1. Nutrient Runoff Effects on Jordan Lake
Brianna Young, Jennifer Jackson and Emily Nurminen

3. Jordan Lake Stats
Man-made reservoir initially created as a flood control
Now serves as a water source for many surrounding cities such as: Durham, Cary, Apex, Morrisville, RTP, and Chatham County
Is located within the New Hope and Haw River watersheds

4. Jordan Lake Stats
Project started in 1945 and was finally flooded in 1983
Surface area: 13,940 acres (56.4 km2)
Primary source: Haw River
Standard elevation: 216 ft (66m) above sea level

5. Water Problems
J. reservoir has had very nutrient rich waters since the time of its impoundment
Excessive algal growth
Reservoir has been designated as “impaired”
1983- NC Envt’l Management Commission designate J. Lake as “Nutrient Sensitive Water” (NSW)

6. Jordan Lake Rules!
June, New rules for future construction – these were the strictest rules for watersheds in NC’s history
Major Rules:
1.)reduce annual average N and P loads to the lake from all sources
2.)J. Lake is divided into 3 arms (2 New Hopes and Haw River)
3.)each arm of lake will meet its respective nutrient requirements

7. Why Do We Give a Hoot? Important water source Build-out increasing
Effects of build-out on nutrient loading
Effects of moving build-out further upstream
J. Lake is NSW
Increasing dependence on J. Lake
Diverse wildlife

8. Location of the Legacy at Jordan Lake

9. Other Nearby Developments
The Homestead at Jordan Lake
Briar Chapel
The Preserve at Jordan Lake
Cole Place
Estates at Windfall Creek
Colvard Farms

10. The Legacy Construction began 2006
Located along the western shore of J. Lake within the New Hope Basin
Residential community with total of 436 lots covering 628 acres (including golf course)
3 phases of construction

11. Waste Water Treatment Plant
Owner:  Heater Utilities, Inc.
Category:  Subdivision
Engineer: 
W. Lee Fleming, Jr. Engineering 601 Oberlin Road   Suite 200 Raleigh, North Carolina
Design:  MGD McNeill “QUAD” wastewater treatment system and reclaimed water irrigation system.
Project Description:  120,000 GPD expandable dual path McNeill wastewater treatment reuse system with a 16,900,000 gallon storage pond, a 890,000 gallon reject pond and a acre irrigation area consisting of 34 zones to serve 999 bedrooms.

12. Phase I of Build Out

13. Phase I 3 sub-phases: Total: 105 lots, 238 acres
Legacy Falls (26 lots)
Legacy Hills (34 lots)
Legacy Park (43 lots)
Total: 105 lots, 238 acres

14. Phase II & III Phase II Phase III Avg lot size: 23, 681 ft2
82.52 acres
54 lots
Phase III
Avg lot size: 25,633 ft2
83.01 acres
60 lots

15. Location of The Legacy at Jordan Lake

16. Location of The Legacy at Jordan Lake

17. GIS Aspect
We used GIS to extract the watershed basin we were going to focus on so that we could obtain the NLCD landcover data for the catchments the development was going to be in.

18. Catchments of Interest

19. The Process
Clipped Haw River and New Hope watersheds from a file containing the entire water network for the Southeast U.S.
Overlaid NHD water body to locate Jordan Lake
Overlaid files for primary, secondary, and local roads to get an exact location
Overlaid catchment data
Added NHD flowline attributes data table
Overlaid NED file for the area to view the elevation of catchments

20. The Process
Joined catchment shapefile with NLCD flowline attributes to get CUMNLCD
Used identify function to select catchment of interest and obtain information about landcover
Compiled data to get total values

21. NLCD Classifications 11 Open Water 12 Perennial Ice/Snow
21 Developed, Open Space
22 Developed, Low Density
23 Developed, Medium Density
31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
32 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
33 Transitional
41 Deciduous Forest
42 Evergreen Forest
43 Mixed Forest
51 Shrub
61 Orchards/Vineyards/Other
71 Grassland/Herbaceous
81 Pasture/Hay
82 Row Crops
83 Small Grains
84 Fallow
85 Urban/Recreational Grasses
91 Woody Wetlands
92 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

22. Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
COMID
COMID
NLCD #
% of landcover
Land Area (km^2)
Total Land Area (km^2) 11
Open Water
0.164
0.0053 31
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
0.036
0.0012 33
Transitional
1.47
0.0474 41
Deciduous Forest
62.04 2
57.44
0.562
2.562 42
Evergreen Forest
21.46
0.692
15.63
0.153
0.845 43
Mixed Forest
12.16
0.392
26.84
0.263
0.655 81
Pasture/Hay
1.44
0.046 82
Row Crops
0.15
0.0048 91
Woody Wetlands
0.96
0.031
0.09 92
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
0.11
0.0035
Total Area:
3.226
0.979
4.202

23. L-THIA Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment
Program created by Purdue University that quantifies the impact of land use change on water quality and quantity
Uses the land use and a soil type specified by the user
Uses 30 years of precipitation data to determine the average impact that a certain land use change or set of changes (different scenarios) will have on both the annual runoff and the average amount of several non-point source pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorus

24. L-THIA Input state and county that you are considering
Input different scenarios as land use types change at different time points
The total area for each scenario must be equal in order to run the program
Tables of information regarding runoff and non- point sources will be provided that can be viewed as a table, pie chart and bar graph

25. L-THIA Steps

26. L-THIA Steps

27. L-THIA Steps

28. L-THIA Steps

29. Current Runoff Volume Runoff Volume (acre-ft) Soil Type Landcover A B
Forest
3.02
66.51
211.63
340.63
Agricultural
1.8
3.93
6.4
7.73
Grass/Pasture
0.14
1.25
3.1
4.82
Water/Wetland
Low Density Residential
Total Volume
4.97
71.7
221.14
353.18

30. Current Nitrogen Nitrogen (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D Forest 5
146
403
649
Agriculture 21 27 76 92
Grassland
0.283 2 9
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential
Total
26.283
175
484
750

31. Current Phosphorous Phosphorous (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest
0.082 1 5 9
Agriculture 6 13 22 27
Grassland
0.004
0.034
0.084
0.131
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential
Total
6.086
14.034
27.084
36.131

32. Phase 1 Part 1 Runoff Volume
Runoff Volume (acre-ft)
Soil Type
Landcover A B C D
Forest
2.99
65.95
209.85
337.77
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
Water/Wetland
Low Density Residential
2.58
9.06
18.17
25.14
Total Volume
5.58
75.01
228.02
362.91

33. Phase 1 Part 1 Nitrogen Nitrogen (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest 5
125
400
644
Agriculture
Grassland
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential 12 44 90
124
Total 17
169
490
768

34. Phase 1 Part 1 Phosphorous
Phosphorous (lbs)
Soil Type
Landcover A B C D
Forest
0.081 1 5 9
Agriculture
Grassland
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential 4 14 28 39
Total
4.081 15 33 48

35. Phase 1 Part 2 Runoff Volume
Runoff Volume (acre-ft)
Soil Type
Landcover A B C D
Forest
2.82
62.12
197.65
318.13
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
Water/Wetland
Low Density Residential
6.07
21.26
42.63
58.98
Total Volume
8.89
83.38
240.28
377.11

36. Phase 1 Part 2 Nitrogen Nitrogen (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest 5
118
376
606
Agriculture
Grassland
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential 30
105
211
292
Total 35
223
587
898

37. Phase 1 Part 2 Phosphorous
Phosphorous (lbs)
Soil Type
Landcover A B C D
Forest
0.076 1 5 8
Agriculture
Grassland
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential 9 33 66 91
Total
9.076 34 71 99

38. Phase 1 Part 3 Runoff Volume
Runoff Volume (acre-ft)
Soil Type
Landcover A B C D
Forest
2.6
57.29
182.31
293.44
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
Water/Wetland
Low Density Residential
10.45
36.6
73.38
101.52
Total Volume
13.06
93.9
255.69
394.97

39. Phase 1 Part 3 Nitrogen Nitrogen (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest 4
109
347
559
Agriculture
Grassland
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential 51
181
363
503
Total 55
290
710
1062

40. Phase 1 Part 3 Phosphorous
Phosphorous (lbs)
Soil Type
Landcover A B C D
Forest
0.07 1 4 7
Agriculture
Grassland
Water/Wetland
Low Dens. Residential 16 56
113
157
Total
16.07 57
117
164

