REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
(NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA)
U. S." DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
-------
REPORT FOR CONSULTATION ON THE
METROPOLITAN CHARLOTTE
INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
(NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
May 1970
-------
CONTENTS
Preface. . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
Introduction
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Evaluation of Urban Factors
. . . .
. .. . . .
Geography of the Region
. . . . .
Present Distribution of Population
and Urbanization Trends . ~ . . .
. . . . .
Prospective Population and Economic
Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Probable Directions of Urban Growth
. . . . .
Evaluation of Technical Factors. .
. . . . .
The Emission Inventory.
. . . .
. . . .
Air Quality Analysis.
. . . .
. . . . .
Regional Governmental Organization
. . . .
. . . .
Proposed Air Quality Control Region.
. . . .
i
ii
1
1
7
22
27
30
30
38
46
53
-------
PREFACE
The Clean Air Act, as amended, directs the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to designate "air quality
control regions" to provide a basis for the adoption of regional
air quality standards and the implementation of those standards.
The Act stipulates that the designation of a region shall be
preceded by consultation with appropriate State and local
authorities.
This report is intended to provide the basic back-
ground information needed for the consultation.
It proposes
boundaries for the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality
Control Region and discusses the factors which are the basis of
the proposed boundaries.
The Region* boundaries proposed in this report remain
subject to revisions suggested during consultation with State
and local authorities.
Formal designation of the Region will
be made only after a careful review of all opinions and sugges-
tions submitted during the consultation process.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration appre-
ciates assistance received from the States of North Carolina
and South Carolina, and the local governments and planning
agencies in the area.
*For the purposes of this report, the word "region," when
capitalized, will refer to the Metropolitan Charlotte Inter~
state Air Quality Control Region.
-i-
-------
INTRODUCTION
THE REGIONAL APPROACH
Air pollution in the urban areas of the United States is
a regional problem which frequently extends across governmental
boundaries.
Since air pollution problems are rarely confined to
any single municipality or county, and are often not confined
within a single State, successful control requires coordinated
planning, standard setting, and enforcement by the several
political jurisdictions which-share a common problem.
To date,
State and local governments across the Nation have only begun to
develop a regional approach to air pollution control.
The Clean Air Act, as amended, provides a regional approach
which depends upon coordination and cooperation among all levels
of government--municipal, county, State, and Federal.
To set in
motion the machinery for regional air pollution control, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare designates air
quality control regions (following consultation with State and
local officials), issues air quality criteria, and publishes
reports on control techniques.
The designation of region bound-
aries indicates which State and local jurisdictions will be
involved in a regional air pollution control effort.
The air
quality criteria indicate the extent to which various concentra-
tions of air pollutants are harmful to health and damaging to
-11-
-------
property.
The reports on control techniques provide information
on the costs and effectiveness of various techniques for con-
trolling air pollutant emissions.
After the Department of Healtht Educationt and Welfare com-
pletes these initial stepst State governments develop air quality
standards and plans for implementation of such standards within
the boundaries of designated air quality control regions.
An
air quality standard for a region defines the desired limit of
concentration of a pollutant in the ambient air.
It represents
the level of air quality which the regional control program
will attempt to achieve.
An implementation plan is a blueprint
of the steps which will be taken to attain chosen regional air
quality standards within a reasonable time.
The Clean Air Act
requires that within 90 days after the Secretary of Healtht
Educationt and Welfare has designated the region, State Governors
must submit letters indicating that they intend to set air quality
standards for those pollutants for which criteria and control
technology documents have been issued.
They have an additional
180 days to set the standards.
The procedure for setting s~andards
includes a public hearing which allows residents of a region to
express their views concerning the proposed standards.
The
Governors are required to submit to the SecretarYt within an
additional 180 dayst plans for the implementation of the standards
which have been adopted.
-iii-
-------
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reviews air
quality standards and implementation plans in order to ascertain
. .
their consistency with the provisions of the Act.
When air quality standards and implementation plans are
approved, States proceed to prevent and control air pollution in
accordance with those standards and plans.
This system for estab-
lishing a regional approach to air pollution control is outlined
in Figure 1.
DESIGNATION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
Designation of an air quality control region is one of the
first steps in the regional approach to air pollution control.
Section 107 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, directs the
Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to nlake
such designations.
The portions of the section relevant to this
discussion state:
"...The Secretary, after consultation with appropriate
State and local authorities shall...designate air quality
control regions based on jurisdictional boundaries,
urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors
including atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate
implementation of air quality standards. The Secretary
may...revise the designation of such regions...The Sec-
retary shall immediately notify the Governor or Governors
of the affected State or States of such designation."
Procedure for Designation of Regions
Figure 2 illustrates the procedures used by the National Air
Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) for designating air quality
-iv-
-------
>%j
H
c;')
C
~
t"%J
f-'
I
o >%j
:;j f-'
o
II) (
~ t:J
CD to'-
II)
I-'-
0 ti
:;j ~
II)
f-'
H>
tP 0
II) ti
en
..... >
en n
v rt
.....
CO
:;j :;j
0.
I CD rt
< ti 0
I
rt (')
::TO
CD :;j
rt
nti
f-'O
CD f-'
II)
:;j >
to'-
>ti
to'-
ti "'d
o
>f-'
n f-'
rt c:
rt
.....
o
::3
HEW DESIGNATES
AI R QUALITY
CONTROL REGIONS.
HEW DEVELOPS AND
PUBLISHES AI R
QUALITY CRITERIA
BASED ON SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE OF AIR
POLLUTION EFFECTS.
HEW PREPARES
AND PUBLISHES
REPORTS ON
AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
STATES INDICATE
THEIR INTENT
TO SET STANDARDS.
(pUBLIC
HEARINGS)
STATES SET
AI R QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR THE AIR
QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS.
STATES SUBMIT
STANDARDS FOR
HEW REVIEW.
STATES ESTABLISH
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
. '.
FOR IMPLEMENTING
AI R QUALITY
STANDARDS.
STATES SUBMIT
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
FOR HEW REVIEW.
STATES ACT'tO CONTROL
AIR POllUTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
-------
I
<:
.....
I
"<:I
H
c;')
c:::
::d
t%j
N
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
. EMISSIONS INVENTORY
'"
. TOPOGRAPHY
. METEOROLOGY
. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
EXISTING AIR QUALITY DATA
DIFFUSION MODEL OUTPUT
~
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION FORMAL
DELINEATION ~ WITH STATE AND ... DESIGNATION BY
.....
OF REGIONS ..... LOCAL OFFICIALS SECRETARY-HEW
URBAN FACTORS EVALUATION
~ .
. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
. URBAN-INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS -.
. COOPERATIVE REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
. PATTERNS AND RATES OF GROWTH
. EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS & LEGISLATION
-------
control regions.
After evaluating relevant technical and urban factors in a
region, the National Air Pollution Control Administration pub-
lishes a proposed delineation of the boundaries.
At the same
time, NAPeA sets a time and place for a consultation meeting and
distributes to State and local authorities a report of the evalua-
tion study (such as this "Report for Consultation") which includes
the boundary proposal.
At the consultation meeting State and
local authorities are encouraged to present fully their views and
suggestions concerning the proposed boundaries of the region.
Interested parties who do not have official status may submit
comments in written form for the record.
After careful review of
all suggestions and opinions submitted for the record by interested
parties, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare makes a
formal designation of the region boundaries and notifies the
Governor(s) of the State(s) affected by the designation.
The Size of a Region
As stipulated in Section 107 (a) (2), the designation of
air quality control regions should be based on "jurisdictional
boundaries, urban-industrial concentrations and other factors
including atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate
implementation of air quality standards."
This language suggests
a number of :objectives which are important in determining how
-vii-
-------
large an air quality control region should be.
Basically,
I
these objectives can be divided into three separate categories.
. First, a region should be self-contained with respect to
air pollution sources and receptors.
Unfortunately, since air
pollutants can travel long distances, it is impractical if not
impossible to delineate regions which are completely self-
contained.
The air over a over a region will usually have at least
trace amounts of pollutants from external sources.
During
episodic conditions, such contributions from external sources
may even reach significant levels.
Conversely, air pollution
generated within a region and transported out of it ~an affect
external receptors to some degree.
It would be impractical
and inefficient to make all air quality control regions large
enough to encompass these low-level trace effects.
The geo-
graphic extent of trace effects overestimates the true problem
area which should be the focus of air pollution control efforts.
Thus, the first objective, that a region be self-contained,
becomes a question of relative magnitude and fr~quency.
The
dividing line between "important influence" and "trace effect"
will be a matter of judgment.
The judgment should be based on
estimates of the impact a source has upon a region, and the
level of pollution to which receptors are subjected.
In this
respect, annual and seasonal data on pollutant emissions and
ambient air concentrations are a better measure of relative
-viii -
-------
influence than short term data on episodic conditions.
In
summary, a region should include most of the important sources
in the area as well as most of the people and property affected
by those sources.
The second general objective requires that regional bound-
aries be designed to meet not only present conditions but also
future conditions.
In other words, the region should include
areas where industrial and residential expansion are likely to
create air pollution problems in the foreseeable future.
This
objective requires careful consideration of existing metropolitan
development plans, expected population growth, and projected
industrial expansion.
Such considerations should result in the
designation of regions which will contain the sources and recep-
tors of regional air pollution for a number of years to come.
Of course, regional boundaries need not be permanently fixed,
once designated.
Boundaries should be reviewed periodically
and altered when changing conditions war~ant readjustment.
The third objective is that regional boundaries should be
compatible with and even foster unified and cooperative govern-
mental administration of the air resource throughout the region.
Because air pollution usually extends across governmental bound-
aries, the cooperation of several governmental bodies is required
for the solution of a common set of air pollution problems.
In this regard, the established patterns of governmental coopera-
-ix-
-------
tion on a range of urban problems is an important consideration,
and the pattern of cooperation among existing air pollution con-
trol programs is a particularly relevant factor.
In general,
administrative considerations would argue against the division
of governmental jurisdictions.
