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. 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

10. Phase I of Build Out

11. 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

12. 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

13. Location of The Legacy at Jordan Lake

14. Location of The Legacy at Jordan Lake

15. 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.

16. Catchments of Interest

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. L-THIA Steps

22. L-THIA Steps

23. L-THIA Steps

24. L-THIA Steps

25. SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS State: North Carolina County: Chatham
Land Use
Hydrologic Soil Group
Current
acres Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Forest A
607.1
602
567
Agricultural 8
Grass/Pasture
6.9
Water/Wetlands
6.0
Low Density Residential 26 61
RUNOFF RESULTS
Avg. Annual Runoff Volume (acre-ft)
Land Use
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Forest
3.02
2.99
2.82
Agricultural
1.80
Grass/Pasture
0.14
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential
2.58
6.07
Total Annual Volume (acre-ft)
4.97
5.58
8.89
Avg. Annual Runoff Depth (in) 
Current
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
0.09
0.10
0.17

26. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANT RESULTS Nitrogen (lbs) Phosphorous (lbs)
Land Use
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Forest 5
Agricultural 21
Grass/Pasture
0.283
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential 12 30
Total
26.283 17 35
Phosphorous (lbs) 
Land Use
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Forest
0.082
0.081
0.076
Agricultural 6
Grass/Pasture
0.004
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential 4 9
Total
6.086
4.081
9.076
Suspended Solids (lbs) 
Land Use
Current
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Forest 8 7
Agricultural
526
Grass/Pasture
0.405
Water/Wetlands
Low Density Residential
289
678
Total
297
685

27. What’s In Store?
How will the nutrient runoff rates be affected if we move the development farther upstream?