41. Phase 2 Runoff Volume Volume Runoff (acre-ft) Soil Type Landcover A B
Forest
1.63
35.98
114.5
184.3
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
2.41
20.35
50.47
78.27
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential
18.67
65.36
131.05
181.32
Total Annual Volume (acre-ft)
22.72
121.71
296.03
443.89

42. Phase 2 Nitrogen Nitrogen (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D Forest 368
218
351
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture 4 38 96
149
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential 92
324
649
899
Total Lbs. 99
430
963
1399

43. Phase 2 Phosphorous Phosphorus (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest
0.044
0.98 3 5
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
0.065
0.554 1 2
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential 29
101
203
281
Total Lbs.
29.109
207
288

44. Phase 3 Runoff Volume Nutrient Runoff Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest
1.22
26.89
85.57
137.72
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential
26.94
94.3
189.06
261.58
Total Annual Volume (acre-ft)
28.16
121.2
274.63
399.31

45. Phase 3 Nitrogen Nitrogen (lbs) Soil Type Landcover A B C D Forest 251
163
262
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential
133
467
937
1297
Total Lbs.
135
518
1100
1559

46. Phase 3 Phosphorous Phosphorus (lbs.) Soil Type Landcover A B C D
Forest
0.033
0.732 2 3
Agricultural
Grass/Pasture
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential 41
146
293
406
Total Lbs.
41.033
295
409

47. Correlations for Soil Type A

48. Correlations for Soil Type B

49. Correlations for Soil Type C

50. Correlations for Soil Type D

51. Conclusions from L-THIA
As the data transitions from soil type A to soil type D, runoff, N and P increase
As the data moves into higher phases (more development), runoff, N and P also increase
In the correlation graphs for each soil type, N had the best R2 values
Runoff decrease in R2 values as the data moved from soil type A through D
A polynomial (order 2) trendline was used for the graphs
The runoff, N and P increase when changing from soil type A through D because the soils become less permeable for water to seep into the groundwater, creating more runoff and more nutrients in the runoff make it to Jordan Lake

52. Relocating the Development
How will the nutrient runoff rates be affected if we move the
development farther upstream?

53. SPARROW and RTI Loss Rate
Since the flow regime is < 1000 cfs, the RTI equations used are
Total N: δ = ·ln(flow)
Total P: δ = -.058·ln(flow)
Parker’s Creek flow: 2.41 cfs
Stream River flow: 0.76 cfs
We used NHDflowline attributes data to find annual flow rates for Parker’s Creek and Stream River, which are the two streams in the two catchments of interest.
Once we had the annual average flows for the streams, we input them into the above equations to find delta values to plug into the following decay equation.

54. Pollutant Amount at End of Reach
Ct = Co ⋅ e(-δt)
Co = pollutant mass present at the upstream end of a reach
Ct = pollutant mass present at the downstream end of a reach following travel time t
δ = decay rate (1/day)
t = time of travel (days)
Travel time is equal to the length of the stream divided by the average velocity through the stream: L/Lt-1
We found average velocities from the NHDflowline attributes data and used it to determine the travel time down each stream.
We averaged pollutant masses (lbs) from information given in LTHIA to use for the Co parameter.

55. Data Sources Parker’s Creek Avg. velocity: 0.795 m/s
Travel time: 3.16 days
Flow: 2.41 cfs
Stream length: 2.51km
Stream River
Avg. velocity: 0.70 m/s
Travel time: 1.3 days
Flow: 0.76 cfs
Stream length: 0.92 km
We found the lengths of the streams by using the measure tool in ArcGIS. We selected the midpoints of each catchment for Parker’s Creek and Stream River and measured the stream length between them.

56. Nutrient Load-post relocation
Original Location
New Location
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
N(lbs)
442
722
828
182
298
341
P(lbs)
55.6
156.7
223
34.4 96
138
This table shows the resulting nitrogen and phosphorous inputs into the lake given the decay equation we used described in an earlier slide.
The results show that

57. Work Cited
Kennedy, Todd J. B. Everett Jordan Lake TMDL Watershed Model Development. November 2003.
lake-.shtml