Although it would be impractical
to preserve State jurisdictions undivided, usually it is possible
to preserve the unity of county governments by including or
excluding them in their entirety.
Occasionally, even this would
be impractical due to a county's large size, wide variation in
level of development, or striking topographical features.
To the extent that any two of the above three objectives
lead to incompatible conclusions concerning reg~on boundaries,
the region must represent a reasonable compromise.
A region
should represent the best way of satisfying the three objectives
simultaneously.
As noted above, the evaluations of relevant technical,
urban, and governmental factors form the basis of the boundary
proposals published by NAPCA.
The technical factors study takes
account of the location of pollution sources and the geographic
extent of serious pollutant concentrations in the ambient air.
Pollution sources are identified through an inventory of emissions
from power generation, industrial operations, space heating,
waste disposal, and other pollution-causing activities.
The
transport and distribution of pollutants in the ambient air are
-x-
-------
analyzed on the basis of measured air quality data, the location
of emissions, meteorological data, and topographic information.
A mathematical diffusion model which predicts a~bient pollution
concentrations from information on emissions and meteorology can
be used in areas where ~rregular topographical features would not
invalidate the theoretical model.
As a whole, the technical
factors study indicates how large the air quality control region
should be in order to encompass most pollution sources and most
people and property affected by those sources.
The study of urban factors takes account of a different set
of considerations.
It discusses the location of urban and
industrial concentrations and expected patterns of urban growth.
As a whole, the urban factors study indicates how large a region
should be in order to encompass expected regional growth.
The evaluation of the regional governmental organizations
discusses the planning agencies, councils of government, and
state and local air pollution control programs.
This study
attempts to define the combination of counties
which, through
cooperative regional arrangements, would best work together
towards achieving clean air in the region.
The body of this report contains a proposal for the
boundaries of the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Air Quality
Control Region, based on the evaluation of technical~ urban, and
governmental factors.
The report is intended to serve as the
-xi-
-------
background document for the Consultation between the National
Air Pollution Control Administration and the appropriate State
and. local authorities.
-xii-
-------
EVALUATION OF URBAN FACTORS
Factors of major importance in considering boundaries for
an air quality control region are those which have to do with
the size, shape, nature, and dynamics of urbanization within
the region.
It is the concentration of population and work in
urban centers that creates many sources of air pollution and
exposes large numbers of people and valuable property to their
effects.
This discussion will review the geography of the Metropolitan
Charlotte area since physical characteristics can affect both
the scale and direction of urban growth.
The present pattern
of population and economic activity will be considered, as well
as the probable future pattern.
GEOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
This study of the Metropolitan Charlotte area encompasses
fifteen counties in the States of North Carolina and South
Carolina:
Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell,
Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Stanly, and Union Counties in
North Carolina; and Chester, Lancaster, Union, and York Counties
in South Carolina (Figure3).
-------
2
,"
Solmi
CAROLINA
~-------i
'1 IREDELL I
, I
I I
, I
, ,.. '...
-..... I '''',
...-- \,,' /..,
" ,
I CATAWBA " I ROWAN ....
, \ ' --I
I ... I ,
I \ ( \
, \ ,
I ~" "
I ,\ ,
-- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ \ I" ~I
I , "~OR1H
I \ LINCOLN r----I'""~-- -------,--~,..
I \ I \ CABARRUS I "AROLI NA
\ \"
I \ I, I \
NoR"ft.J I ~----------7' ~ I STANLY',
. In I... \' I
CAROLINA I '... GASTON , " I ,
I ' I \ I I
I t I Charlotte'.. I I
I " I ,""'., "... " ,
I , I::... - \
CLEVELAND I I" 1".( ...,... ,
- - .' , , ..~.,.....'. " ....--..." I """'~','
f YO; - ,~ MECKLENBURc.,""'" UNION : ANSON ( ... ... .. ~ '\
I 1."-" I '
(--.I i/ t<.. ../ I !
... \ '.." I ...
, \ "\ I I
( \ ') I "
, , I ,
'" I I '
, '----' , , I I
I , '
I UNION t------------.J L- ,-- I J..-
" . ~ CfiESTER '\ LANCASTER" So'mJ
I I \' Vin
," I' CARoLINA
I .' I "
I \ J \
I I \ ,,'
I \ ..
I J - - - - - - - - - ... ...."", ...
I -- , \"
~~ , ,
'... ~ , ,,'
....._--~ . Y.
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 3 - Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Study Area
\
-------
3
The study area is located in the piedmont plateau of North
and South Carolina, a distinct geographic region formed by the
foothills of the Appalachian Mountains on the west and the "fall
line" (line of rapids and falls in rivers) in the east.
Average
elevations descend from about 900 feet above sea level in the
western foothills to about 600 feet in the area east of the City
of Charlotte.
Charlotte is in the geographic center of the Piedmont Cres-
cent, an industrial and commercial agglomeration, stretching some
300 miles from Raleigh, North Carolina, on the east, to Greenville,
South Carolina, on the west (Figure 4).
Charlotte's location in
the heart of this region, enhanced by good transportation links
along the spine of the Crescent, is responsible for its rank as
the largest city in the Carolinas and its importance as a trucking,
wholesaling, financial, and administrative center for the Crescent.
For a smaller area of perhaps 23 counties within a radius of 40 - 50
miles of the City, Charlotte serves as the major retail and commer-
cial center.
In the early 1800's, development of the Charlotte area was
stimulated by the discovery of gold and the subsequent expansion
of gold mining in North Carolina.
The State was the leading pro-
ducer of the metal until it was overtaken by California in the
years following the Western gold rush of 1849.
-------
~_.~.............-.._.._-------......-:- ~-",._-.......,..~-"",,~--~~.
4
'" J' ~
r/ .')
- '--'-'-"----'-'--'---.~' '-./",
: "" .......~-
,
~/_. .
,
~\~ - ~
~/
}o LYNCHBURG
/ : .../ "ROANOKE.
/' / M"; ;~- '--.--e_.V----J. R GIN. I A
" 0""- .
/ / /}-'/ ." - -'
/ / / ",."... ,.--:-""
/ /' " , ~~--'---- DA~v2~-'~ '\
. ~. ~..~_.. -',1 \-", \
/ ~ - ,/:.-...- -' ,oV' i - \ . \
- ,. ---j' -. /. /:;:i WINSTON'# ~IILINGTON \,.
. .',/ SAL~M.. -, .DURHA~'
INOXVllLE ..(1'1'" o,,-",~, ~~.;"'.,~\. ..~.t~'"
I. ~/) N 0 ~:~ ),c;; ~ L I N ~
,/'"" ASHEVILlEQI r,; CHA";TH,' '\ i \
I/"" ,~-~i~\uLJ-" ;' !
.-'-- 7,'. ,/" I
" 'GREEN ILLE - -y )
~.. ~'.' "- ," I WILJoIINGTON
\ '.' \ ' SOU T H / " ,/ /
\ \, \ ',-" '--, .COlUMJU,r'/ /- /
\ .ATlA TA ""'. "" ----- /~/.. //
" A~_~TA" CAR 0 L I N A.,/ I
\ '" '--------~ --/ //
~,~ 0 R ~~ ~:-- C-H;;:;;~ON --
", ///
. ". ~
\ ". MACON - ~
" ---- ... /'
."'"
. COLUMBUS '-....
(
,
I
)
,
.
-\
Piedmont
Crescent
L {-~.... .....-
..',
n /-
'I.OJ"
//
/
///
/
/
.I
,.
l
t
.
RICH;OND
"
/
"
'"
"""-
._~-
/
.I
.I
/
,/
//
/,./
/.-
.-,.......""
..-----/
.---
.
"'-""-
.
------\J
JACKSONVILLE
~
;(\
FIGURE 4 - The Piedmont Industrial Crescent
-------
5
Cotton production was a primary activity of the area in the
early nineteenth century, and the cotton textile industry was
established by the middle of the century.
In more recent times,
associated activities such as the production of dyes, chemicals,
and textile machinery, as well as textile finishing, wholesaling,
sales, and research have been added to the textile manufacturing
base of the area.
Today, several major textile firms maintain
national headquarters in Charlotte.
Completion during the 1850's
of the first railroad lines in the area, the availability of ample
water resources in the Catawba Valley, and the exploitation of
rivers for hydroelectric power laid the basis for industrial
expansion.
Since World War II, the Charlotte study area has participated
in and benefited from the rapid economic growth of the Southeastern
United States.
Its earlier advantages for industrial location have
been substantially augmented by the construction of three major
interstate highways through the area.
1-85 and 1-77 intersect at
the City of Charlotte.
When completed, these portions of the inter-
state system will provide direct connections between Charlotte
and Greenville, South Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Columbia, South
Carolina; Greensboro, North Carolina; as well as areas to the north
across the Allegheny Mountains.
A third east-west interstate high-
way, 1-40, traverses the northern part of the study area (Figure 5).
-------
6
t
,
t
t ROWAN
\ '
, ,t \
I '( ,
.' , \, '"
, '", \ ,
, '", \ \
.-- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -7 ..!.. \ , ~ORn-t
: \ LINCOLN Y - - -~ ~;;-C~BA - US- - - - -"- - -\ .cAROLINA
, \ "
I \ " ,\
~I,.. I ~ - - - - - - - - - - 7' \ I STANLY',
;"",Rn-t. " . \ , , ,
CAROLINA ,. "- GASTON,' ' I "
, (I 85 I Charlotte ',, ,
, \ - I " "'. " \
, " : ': '''..' - \
t CLEVELAND . I ". ..:. ,"'.{- --,,1 '.. , ".., \
- - . - - ( YO; - ,'" MEC~~'~NBURG,/ / UNI~~ : AN:ON '(""""
I I ,,," I "
c-_J v".., I l
... , '..' I '
I \ \; I .
l \ ') I \
\ , I ,
"" , I "
I "'---~ I , I ,
" .J L I .I.
