.
Figure 3
Notices of Violation and Materials Discharged
One-hundred twenty-one (121) NOVs were issued in Charlotte’s jurisdiction during FY2017. Ninety-eight (98) of those NOVs were issued under the IC-F(1) program element. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance NOVs are not included in this total. Figure 4 provides the spatial distribution of the NOVs issued during FY17 by material type.
Figure 4
Graph 4 below indicates the number of NOVs by discharge type for the period July 1995 through June 2017 while Graph 5 illustrates the NOVs issued during FY17 by material type.This information is useful in targeting future educational initiatives as well as IDDE activities to reduce the incidence of these discharges.
Graph 4
Graph 5
During FY2017, the distribution of illicit discharges and connections was primarily concentrated in the most highly urbanized areas of the City of Charlotte. The following watersheds demonstrated the most illicit discharge activity resulting in NOVs during the year.
(1) Stewart Creek
(2) Irwin Creek
(3) Upper Little Sugar Creek
Figure 6 illustrates the density of NOVs issued in Charlotte’s jurisdiction by sub-basin for the FY17.
Figure 6
Results for IC-F(1):
Service Requests
During FY16-17, the following drainage areasrecorded the highest number of activities including service requests, emergency responses, and NOVs:
(1)Little Sugar Creek
(2)Briar Creek
(3)Irwin Creek
(4)Stewart Creek
The majority of activities that occurred during FY16-17 were located in the Little Sugar, Briar,Stewart, and Irwin Creek Watersheds. These observations are consistent with general trends observed in previous years and also correspond to the watersheds exhibiting some of the poorest water quality in the County.
During FY2017, Upper Little Sugar andUpper Irwin/Stewart Creeks had the greatest number of emergency response events. The majority of emergency responses involve transportation related incidents. Upper Little Sugar and Upper Irwin/Stewart Creeks contain some of the busiest transportation corridors within the County.
Overall, the vast majority of activities observed were in and around the downtown Charlotte area. This may be due to the concentration of population in these areas, age of infrastructure, or simply more awareness due to the number of citizens’ interacting with surface waters in these areas.
Notices of Violation and Material Discharged
Analysis of the data indicates a consistent increase in the number of illegal discharges for which NOVs were issued over the 23year period from FY95 through FY17. The highest number issued (121 NOVs) occurred during FY17 and the lowest number issued in FY 1994-1995 (20 NOVs). The average number of NOVs issued over the review period is 64. Historically, discharges of wastewater have been the most frequently observed violation followed by sewage andpetroleum discharges. For the past two fiscal years, FY16 and FY17,private entity sewage discharges received the most NOVs in Charlotte. It is believed that the steady increase in the number of NOVs issued over the review period is likely due to increasing public/municipal employee awareness to report observed problems, better record keeping systems, and the expansion of local ordinance authority.
Program Recommendations:
Program element IC-F(1) continues to be the most effective program for identifying pollution sources that impact or have the potential to impact surface waters. The overall effectiveness of this program is dependent on educating the general public and local government employees on identifying and reporting threats to surface waters.
It is recommended that these education programs continue to be expanded through various media in order to increase awareness levels thereby resulting in the elimination of pollution sources.
Table 2: FY2017 IC-F(1) Program Summary
Charlotte NPDES MS4 ProgramField Investigations, Service Requests, and Emergency Response
FY2017Program Summary
Number of Service Requests 1994 - 2017 / 11,044
Number of Service Requests FY2017 / 507[MJ1]
Service Request Type / Accidental Spill – 56
Algae Bloom – 5
Fish Kill – 5
Discharge/Dumping –253
Buffer Disturbance –14
Erosion – 22
Illicit Connection – 3
No Incident Identified - 95
Unspecified/Other–26
Natural Occurrence – 17
Monitoring Follow-up - 1
Unknown - 10
Service Request – Material Type / Automotive Fluids – 63
Paint – 7
Sediment – 40
Sewage – 83
Solid Waste – 11
Wastewater/Wash Water - 37
Other/Unknown–53
None/Natural Conditions–90
Pet Waste - 1
Number of Follow-up Field Inspections / 413
Emergency Responses during FY2017 / 41
No. of SSOs found through service requests / 83
NOVs Issued under IC-F(1) / 98
Staff Trained – Service Requests / 20
Staff Trained – Emergency Response / 20
Staff Trained - IDDE / 20
Number of Outfalls Inspected under IC-F(1) / 22
Table 3: FY2017 Service Requests by Six Mile Basin
Six Mile Basin Number / Number of Service Requests89 / 0
86 / 0
77 / 0
120 / 0
70 / 0
98 / 0
119 / 0
58 / 0
118 / 0
63 / 0
22 / 0
99 / 0
33 / 0
27 / 0
102 / 0
28 / 0
40 / 0
105 / 0
112 / 0
106 / 0
76 / 1
65 / 1
59 / 1
60 / 1
23 / 1
35 / 1
34 / 1
121 / 2
74 / 2
10 / 2
110 / 2
48 / 2
111 / 2
108 / 2
107 / 2
96 / 3
72 / 3
67 / 3
29 / 3
100 / 3
46 / 3
12 / 3
51 / 3
109 / 3
21 / 4
38 / 4
24 / 4
66 / 5
97 / 5
71 / 5
69 / 5
73 / 5
75 / 5
62 / 5
26 / 5
41 / 5
47 / 5
78 / 6
20 / 6
49 / 6
36 / 7
37 / 7
50 / 7
64 / 8
68 / 8
57 / 8
2 / 8
25 / 8
43 / 8
16 / 9
31 / 9
32 / 9
44 / 9
39 / 9
61 / 10
30 / 10
14 / 11
8 / 11
11 / 11
19 / 12
45 / 12
3 / 13
1 / 14
6 / 14
42 / 14
9 / 16
4 / 16
7 / 17
18 / 17
5 / 18
17 / 20
15 / 22
Table 4: FY2017 Service Requests by Watershed
Watershed / Number of Service RequestsMcKee Creek / 1
N/A / 1
Back Creek / 2
Clarke Creek / 2
Clems Branch / 2
Coffey Creek / 2
Irvins Creek / 2
Gar Creek / 3
Lake Wylie / 4
Lower Mtn Island Lake / 5
McAlpine Creek / 10
Reedy Creek / 10
Six-Mile Creek / 10
Taggart Creek / 12
Campbell Creek / 13
Kings Branch / 13
Sugar Creek / 13
Little Sugar Creek / 15
Paw Creek / 15
Steele Creek / 16
Upper McAlpine Creek / 18
Four-Mile Creek / 19
Mallard Creek / 27
Mid McAlpine Creek / 27
McMullen Creek / 29
Stewart Creek / 29
Long Creek / 30
Upper Irwin Creek / 50
Briar Creek / 60
Upper Little Sugar Creek / 67
Appendix A
Procedures for Responding to Service Requests
IC-F(1)b.
Appendix B
Service Request Protocols Staff Presentation
IC-F(1)c.
Appendix C
IDDE Refresher Training
Appendix D
Emergency Response Staff Training
Appendix E
FY15 Training Documentation
[MJ1]Need to break them down by sub-basin and watershed name for TMDL reporting requirements.