" UNION t - - - - - - - - - - - \ - '~ - -
, ~ CHESTER \ LANCASTER, SoIJTH
" \'
I \ '" I " CARoLINA
t \ '" t ,
, \ .2... " ~
I -
I I '" ..,,"
J j--------- -1 ,,"" \....-
......., ~ ~ , ,,"
~...._--~- y
1-40
,,--~- --j
\ IREDELL I
, I
I ,
, I
,
,
- - ~ "
,- - '(
, CATAWBA'
SoU1H
CAROLINA
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 5 - Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate Study Area,
Interstate Highway Sy~tem
-------
7
PRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND URBANIZATION TRENDS
Estimates of 1970 population for each county in the study
area are shown in Table I.
Mecklenburg County with a population
of about 368,000 is by far the largest.
Gaston County with about
160,000 people is second.
Six counties--Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleve-
land, Iredell, Rowan, and York--have populations between 75,000
and 95,000.
The remaining seven counties range in population
between 24,000 and 54,000.
The extent to which the counties in the study area have
become or are becoming urbanized can be measured in a number of
ways: (1) population growth in the last decade, (2) population
density, (3) the proportion of total land in farmland and the reduc-
tionin farmland acreage, (4) travel interchange between counties,
(5) growth of total employment, and (6) growth of manufacturing
employment.
Population change during the last two decades for counties
in the study area is shown in Table II.
The study area population
has increased from about 946,000 in 1950 to 1,071,000 in 1960 and
about 1,291,000 in 1970.
This change represents an averag~ annual
increase of 1.3 percent during the 1950's and 1.9 percent in the
1960's.
Some counties have added substantial numbers of people in
the last decade while others have not.
Large increases occurred
in Mecklenburg (an increase of about 96,000) and in Gaston (up
-------
8
Table I
--
Estimated Population of Metropolitan
Charlotte Study Area Counties, 1970
Total
Counties
(thousands)
North Carolina
Anson
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gaston
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Stanly
Union
Portion
(1,095)
24
77
90
75
159
80
32
368
93
44
53
South Carolina
Chester
Lancaster
Union
York
Portion
(196)
32
45
31
88
Study Area Tota];
(1,291)
Source:
Metropolitan Charlotte, a report commissioned by the
City of Charlotte, 1964. Union (N.C.), Chester,
Lancaster, and Union (S.C.) estimates made by Linton,
Mields and Coston, Inc.
-------
9
Table II
Population Change in the Metropolitan Charlotte
Study Area by County: 1950~ 1960, and 1970
195rftl al bl Change Change
1960- 1970- 1950-60 1960-70
North Carolina Portion (772,939) (891,823) (1,094,800 (118,884) (202,977)
Anson 26,781 24,962 24,000 - 1,819 - 962
Cabarrus 63,783 68,137 76,600 4,354 8,463
Catawba 61,794 73,191 88,900 11,397 15,709
Cleveland 64,357 66,648 75,300 2,291 8,652
Gaston 110,836 127,074 159,400 16,238 32,326
Irede11 56,303 62,526 79,500 6,223 16,974
Lincoln 37,459 28,814 32,200 - 8,645 3,386
Mecklenburg 197,052 272,111 368,000 75,059 95,889
Rowan 75,410 82,817 93,200 7,407 10,383
Stanly 37,130 40,873 44,200 3,743 3,327
Union 42,034 44,670 53,500 2,636 8,830
South Carolina Portion (172,598) (179,015 (196,500) (6,417) (17,485)
Chester 32,597 30,888 32,000 - 1,709 1,112
Lancaster 37,071 39,352 44,800 2,281 5,448
Union 31,334 30,015 31,500 - 1,319 1,485
York 71,596 78,760 88,200 7,164 9,440
Study Area Total (945,537) (1,070,838) (1,291,300) (125,301) (220,462)
Sources:
~I
pj
Estimates taken from Metropolitan Charlotte, Hammer and
Associates, 1964. Union (N.C.), Chester, Lancaster,
and Union (S.C.) estimates made by Linton, Mie1ds and
Coston, Inc.
U. S. Census of Population.
-------
10
32,300).
Substantial growth has taken place in seven others:
lredell up 17,000; Catawba, 16,000; Rowan, 10,000; York, 9,400;
Union (N.C.) 8,800; Cleveland, 8,600; and Cabarrus, 8,500.
Anson County has experienced a slight decline in the last two
decades and three others--Lincoln, Chester, .and Union, South
Carolina--reversed small losses in the fifties with small gains
in the sixties. .
Population density is a good measure of urbanization in the
Metropolitan Charlotte study area because the counties are rela-
tively small and of similar size.
Estimated population densities
for 1970 range from a high in Mecklenburg County of 679 persons
per square mile to a low of 45 in Anson County (Figure 6).
Counties with densities of over 150 persons per square mile are
Mecklenburg, Gaston, Catawba, Cabarrus, Rowan, and Cleveland.
Reductions in farm acreage provide some indication of urbani-
zation.
All counties in the study area experienced a decline in
land used for farming in the last decade as shown on Table III-A
and Table III-B.
Between 1960 and 1966, the greatest declines
occurred in Gaston, Lancaster, York, Union (S.C.), and Anson
Counties.
According to the 1964 Census of Agriculture, the propor-
tion of all land in agriculture ranged from. a low of 29.6 percent
in Union County (S.C.) to a high of 60.5 percent in Union County
(N.C.) .
Counties with a relatively low proportion of agricultural
land, in addition to Union (S.C.) were Mecklenburg, Lancaster,
Gaston, Catawba, and Yotk.
-------
11
SoUl1-i
CAROLINA
"\----- --j
'IREDELL I
. I
I .
: 135 I
, r.........
- - '"'" " "
,-- \( I ...........,
, CATAWBA "... I ROWAN '--
I \ I \
I " \
,/ \ ( "
I 222 , \ 180 "
, I \ ,
---- ~ - - - - - - - - - -- 4 \ \ ~I..
I I ''jIJRn-i
I \ LINCOLN r----.-1._- -------,--..1'r
I \ I \ CABARRUS " "tROll NA
I \ 104 " "
~RTH I ~----------7' ~'213 I STANLY',
. I, " ,
CAROLINA I ',GASTON' " I I
, ~ I , I ,
I 161 \ I' Char~.otte I" II 110 ,
I '441 .'". "'... I '
, \ I: ... - \
, CLEVELAND I I'..: ,-.( A'. \
- - . I I '~.,~..' ~' ...---...41> I """,,"','
" YO; - ,~ MECKLENBURG/." UNION: ANSON'.....,.. '.
II'''\. 679 / I '..
(-_J \/ ",., 82 I 45 :
... , '," I ..
'129 ' '\ I ,
, , , . '
\, ,
" \ , : "
I' "'---~ , I I "
\ ./ L I .1.-
" UNION t - - - - - - - - - - - - \ - ...- -
, ~ CHESTER ,LANCASTER"',
I I ,\
" 60, 'l 55 " 90 "\
, \ . \
, , \ # #
, , \ ..'
I J - - - - - - - - ~ ....", ,
, --- ,~..
,....., , ,
',~ I....'
..._---~ y
SotnH
CAROL! NA
o
"
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 6 - Estimated Population Per Square Mile of Metropolitan
Charlotte Study Area Counties, 1970
-------
Table III-A
Farmland in the North Carolina Portion
of the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area
I-'
N
Farmland Farmland Decrease Farmland Percenta'ge of
1960 a/ 1966 !!/ 1960-66 1964 'E./ Total Land in
Counties (~miles) (sq. miles) (sq. miles) (000 acres) Farms, 1964~
Total Farmland (3,773) (3,521) (-252) (1,639)
Anson 396 354 -42 166 48.6
Cabarrus 308 283 -25 134 58.1
Catawba 333 301 -32 110 42.2
Cleveland 414 397 -17 158 53.0
Gas to_n 251 191 -60 83 36.4
Iredell 497 472 -25 221 58.5
Lincoln 267 245 -22 100 50.8
Mecklenburg * :/( * 107 30.7
Rowan 399 395 -4 177 53.6
Stanly 324 314 -10 134 52.5
Union 584 569 -15 249 60.5
Sources:
al
Profile of North Carolina Counties, Statistical Services Center Budget
Division, Department of Administration, December 1968.
bl
County Data Book, 1967, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Note:
*Information is not available.
-------
Table III-B
Farmland in the South Carolina Portion
of the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area
Farmland Farmland Decrease Farmland Percentage of
1959 a/ 1964 !!/ 1959-1964 1964 b/ Total Land in
Counties (~miles) (sq. miles) (sq. miles) (000 acres) Farms, 1964
Total Farmland (1,093) (914) (-179) (584)
Chester 325 294 -31 188 50.2
Lancaster 223 166 -57 106 33.0
Union 197 152 -45 97 29.6
York 348 302 -46 193 44.1
Sources:
!!/
Conservation Needs Inventory, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department
of Agriculture, to be published in 1970.
E./
County Data Book, 1967, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
......
w
),' ~
-------
14
Highway traffic flows provide an excellent index of the
linkages between urban activities (e.g., the trip from home to
work, or home to shopping place).
Figure 7 shows average traffic
flows per day on the North Carolina primary highway system for
1968.
The strongest linkage, about 40,000 vehicles per day,
took place between Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties.
Nearly as
important were Mecklenburg's links to Cabarrus County (about
26,000 vehicles per day) and to Union County (about 14,000 vehicles
per day).
The flow of about 25,000 vehicles between Cabarrus and
Rowan was also significant.
Of lesser importance was the flow
of about 8,000 vehicles between Catawba and Irede11 and 10,000
between Mecklenburg and York.
Traffic links between other counties
were in the range of 2,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day.
Trends in the distribution of total employment in the 15-
county study area are shown In Table IV.
In 1968, Mecklenburg
County contained 30.8 percent of the study area's total employ-
ment; Gaston, 11.7 percent, Catawba, 9.9 percent; and Cabarrus,
7.4 percent.
Between 1962 and 1968, Mecklenburg and Catawba
Counties increased somewhat their share of the area's employment,
while Cabarrus County's share declinedslight1y.
Substantial
gains in absolute numbers occurred in Mecklenburg (40,620), Gaston
(13,530), and Catawba (15,145).
The three Counties accounted for
about 63 percent of the employment gain for the area.
-------
>%j
H
CO")
c:::
~
t%j
......,
t'%j
f-'
o
~
TRAFFIC
MAP
AVERAGE 24 HOUR DAY- ALL VEHICLES
PREPARED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
- --.--..- -
-0
. 15,000
- 20,000
SCALE OF TRAFFIC
VOLUME
f-'
\J1
-------
16
Table IV
--
Total Employment in the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area
Proportion of
1./ 1./ Study Area Total
1962 1968 Change 1962 1968
North Carolina Portion 383,285 483,020 99,735 85.6 86.5
Anson 7,305 7,890 585 1.6 1.4
Cabarrus 35,645 41,450 5,805 8.0 7.4
Catawba 40,095 55,240 15,145 9.0 9.9
Cleveland 25,130 29,760 4,630 5.6 5.3
Gaston 51,510 65,040 13,530 11.5 11. 7
Irede11 28,720 32,180 3,460 6.4 5.8
Lincoln 8,360 11 , 350 2,990 1.9 2.0
Mecklenburg 130,830 171,450 40,620 29.2 30.8
Rowan 27,040 32,450 5,410 6.0 5.8
Stanly 15,920 19,190 3,270 3.6 3.4
Union 12,730 17 ,020 4,290 2.8 3.0
'1:./ 2/
1961 1968- Change ] 961 1968
South Carolina Portion 64,710 75,350 10,640 14.4 13.5
Chester 10,140 12,500 2,360 2.3 2.2
Lancaster 14,960 18,700 3,740 3.3 3.4
Union 10,830 11,850 1,020 2.4 2.1
York 28,780 32,300 3,520 6.4 5.8
Study Area Total 447,995 558,370 110,375 100.0 100.0
Source:
l/ Profile, North Carolina Counties, Statistic Center, Budget
Division, Department of Administration, December 1968.
'1:./ Per Interview with Research and Statistics Section, South
Carolina Employment Security Commission, April 1970.
-------
17
An analysis of 1968 employment by major categories of employ-
ment indicates that the study area is heavily dominated by manu-
facturing (Table V).
of the area's total employment of 558»370»
over 238»000 persons--ahout 42 percent of the total--are engaged
in manufacturing.
Only in Mecklenburg County is nonmanufacturing
employment--construction» transportation, public utilities, trade,
finance» services, and government--of major significance.
Outside
of Mecklenburg County» the proportion of manufacturing employment
to total employment in 1968 was over 52 percent.
Agriculture is
not a major source of employment in any county of the study area.
Trends in the distribution and growth of manufacturing employ-
ment are shown in Table VI.
Gaston County led in 1968 manufacturing
employment» closely followed by Mecklenburg» Catawba» and Cabarrus
Counties.
These four counties accounted for about 55 percent of
the study area's 1968 manufacturing employment.
Between 1962 and
1968» the largest absolute gain occurred in Catawba County (up
about 9»000).
Both Rowan and Union (N.C.) made impressive add i-
tions to moderate-sized 1962 bases.
York» Mecklenburg» and
Cabarrus Counties lost a small portion of their share of the study
area's manufacturing employment.
In 1968» by far the most important manufacturing industry was
textiles.
Of 477 manufacturing establishments employing more than
100 persons» the textile industry accounted for 264--more than
one-half of the total (Table VII).
The associated apparel and
-------
Table V
Profile of Employment by County in the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area. 1968
......
Finance. ():)
Transportation. Insurance.
Total Manufac- Construc- Couununications. and Real
Employment turing tion and Utilities Trade Estate Service Government Agriculture Other
North Carolina
Portion !I (483.020) (199.720) (20.420) (27.750) (75,130) (15.420) (39.120) (39.300) (13.050) (53.110)
Anson 7.890 2,470 180 150 810 100 380 1.000 1.260 1.540
Cabarrus 41.450 26.650 920 580 3,880 520 1.780 2.560 960 3.600
Catawba 55.240 30.780 2.140 2,660 7.140 790 3.060 2.540 900 5,230
Cleveland 29.760 13.940 790 500 3.470 560 1.670 2.890 1.930 4.010
Gaston 65.040 38,420 1,440 3,120 6.570 910 3.620 4.340 720 5,900
Irede11 32,180 16.000 1.260 610 3.810 400 2.050 2,580 1 . 770 3,700
Lincoln 11.350 5,690 330 210 1.150 140 700 860 890 1.380
Mecklenburg 171.450 34.930 10.060 18.000 40.300 10.640 20.710 15.490 870 20,450
Rowan 32.450 13,470 1.340 1.290 4.110 720 2,960 3,700 1,110 3,150
Stanly 19.190 10.510 780 340 2,000 230 1.190 1.530 940 1,670
Union 17.020 6.860 1,180 290 1,890 410 1.000 1,810 1.700 1.880
South Carolina
Portion ~/ (75.350) (38.450) (2.400) (1.450) (7.650) (1.400) (4.350) (7,100) (4.150) (8.400)
Chester 12.500 6,150 400 200 1,250 150 500 1,150 1.050 1.650
Lancaster 18.700 11.050 550 500 1.450 300 1.000 1.200 800 1.850
Union 11.850 6,550 150 200 1,000 150 600 1.100 700 1,400
York 32.300 14.700 1.300 550 3.950 800 2.250 3.650 1.600 3,500
Study Area Total (558.370) (238.170) (22.820) (29,200) (82.780) (16.820) (43.470) (46,400) (17.200) (61.510)
Sources: !I North Carolina Work Force Estimates by County. Area, and State, Bureau of Employment Security Research.
Employment Security Couunission of North Carolina, August 1969.
~/ South Carolina's Manpower in Industry, Research and Statistics Section. South Carolina Employment
Security Couunission, April 1969.
-------
19
Table VI
Hanufacturing Employment in the Hetropo1itan Charlotte Study Area
Proportion of
1/ 1/ Study Area Total
County 1962 1968 Change 1962 1968
North Carolina Portion 152,560 199,720 41,760 82.4 83.8
Anson 1,800 2,470 670 1.0 1.0
Cabarrus 22,280 26,650 4,370 12.0 11.1
Catawba 21,730 30,780 9,050 11. 7 12.9
Cleveland 10,400 13 , 940 3,540 5.6 5.9
Gaston 30,000 38,420 8,420 16.2 16.1
lredell 13,420 16,000 2,580 7.2 6.7
Lincoln 3,750 5,690 1,940 2.0 2.4
Mecklenburg 28,730 34,930 6,200 15.6 14.7
Rowan 8,910 13,470 4,560 4.8 5.7
Stanly 7 , 710 10,510 2,800 4.2 4.4
Union 3,830 6,860 3,030 2.1 2.9
2/ J)
1961- 1968 Change 1961 1968
South Carolina Portion 32,620 38,450 5,830 17.6 16.2
Chester 4,390 6,150 1,760 2.4 2.6
Lancaster 8,900 11,050 2,150 4.8 4.6
Union 5,830 6,550 720 3.1 2.8
York 13 , 500 14,700 1,200 7.3 6.2
Study Area Total 185,180 238,170 47,590 100.0 100.0
Source:
1/ Profile, North Carolina Counties, Statistic Center, Budget
Division, Departmen.t of J.oministration, December 1968.
2/ Per Interview with Research and Statistics Section, South
Carolina Employment Security Commission, April 1970.
-------
Table VII
Distribution of Selected Categories of Industry, N
o
Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area, 1968
(number of establishments employing 100 persons or more)
Furniture Machinery
Textile and and
Counties Apparel Mills Fixtures Paper Electrical Other Total
North Carolina P . a/ (44) (234) (41) (9) (22) (85) (435)
ort~on -
Anson 2 4 2 8
Cabarrus 1 16 1 18
Catawba 8 31 25 1 1 7 73
Cleveland 1 23 1 1 2 28
Gaston 3 88 1 7 9 108
Iredell 10 15 5 1 1 5 37
Lincoln 13 3 1 17
Mecklenburg 9 13 3 4 10 39 78
Rowan 6 12 2 1 1 9 31
Stanly 2 11 1 2 16
Union 2 8 1 1 9 21
South Carolina b/ (5) (30) (2) (5) (42)
Portion -
Chester 2 5 1 8
Lancaster 1 3 3 7
Union 8 1 9
York 2 14 2 18
Study Area Total (49) (264) (41) (11) (22) (90) (477)
Sources:
a/
North Carolina Directory of Manufacturing Firms, 1968,
The North Carolina Department of Labor.
'p.l
Thirty-Fourth Annual Report of the Department of Labor
of the State of South Carolina, July 1, 1968 - June 30, 1969.
-------
21
machinery industries (the latter mainly textile machinery)
together accounted for an additional 71 establishments;
furniture for 41; and paper for 11.
Some of the largest plants in the area, each employing
more than 1,000 persons, are a textile plant and a tire cord
factory in Gaston County; two apparel plants in Cabarrus
County; two hosiery mills in Catawba County; a fiber glass
plant and a chemicals factory in Cleveland County; two cotton
mills in Iredell County; and a chemicals plant in Rowan
County.
A pulp and paper mill in York County, S. C., employs
700 persons.
PROSPECTIVE POPULATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
According to one set of estimates, based largely
on a 1964 research study undertaken for the city of
Charlotte, the population of the Metropolitan Charlotte
study area is projected to increase about 23 percent
between 1970 and 1980, from a total of 1,291,000 to
1,590,000.
The annual growth rate implicit in these
1/
"Metropolitan Charlotte", a report prepared by Hammer and
Associates for the city of Charlotte, 1964
-------
22
estimates is 2.1 percent, a rate higher than the 1.9 percent
ra~e of growth estimated to have been achieved in the previous
decade (Table VIII).
U. S. Census Bureau projections for the period 1965-75
suggest a lower annual future growth rate for the study area
2/
population. -
Census projections for the Charlotte Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (Mecklenburg and Union, N. C.,
Counties) range from 1.8 to 2.2 percent per year, on the basis of
two different fertility assumptions.
However, for the non-
metropolitan areas of both North Carolina and South Carolina,
the Census Bureau estimates annual growth rates of only 0.6 ~o
1.0 percent.
Weighted by the i970 distribution of population
between the Charlotte SMSA and the remainder of the study area,
the average annual growth rates for the area would range between
1.0 to 1.4 percent.
At t~ese rates, the study area population
would increase from 10.5 to 15 percent between 1970 and 1980 to
totals at the end of the decade of 1,426,000 to 1,484,000.
Whether the population growth rates will decline to these
levels or be sustained at higher levels will depend in large part
on the area's economic growth.
The latter in turn will depend,
in the relatively short-term future~ on the expansion of the
dominant manufacturing industries of the area, particularly
y
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Projections of the Population of Metropolitan Areas: 1975,
Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 415, January 31,
1969.
-------
" 23
Table VIII
Population Forecasts by County for 1970 and 1980"
Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area
(number of persons)
196#1 bl bl
' Counties 1970- 1980-
North Carolina Portion (891,823) (1,094,800) (1,382,100)
Anson 24,962 24,000 23,600
Cabarrus 68,137 76,600, 91,000
Catawba 73,191 88,900 ,110,700
Cleveland 66,648 75,300 90,700
Gaston 127,074 159,400 206,400
Iredell 62,526 79,500 96,400
Lincoln 28,814 32,200 36,20Q
Mecklenburg 272,111 368,000 514,000
Rowan 82,817 93,200 108,100
Stanly 40,873 44,200 48,700
Union 44,670 53,500 56,300
South Carolina Portion (179,Ol~) (196,500) (206,700)
Chester 30,888 32,000 33,000
Lancaster 39,352 44,800 45,400
Union 30,015 31,500 33,000
York 78,760 88,200 95,300
Study Area Total (1,070,838) (1,291,300) (1,588,800)
Sources:
~I
U. S. Census of Population.
'E./
Metropolitan Charlotte: An Economic Study of its
Commercial Development Potential, Hammer and
Company Associates, 1964. This forecast was
made for a 24-county area encompassing all but
Union County, S. C. Forecasts for Union (S.C.),
Union (N.C.), Lancaster, and dhester were
adjusted slightly to reflect recent population
changes not anticipated by the study.
-------
24
textiles.
North and South Carolina, together with Georgia, are the
leading textile States in the. Nation.
Most of the modern, highly
efficient plants, notably those producing or utilizing synthetic
fibers, are located in these States.
During the 1960's, leading
firms in the industry invested heavily in product development,
technological innovation, and equipment modernization.
As a
result, an industry formerly labor-intensive is shifting toward
a more capital-intensive structure.
According to the U. S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, some new textile plants represent a capital
investment of $40,000 - $50,000 per worker compared to an average
gross investment of about $9,000 per worker for all textile plants
1968.1/
in
There is little doubt that the outlook for the innovative
sectors of the textile industry of the study area will continue
favorable, even in the face of intense domestic and international
competition.
On the other hand, increased efficiency in manufac-
ture will mean fewer employees for additional units of output.
The National Planning Commission estimates that in the period
1968-80, textile output will grow at an average annual rate of
1.6 percent but that employment will decline at an average rate of
4/
2.3 percent per year.-
y
y
U. S. Industrial Outlook, 1970
Economic Pro;ections to 1980: Growth Patterns for
the Coming Decade, Report No. 70-N-1, March, 1970.
-------
25
In the more labor-intensive portions of the textile industry,
as well as in the appa~el and furniture industries of the area,
industrial expansion should be accompanied by employment growth
although productivity increases can be expected to reduce the
rate of employment growth.
Over the longer term, economic growth capable of supporting
high rates of population increase in the study area may require a
more diversified economic base.
The textile and apparel industries
now dominant in the area, are ones for which demand tends to be
relatively inelastic.
Thus, as incomes and purchasing power in
the Nation rise, the market for textile and apparel products does
not rise as quickly.
In the last decade, the output of textile
mill products, for example, rose only 54 percent while automobile
production rose 92 percent.
Toward the objective of diversification, Metropolitan
Charlotte has the advantage of being a regional center for the
Piedmont Crescent which could grow to serve a wider area in the
rapidly growing Southeast Region of the United States.
-------
26
PROBABLE DIRECTIONS OF URBAN GROWTH
An increase in urbanized land in the study area will occur
not only because population and commercial and industrial acti-
vity expand but also because space standards will rise.
For
example, new residential construction may require larger lots,
and new plants and shopping facilities, including those relocating
inside the study area, will tend to be designed as one-story
facilities with large parking areas rather than multi-story build-
ings with little auxiliary space.
This reduction in density will
multiply urban land requirements beyond that associated with
increases in pop~lation and economic activity in the past.
As shown on Figure 8, the Central Piedmont Regional Council
of Local Governments expects most of the prospective urban growth
to occur in corridors radiating from Charlotte and extending into
Gaston, Cleveland, Iredell, Cabarrus, Union (N.C.), and York
Counties.
Completion of Interstate Highways 77 and 85 should
reinforce the radial pattern suggested by the Piedmont Council.
In addition,' it appears possible that growth in Catawba County
will proceed eastward on 1-40 to link up with the Mecklenburg
County-Iredell County northward expansion along 1-77.
The present
substantial link between Cabarrus and Rowan Counties could be
further strengthened.
Urban growth of the remaining counties in
the study area is likely to center around existing county seats
and other small towns.
-------
27
~-------i
\ IREDELL I
, I
, I
, I
,
I
-.... I
-- .... \ I
,- (
I CATAWBA '...
, \
I ,
/ ,
, ,
, "
, ,
.-- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - --7
I 'LINCOLN r -
I \ I
I \ ,
\ I
~RlH: ~----------T
CARoLINA ,. 'GASTON
I
I
I
I CLEVELAND
- - ..
,.. "'...
, "',
I "'...
, , ,
, ROWAN ....
, """-,
I \
( "
, "
\ \
\ \
\ , "JoRni
- \ .\. -C~BA~~S- - --7- - "' {tROll NA
, , \
" , STANLY',
, I
, '
, '
,
'''', : \
... - \
r.l A \ ...,
/' ...-----" I "",,'/','
f MECKLENBURG,...." UNION : ANSON (, ... .... "\
I , I '~
(-_J , I ~
.. "..' , ...
1 \ '\\ ; \
'" \ , I I "
, '--_-J , I I ,
,', J I 1. -
" UNION /-------------, L- '~-
I ~ CHESTER ,LANCASTER,
I' \ \
," I',
I ~ I ,
I \ ~ ~
I : \ ,,'
I J - - - - - - - - -'.J ,."'.. '
, - - , ,,\..'
--""..... . , *,'
..._---~ ' ' "
SoUltf
CAROLINA
SoUltf
CARoLINA
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 8 -
Growth Directions Forecast by the Central Piedmont
Regional Council of Local Governments, Metropolitan
Charlotte Study Area
-------
28
To provide electric power for future growth, major utility
companies in a four-State area (the Carolinas, Virginia, and a
portion of West Virginia) are cooperating to provide for a doubling
of power requirements by 1980.
The Duke Power Company, which
is the primary supplier of the Metropolitan Charlotte area as
well as a participant in the regional pool, plans the installation
of 1,225 megawatts of additional generating capacity in the study
area within the next five years.
One unit is to be located in
the border area between Catawba and lredell Counties and the other
in Cleveland County.
While the fuel type for these plants is not
specified, the Company has hitherto relied almost. exclusively on
coal.
To date, this coal has been of low sulfur content.
However,
rising demands for and the limited supply of such coal may make it
difficult to assure use of low-sulfur coal in future plants.
-------
29
EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTORS
The technical factors of importance in considering the
boundaries of a proposed air quality region are:
the total
quantity of pollutants emitted, the geographic pattern of
emission sources, and patterns of pollutant dispersion.
In the Charlotte area, information with respect to these
factors was obtained from an emission inventory conducted by
the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA), air
quality monitoring data obtained locally, and a theoretical
diffusion model based on the inventory data and meteorological
information.
THE EMISSION INVENTORY
The emission inventory covered a study area consisting
of 12 counties, shown in Figure 11.
Five major pollutants were examined in the inventory:
sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
nitrogen oxides.
The complete report of the emissions inventory
will be published by NAPCA in a separate document.
Data from the
inventory will be summarized in this report.
-------
500000 520000
\T , - 139900 000
, I I
\! I I
'I
(I \R£OHl CO. "
,: :
460000 470000 480000 ! ; : i 540000
. - -,- - ro' ------1--'-- -il'----r-r-~':.---- '39700000
"-)f ~, \.. ,
CA'AWU .'VUd - --~, ' L I : / ROWA" CO '--" 560000
,,,,,-~~-, -- - 'I' LPo- 1 /' 'II ""'\ :'1 i
] ' ,'--... .
440000 - - - -J~_.i..__~____n_- _n i'---------- -- --- - . L ---~--f------- :8~_0~~50000
" ;5 i" \ "\ i" '\' :10 .71 ;n ~.
/' CATAWBA 'CO .: i : j '-.
; I I 1 . ---,-----1 '\.
I ' 1t1:20 Ilr- --- - .10 17 :" I
~......--\..--(-----' i', \ , i' I
I " ----------....l.-! I ' \
) 1 j 1 ! , .
, . --06---. .-----..1. . -_.:....-_-+- J39300~C
10 - \' -\11 iil I 1"---"-----------
j lI"COL" I CO. I \ i mmus CO. V'
! ""',,.. '"\\------~------~ .""'".,, '~I~.' j=~ /'<
) , " GASTON CO. 1 \.
430000 .- -- ---_.- ') -----L-IU _of' - -......:.---- -"':'---~J910000
--.1 42 ( 141 \.. .. " 17a /
-1'/ ~ I' 0 ~--'~'-5.5 ~ \ ' /' i
j -1 i I -L ; ", , !
,~o-- '\ :so 151 10 I" II-~ "t J '
J, ,NORTH CAROLINA: i /'- . I
- <----.---- ,i II , 't"" ,... ;L-'1
\ -----?~---_l_..... ..,--.."\-.... .
..- ----SOUTH CAROLINA 11 (1'1 / 15 i 38fOOO
/ ."" '" I !
'81 -l3rO 000
I
I
30
YORK co.
, ,
: I
(:-:
, I
l '" ,
') I i
\ ! C~" '-0-
o 1
~L______- ---
j ,..
c
\
"
II
II
CHESTER CO.
LANCASTER CO.
.r
----- -
"
'0
"
-..----
Figure 11:
Grid Coordinate System for
the Metropolitan Charlotte
Interstate Air Quality Control
Region
I
.
I
-------...1----
3850000
\
\
",
L.
'3830000
/'/
3810000
II
~
5
~
10
15 20
~
o
Sf".I, llilft
-------
31
Sources of emissions have been classified into five cate-
gories: fuel combustion, industrial process losses, transportation,
refuse disposal, and evaporation losses.
A summary table of five
po11utants--su1fur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and nitrogen oxides--emitted from these five source cate-
gories is shown in Table IX.
Emissions were also attributed to the study area counties
where they originated.
A percentage summary of emissions by
county is shown in Table X.
A more detailed summary of three
pollutants by county is shown in Table XI.
And finally, the study area was divided into grid zones
(Figure 11) and point and area sources of sulfur oxides, partic-
u1ates, and carbon monoxide attributed to the grids of their
origin.
This distribution over the 92 grid zones of the study
area is shown in Table XII.
Significant emissions of sulfur oxides were noted in the
grid zones containing electric power generating plants (13, 23,
33, 39, 64) and in grid zone" 81, which contains chemical, kraft
paper, and plywood plants.
These zones also generated high
levels of particulate matter.
Particulate levels are high in
grid zones containing open dumps (73, 86) and industrial activi-
ties such as stone processing (42), lumber, brick and feed plants
(75), and foundries and other industrial sources (54).
-------
32
Table IX
Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in the
Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area, 1968
(tons per year)
Sulfur Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Source Oxides u1ates Monoxide carbons Oxides
Transportation (3,626) (7,880) (499,850) (44,425) (34,914)
Road Vehicles 3,039 6,031 492,362 41,085 31,215
Other Vehicles 587 1,849 7,488 3,339 3,699
Fuel Combustion (196,235) (278,091) (7,586) (2,382) (107,604)
Industrial 16,748 28,910 1,055 415 13,347
Power Generation 171 , 934 246,001 2,246 901 89,960
Residential 5,044 1,354 2,360 653 2,785
Commercial and
Institutional 2,508 1,825 1,923 411 1,511
Refuse Disposal. (311) (3,261) (17,102) (5,381) (2,102)
Incineration 187 954 4,842 1,054 515
Open Burning 144 2,307 12,260 4,327 1,586
Industrial Process
Losses 273 78,299 7,676 229 1,376
Evaporation Losses 23,252
Total Emissions 200,465 367,531 532,213 75,669 145,996
-------
33
Table.X
Relative Contribution of Each County
to Total Air Pollution Emissions
(percent)
Sulfur Partic- Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen
Counties Oxides ulates Monoxide. carbons Oxides
North Carolina Portion
Cabarrus 1 1 7 7 3
Catawba 22 10 8 9 18
Cleveland 7 11 .1 1 5
Gaston 49 32 13 15 40
Irede1l .5 1 6 6 2
Lincoln .2 .1 3 3 .8
Mecklenburg 2 9 37 34 10
Rowan 13 23 8 9 11
Union .3 5 4 4 1
South Carolina Portion
Chester .2 .1 2 3 .8
Lancaster 1 3 5 5 2
York 3 4 6 4 7
-------
------------ -- --------
Table Xl
34
Air Pollutant Emissions in the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area,
by Emissions Sources and by County, 1968
(tons per year)
Fuel Combustion
Commer-
cial and
Indus- Institu- Residen- Power Total, Fuel Industrial Refuse a/
County trial tional tial Plants Combustion Process Losses Transportation Disposal Grand Total -
Cabarrus, N.C. 3,498 150 75 0 3,723 0 498 311 4,529
Catawba 728 55 65 32,443 33,292 2,996 581 45 36,914
Cleveland 1,628 114 84 33,339 35,167 5,861 85 296 41,409
to Gaston 2,152 110 596 107,215 110,074 6,880 1,784 496 119,234
41 Irede11 219 64 55 0 339 2,715 457 114 3,625
....
<11 Lincoln 117 19 34 0 171 7 204 32 414
r-i
;I Mecklenburg 2,057 606 239 0 2,903 25,407 2,518 304 31,132
u
..-4 Rowan 3,905 537 87 73,002 77,533 4,379 546 511 82,969
...
\.< Union 56 53 35 0 145 19,556 302 124 20,127
<11
Po.
Chester, S.C. 27 17 20 0 64 0 178 139 381
Lancaster 10,692 46 32 0 10,771 1,295 291 390 12,747
York 3,828 48 27 0 3,904 9,197 431 493 14,025
Cabarrus, N.C. 1,596 240 298 0 2,136 0 244 28 2,408
Catawba 507 108 286 42,107 43,011 0 284 2 43,297
Cleveland 953 174 291 12,760 14,180 0 36 29 14,245
Gaston 1,518 205 2,182 93,717 97,623 0 764 48 98,435
to Irede11 362 136 207 0 705 0 224 15 944
41 Lincoln 178 48 129 0 356 0 99 5 460
'tI
oM Mecklenburg 1,436 999 830 0 3,266 3 1,119 60 4,448
><
0 Rowan 1,704 303 361 23,348 25,718 0 266 41 26,025
\.< Union 172 84 154 0 411 0 147 13 571
;I
....
r-i
;I Chester, S.C. 127 42 64 0 235 0 86 12 333
tI)
Lancaster 2,692 68 116 0 2,877 0 142 29 3,048
York 5,498 92 121 0 5,713 270 209 41 6,233
Cabarrus, N.C. 104 226 193 0 525 0 35,772 1,595 37,892
Catawba 28 76 130 554 789 240 39,948 972 41,949
41 Cleveland 54 169 280 152 656 0 2,750 1,392 4,798
'tI Gaston 59 152 508 1,232 1,953 0 64,771 2,522 69,246
..-4
>< Irede11 13 77 142 0 233 0 29,227 553 30,013
o
I:: Lincoln 6 23 105 0 135 40 13,457 146 13,778
o
:i: Mecklenburg 81 644 541 0 1,268 580 192,756 1,341 195,945
I:: Rowan 107 301 216 307 933 0 39,220 2,654 42,807
o
A Union 5 76 85 0 166 456 20,741 623 21,986
\.<
<11
u
Chester, S.C. 2 25 57 0 86 0 11,192 713 11,991
Lancaster 204 75 91 0 370 5,620 20,551 2,035 28,576
York 387 75 5 0 468 737 29,458 2,550 33,213
. .
N()t~: '1/ Total!' h,'"?' becn r.J'){m::hd
-------
Table XI~ 35
Air Pollutant Emissions From All Sources
in the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area, 1968
(Annual Average Tons Per Day)
Land Area Sulfur Par tic- Carbon
Grid (Sq. Mi.) Oxides u1ates Monoxide
1 154.4 0.3 1.0 8.6
2 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 38.6 0.1 0.1 1.6
4 38.6 1.1 1.8 41.8
5 38.6 0.6 8.8 22.7
6 154.4 0.4: 0.5 13.7
7 38.6 0.2 0.2 7.9
8 38.6 0.2 0.2 6.8
9 38.6 0.5 4.7 16.4
10 38.6 0.5 2.5 17.3
11 154.4 0.5 0.4 7.4
12 38.6 0.1 10.1 3.2
13 38.6 66.0 206.9 4.7
14 154.4 0.2 0.2 3.2
15 154.4 0.6 0.6 18.6
16 154.4 0.7 0.7 21.6
17 38.6 0.1 0.1 2.0
18 38.6 0.1 0.1 4.2
19 38.6 0.1 0.1 2.4
20 38.6 0.1 0.1 1.6
21 38.6 2.9 5.7 50.3
22 38.6 0.4 0.6 12.6
23 38.6 115.4 88.9 2.1
24 38.6 0.4 1.0 13.3
25 38.6 0.2 0.2 6.3
26 38.6 1.0 3.5 21.5
27 38.6 0.1 0.1 4.4
28 38.6 0.1 0.2 4.2
29 154.4 0.1 0.1 2.2
30 154.4 0.9 1.4 5.1
31 154.4 1.5 16.9 40.9
32 154.4 0.9 1.6 20.8
33 154.4 90.7 214.8 10.6
34 38.6 0.3 0.3 7.5
35 38.6 3.9 8.6 45.1
36 38.6 0.3 0.3 5.8
37 38.6 2.1 3.8 28.1
38 154.4 0.5 0.5 15.5
39 38.6 35.1 91.5 1.0
40 38.6 0.1 0.1 0.4
41 154.4 2.0 6.3 6.5
42 154.4 1.9 17.9 18.8
43 38.6 4.2 3.7 68.1
44 9.6 0.2 0.2 2.1
45 9.6 0.9 2.1 10.1
46 9.6 0.2 0.4 4.1
-------
36 Table XII (continued)
Air Pollutant Emissions From All Sources
in the Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area, 1968
(Annual Average Tons Per Day)
Land Area Sulfur Partic- Carbon
Grid (Sq. Mi.) Oxides ulates Monoxide
47 9.6 0.1 0.1 7.2
48 9.6 0.2 0.2 6.2
49 9.6 0.2 0.2 7.7
50 9.6 1.0 0.7 20.6
51 9.6 0.9 0.8 24.7
52 9.6 0.3 0.4 20.4
53 9.6 0.8 0.9 25.9
54 9.6 2.0 34.9 40.7
55 9.6 1.3 1.6 37.0
56 38.6 1.2 0.9 2.3
57 9.6 2.6 3.4 2.9
58 9.6 0.5 0.4 1.5
59 9.6 0.1 0.1 3.4
60 9.6 1.1 1.8 39.2
61 9.6 1.0 4.7 113.9
62 9.6 1.9 6.7 78.9
63 9.6 0.1 0.1 0.7
64 9.6 167.2 79.8 2.3
65 9.6 0.0 0.0 3.1
66 9.6 0.1 0.1 9.3
67 9.6 0.6 1.2 30.5
68 9.6 0.4 0.9 21. 7
69 154.4 0.6 10.7 45.9
70 154.4 0.1 0.1 4.1
71 154.4 0.6 1.7 11.9
72 154.4 0.3 0.6 9.8
73 154.4 0.7 21.5 37.1
74 154.4 0.5 0.5 23.2
75 154.4 0.5 54.1 21.4
76 154.4 0.1 0.2 2.9
77 38.6 0.1 0.1 1.8
78 38.6 5.8 5.9 39.4
79 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.5
80 38.6 0.1 0.2 2.9
81 154.4 10.1 29.7 18.2
82 154.4 0.4 0.4 13.9
83 154.4 0.3 0.3 11.4
84 154.4 0.2 0.2 5.7
85 154.4 0.7 1.4 16.1
86 154.4 6.6 29.0 20.4
87 154.4 1.2 4.7 40.3
88 154.4 0.1 0.1 2.9
89 154.4 0.0 0.0 1.3
90 154,.4 0.1 0.1 2.1
91 154\ 4 0.2 0.2 5.8
92 154..4 0.2 0.4 6.3
- \-
-------
37
Carbon monoxide concentrations of significance are in grid
zdnes where automobile traffic densities are heavy (61).
The nature of industrial development in the study area as
described in the urban factors analysis is reflected in this
analysis of pollutant emissions:
there is no single, highly
concentrated source of emissions in the area, but substantial
ard well-distributed emission sources over the whole area.
Sources are found in grid zones to the north, east, south, and
west of the central city.
To the extent there is a discernible
pattern, sources occur along the various waterways in the area.
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
The boundaries of an air quality control region should be
designed to include ~ pollution sources and people and property
affected by those sources.
Sources and source areas have been
identified in the preceding section presenting the emission
inventory.
The inventory does not, however, provide information
about the dispersion of pollutants and that relationship to
affected people and property.
Further examination of air quality
data in the study area is necessary before the regional boundary
can be determined.
-------
3R
The best way to determine the atmospheric distribution of
pollutants is to review air quality sampling data which .have
been collected at sufficient points over enough time to be
useful.
Such data, however, are not presently available for
the study area, so an alternative modeling technique has been
used.
It is possible through the use of meteorological
diffusion model to predict theoretical concentrations of
pollutants in the air.
The model, based on mathematical treat-
ment of pollutant emission from the inventory and meteorological
factors such as wind speeds, direction" and mixing depths has
generated the theoretical dispersion maps shown in Figures 12, 13,
and 14.
Although the model has certain inherent limitations, it
can be used as an indicator of probable relative concentrations
throughout the study area.
Meteorology and Climatology
The ebb and flow of air through the study area is, of course,
an important consideration in the determination of appropriate
regional boundaries.
The study area, located in the southern Piedmont, is sheltered
from extreme effects of polar air masses and enjoys a moderate
climate characterized by cool winters and quite warm summers.
-------
39
SouTH
CARoLI NA
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 12 - Theoretical Annual Average Concentrations of Sulfur Oxides.
Values in Micrograms per Cubic Meter
-------
40
..
I
ANSON
,"'....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SoUTH
CARoLINA
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 13 - Theoretical Annual Average Concentrations of Particulates.
Values in Micrograms per Cubic Meter
-------
41
/
~--------
\ ,
'. IRED ELL I
, I
I
I
C-_J
"
.
,
\
\
" ~---(
" UNI t--------
I 5 ~ CHESTER
I I
I "
I ,
I
,/ ~' -----
-,
'..
---
\
\
,
, ,
'( ...,
'"... ,
"
\
..
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
~-
SouTH
CARoLI NA
\
\
I
I
.
\
\
- - - --~
\
\
~
,
...
..
~I\ .,'
, ..
, ,,'
"
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
FIGURE 14 - Theoretical Annual Average Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide.
Values in Micrograms per Cubic Meter
-------
47
Winter weather is changeable, alternating between mild and cool
and only occasional cold periods.
Summers are long and warm
with considerable cooling at night and frequent thunderstorms.
The area is far enough inland not to be severely affected by
coastal storms and hurricanes.
Average wind speeds in the area
are about 7 m.p.h. and tend to be southwesterly.
The region is characterized by frequent low wind speeds,
stagnant air masses, and temperature inversions.
Over the past
twenty years, stagnation periods of over four days each have
been noted 70 times.
Inversions are present over 45 percent of
the time, and nighttime winds of less than seven miles per hour
can be expected 70 percent of the time (Figure 15, Table XIII).
Table XIII
Air Mixing Depths, Metropolitan Charlotte Study Area
(meters)
Winter Summer Annual
MORNING 330 370 335
AFTERNOON 930 1,700 1,410
AVERAGE 630 1,035 870
These weather conditions, coupled with extensive use of coal
as an energy source, create air ~ollution potentials of a serious
nature which will require a strong regional program.
-------
WINTER
SUMMER
43
ANNUAL
(Includes All Four Averaging Periods)
PERCENT FREQUENCY
o
5
10:
15
FIGURE 15 - Wind Direction Percent Frequency of Occurrence
for Various Averaging Times
-------
44
Air quality data collected by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
County Health Department appear to be consistent with the con-
elusions of the inventory and diffusion model.
The annual
average (1969) air quality measurements from the Health Depart-
ment are shown below.
Measured
Range
Average
Suspended particulates
3
13 - 251 jJ- g/m
2
2.74 - 60.1 tons/mi /mo.
3
78,u.g/m
Dustfall
2
17.41 tons/mi /mo.
Soiling index
o - 3.2 COH
0.6 COH
Nitrogen oxides
0.014 - 0.400 ppm
0.111 ppm
Sulfur oxides
0.000 - 0.060 ppm
0.009 ppm
-------
45
REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
In the Metropolitan Charlotte study area, eight types of
regional entities may be distinguished:
1) regional planning bodies
2) sub-state planning districts
3) clearinghouses for Federally assisted projects
4) law enforcement districts
5) a resource conservation and development area
6) a health planning area
7) manpower planning districts
8) air pollution cpntro1 agencies
The study area counties have combined in many different
ways to form these regional organizations.
For example, the
Courity of Mecklenburg is in itself a Comprehensive Health P1an-
ning Area; it has joined with Union, Cabarrus, and Irede11
Counties to form a law enforcement district; it cooperates in
an eight-county council of government; and so on.
Regional Planning Bodies
There are two regional planning bodies in the study area--
a Council of Governments (COG) and a regional planning commission.
The Central Piedmont Regional Council of Local Governments
(CPRCLG), a voluntary public agency, was formed in 1968 to undertake
-------
46
regional and intergovernmental coordination and to help member
local 'governments meet various planning requirements for Federal
grants-in-aid.
Membership consists of eight counties and fifteen
municipalities in the North Carolina portion of the Metropolitan
Charlotte study area (Figure 16).
A majority of the representa-
tives on the Council's policy board are elected local officials--
mayors and county commissioners.
The Council's work program
stresses environmental problems: water and sewer system planning,
solid waste disposal, and air pollution.
In the next two years,
substantial effort will also be directed toward airports, high-
way and transit systems, land use patterns, housing, and health.
In the South Carolina portion of the study area, a four-
county regional agency, the Central Piedmont Regional Planning
Commission (CPRPC) has recently been established for the purpose
of areawide planning (Figure 16).
Sub-state Planning Districts
Both North and South Carolina have divided their respective
state areas into multi-county sub-state planning districts.
North
Carolina has proposed, but not yet officially designated, a ten-
county district, and South Carolina has designated a four-county
district in the Charlotte area.
These are shown in Figure 17).
Clearinghouses
In accordance with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
-------
47
l
I
I
" , r:H~:Sn:R ~ N TF.R ". SoLITrl
'\ ! " CARoLINA
\ . ;~
, '.. ,." ,.
~ - - - - -.- - - - - -1=:-;,/"10\...'" ;;,'"
'.~ \~'
...----- .....
I
I
o
16
.
32
.
M}M~
Central Piedmont Regional Council
of Local Governments
miles
-
Central Piedmont Regional
Planning Commission
FIGURE 16 - Regional Planning Bodies
Charlotte Study Area.
in the Metropolitan
-------
4R
r-m
CAAo
Solffif
CAAo
o
.
16
.
miles
32
.
1I1I
I
--.
...
11
... ,
...
I -
T "
11. ~11-1
--- -~-- ---- -- --....,..
-, 'AROLINA
. 1 ,
-- - - -' ~
m
UNA ' '.
" '
!
I '
T '.- I "
. ..
.- -- I -. -
,. .. -T - -- ,"
- ~
, ,,,,,,,,, ... ~
.
7
~.. ,. I ~
\ ~
UNA \
. -~
I II'
J I -
I
\
I SoUlH
\
I I ~ CARoLINA
L~ \ ----
... ~~
North Carolina Sub-state Planning
District
South Carolina Sub-state Planning
District
FIGURE 17 - Sub-state Planning District, Metropolitan Charlotte
Study Area.
-------
49
1968, the Central Piedmont Regional Council of Local Governments
and the Central Piedmont Regional Planning Commission have been
designated as clearinghouses.
Through the clearinghouses,
Federal development assistance is coordinated with State, regional,
and local comprehensive planning.
As clearinghouses, CPRCLG and CPRPC are responsible for review
of project proposals and applications for Federal assistance sub-
mitted by localities.
Law Enforcement Districts
The Justice Department is authorized to make grants to States
for planning and improvement of public protection, recruitment,
construction of facilities, education, training, and other aspects
of law enforcement in local areas.
North Carolina has four law enforcement districts in the
Metropolitan Charlotte study area, having the following composition
of counties: (1) Gaston County; (2) Lincoln and Cleveland Counties;
(3) Mecklenburg, Union, Cabarrus, and Iredel1 Counties; and (4)
Catawba.
South Carolina has one law enforcement district affect-
ingthe study area which includes York, Union, Chester, and
Lancaster Counties.
Resource Conservation and Development Project Areas
The Department of Agriculture makes grants to local govern-
ments for resource conservation and land use planning.
A six-
-------
50
county Resource Conservation and Development Project Area has
been designated in northern South Carolina which includes four
counties in the study area (York, Union, Chester and Lancaster
Counties).
Comprehensive Health Planning Area
The Public Health Service, provides, through state health
planning agencies, grants to local governmental organizations
for comprehensive health planning.
Within the study area,
Mecklenburg County is the only Comprehensive Health Planning
Area.
Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System Areas
The Federal Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS)
provides for committees made up of local representatives of
Federal, or Federally-supported, manpower programs.
The respon-
sibility of a CAMPS committee is the coordinated planning of all
manpower programs for a particular area.
Four CAMPS committee
areas have been established in the Metropolitan Charlotte area
having the following County composition: (1) Mecklenburg, Cabarrus
and Union (N.C.) Counties; (2) Gaston, Cleveland, Lincoln, and
Catawba Counties; (3) Union County (S.C.); and (4) York, Chester,
and Lancaster Counties.
-------
51
Air Pollution Control Agencies
In North Carolina, the State agency responsible for air
pollution control is the North Carolina Board of Air and Water
Resources.
The Air Pollution Control Division of the State
Board has a staff of thirteen and a budget of $163,500 for fiscal
year 1970, with about $350,000 anticipated for fiscal year 1971.
Five local air pollution programs established in the North
Carolina portion of the study area include the following County
groups:
(1) Mecklenburg County; (2) Gaston County; (3) Rowan
County; (4) Lincoln and Catawba Counties; and (5) Cleveland
County.
These local programs are administered either by air
pollution boards or by county health departments.
They are
responsible directly to the North Carolina Air and Water Resources
Board.
Mecklenburg County is providing technical assistance to
Gaston County and to Lincoln and Catawba Counties on their programs.
Similar cooperative arrangements between Mecklenburg County and
Irede11 and Union (N.C.) Counties have been discussed.
In the South Carolina portion of the study area, the South
Carolina Pollution Control Authority is the State agency respon-
sible for air quality control.
The Authority has a present staff
of ten with 31 additional positions authorized for 1971.
Its
1970 budget is $240,000 and the 1971 budget is expected to be
$415,000.
No local control agencies have been created in the
South Carolina portion of the study area.
-------
5?
The States of North and South Carolina have the power to
cooperate in an Interstate Air Quality Control Region.
North
Carolina statutes permit cooperation between localities (both
inside and outside North Carolina), but North Carolina law may
reserve to the State exclusive authority to regulate air quality.
In both States, authority to form interstate planning agencies
(as distinguished from regulatory agencies) has been given to
local governments.
-------
S3
PROPOSED AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
Subject to the scheduled consultation, NAPCA proposes for
designation an air quality control region in the Metropolitan
Charlotte area consisting of the following counties shown on
Figure 18:
In North Carolina
Cabarrus
Cleveland
Gaston
Mecklenburg
Union
In South Carolina
Lancaster
York
An air quality control region should meet three basic criteria:
1.
It should encompass most pollution sources as well
as most people and preperty affected by the sources.
2.
It should include those areas where industrial and
residential growth may create significant future
problems.
3.
It should be consistent with unified and cooperative
administration of the region's air resources.
The proposed seven-county region for Metropolitan Charlotte
is the minimum area which satisfies the criteria.
-------
54
..------ ---
\ I
\ IREDELL I
I I
, I
, I
,
I
- ""\ I
- - \'
,- (
I CATAWBA "
, \
, ...
I ,
I ,
I \
,
I ,
-----------~
LINCOLN t
,
\
I
t
, "
'" GASTON I "
, t \
, I Charlot te I,
" I," "". '"
\ I::'
I I "" ,,: ,""
J '.'~.' I
YO~- ~~ MECKLENBURG/'/
I~',\ ,/
\, ","
\ "
,
NoR11i
CAROLI NA
CLEVELAND
SOUTH
CAROLI NA
/'..... - --
I
" UNION
I \
, "
I "
. I ,
I \
,/ ~-----------
-, J
...._---~
CHESTER
o
.
16
.
32
.
miles
Fir>'1re 18:
,....
I "'...
I '
I '..
I ROWAN '....
t --I
, ,
( "
\ "'...
\ '
\ \
\ , NORTH
CABARRUS - -'-. .cAROL! NA
,
\
STANLY',
I
t
I
I
\
- ,
'... ... , ~', ~
'( "
ANSON, ... .. \
...
..
I
\
..
,
\
\
,
,
,
,
.1.-
UNION
1
L-
LANCASTER
Proposed
~~_tropoH tan--'Chailot_te Interstate
~\!_~~~~J_~y -_Co_1'!~_~Q,!_Reg}~~--
SolITH
CAROL! NA
-------
55
The discussions in preceding sections of technical, urban,
and governmental factors relevant to a determination of the
Region's boundaries lead to the following conclusions:
1.
Sulfur oxides, particulates, and nitrogen oxides
pollution sources are concentrated mainly in Gaston,
Catawba, Rowan, and Cleveland Counties.
The remaining
major sources are in York and Mecklenburg Counties.
If present piants for construction of new power plants
are carried out, Iredell County may also become a
major source of these pollutants and the contribution
of Catawba and Cleveland Counties may increase.
Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon sources are
widely dispersed throughout the study area counties,
but primary concentrations exist in Mecklenburg,
Gaston, Rowan, and Catawba Counties.
The people and property in these major pollution
source counties are affected by the dispersion of
pollutants.
Lower level effects encompass portions
of Cabarrus, Lincoln, Iredell, Union (N. C.), and
Lancaster Counties, despite the fact that these
counties are not major pollution sources at the
present time.
2.
Population densities are highest in Mecklenburg, Gaston
-------
56
and Catawba Counties, with Rowan and Cleveland
following close behind.
Growth of population
during the last decade has beert most pronounced in
Mecklenburg, Gaston, Irede11, and Catawba.
Due to
the influence of Interstate 77 and Interstate 85,
it is anticipated that future urban development in
Iredell, Cabarrus, and Cleveland Counties will be
significant.
Manufacturing employment is largest in Gaston,
Mecklenburg, Catawba, and Cabarrus Counties.
Growth
of manufacturing employment during the period
between 1962 and 1968 was most noticeable in Catawba,
Gaston, and Mecklenburg Counties.
A large portion of
the manufacturing employment in the area is involved
in textiles, apparel, and furnitu~e production,
The
city of Charlotte serves as a financial and service
center for the regional economy.
3.
A multiplicity of intergovernmental cooperation
organizations exist in the study area.
In North
Carolina, local air pollution control districts have
been established on a single county basis in
Mecklenburg, Gaston, Rowan, and Cleveland Counties,
and for the two-county area of Lincoln and Catawba
Counties.
South Carolina has not established local
air pollution control districts.
-------
57
It appears from these conclusions that the seven-county
proposed region constitutes the minimum aree for a comprehensive
approach to the region air pollution problem.
Although Catawba
is not among the seven counties proposed, there are strong
reasons for adding Catawba to the region.
It has nearly the
same manufacturing employment as Gaston and Mecklenburg, and
the growth of manufacturing employment during the middle sixties
was greater in Catawba than in either Gaston or Mecklenburg.
Catawba emits a greater percentage of the sulfur oxides and
particulates than Mecklenburg.
Production of electrical power
from plants in Catawba may be increased in the near future.
Catawba has recognized the need for air pollution control by
forming a local program with Lincoln County.
On the basis of
these facts, it would seem that Catawba would be a natural
candidate for inclusion in the air quality control region.
It can be argued that Catawba does not need to be included in
the region because it is separated from Gaston and Mecklenburg
by Lincoln County, which has a low population density, low
manufacturing employment, and low growth expectation.
On the
other hand, since Lincoln County is not large, the buffer zone
is relatively narrow, if it can be said to exist at all.
Therefore,
the National Air Pollution Control Administration recommends that
Catawba County should be carefully considered for inclusion in
the Charlotte Region during the discussion at the consultation,
-------
58
.and further suggested that if Catawba is not included in the
initial designation of the Charlotte Region following the
consultation, it should be reconsidered periodically for possible
inclusion at a later date.
It is evident that the inclusion
of Catawba in the Region would require the inclusion of Lincoln
County also, since Lincoln lies between Catawba and the
remainder of the Region.
Iredell is another county which has lihks with the Charlotte
area but which is not included in the proposal.
Population,
manufacturing employment, and recent growth in manufacturing
employment for Iredell are all smaller than for Catawba, but
the population growth of Iredell for the past decade has been
larger than for Catawba.
Interstate 77 will promote rapi.d
development in Iredell County in the future.
The possibility
that a new power plant may be located in Iredell is another
indication of its interdependence with the metropolitan Charlotte
area.
If future population and industrial growth in Iredell
create an increasing linkage with the regional air pollution
problem, the situation should be reviewed to determine if
inclusion of Iredell is warranted by the altered conditions.
Rowan is a third County which deserves further consideration
even though it is not included in the proposed region.
The
population density and manufacturing employment of Rowan are
comparable to those of Cleveland County.
Population growth
during the sixties was similar for Rowan and Cleveland.
They
are both linked to Charlotte by Interstate 85.
Pollutant
-------
59
emissions from Rowan ate generally somewhat higher than those
from Cleveland.
Therefore, it might seem inconsistent to
include Cleveland in the proposed region but exclude Rowan.
However, Rowan appears to be more closely linked to the Greensboro
and Winston-Salem area than to the Charlotte area.
Therefore,
Rowan was not included in the proposal in anticipation of the
possibility that it might be included in a regional approach to
air pollution control focussed on the Greensboro and Winston-
Salem area.
It appears at the present time that additional counties on
the periphery of those discussed are not required in the air
quality control region in order to provide for a comprehensive
approach to the regional problem.
------- |