Jordan Lake EA - Final

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
For
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake
Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
Lead Agency Contact:
Mr. Justin Bashaw
United States Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 251 -4581
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Contact:
Mr. David Wainwright
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
(919) 707 -8787
The State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
DWR
Division of Water Resources
February 2014

Environmental Assessment
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake

Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
Listof Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... ............................... vi
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... ..............................1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ ..............................2
1.2 The Demonstration Project ............................................................................... ..............................3
1.3 Project Area Locations ...................................................................................... ...............................
6
2.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................... .............................10
3.0 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................... .............................11
3.1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... .............................11
3.2 Solar Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators ............................................ .............................12
3.3 Electrically Powered In -Lake Long— Distance Circulators ................................. .............................14
3.4 Wind Powered In -Lake Circulators ................................................................... .............................14
4.0 Proposed Action - Demonstration of Solar Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators ................16
5.0 Environmental Effects .......................................................................................... .............................26
5.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................................... .............................26
5.1.1 Topography ............................................................................................... .............................26
5.1.2 Geology ...................................................................................................... .............................28
5.1.3 Soils ............................................................................................................ .............................29
5.1.4 Floodplains ................................................................................................ .............................32
5.1.5 Surface Hydrology ..................................................................................... .............................34
5.1.6 Water Quality ............................................................................................ .............................34
5.1.7 Air Quality .................................................................................................. .............................38
5.1.8 Noise .......................................................................................................... .............................39
5.1.9 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... .............................40
5.1.9.1 The John A. Mason House ................................................................... .............................41
5.1.9.2 The James A. Thomas Farm .................................................................... .............................41
5.1.10 Hazardous Waste Sites ............................................................................ .............................42
5.1.11 Aesthetics ................................................................................................ .............................43
5.2 Managed Lands ................................................................................................ .............................44
5.3 Natural Resources ............................................................................................ .............................45
5.3.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................. .............................45
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
ii

Environmental Assessment
5.3.2 Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................ .............................45
5.3.2.3 Fisheries .............................................................................................. .............................46
5.3.3 Endangered and Threatened Species ........................................................ .............................49
5.3.4 Wetlands ................................................................................................... .............................51
5.4 Socioeconomic Characteristics ......................................................................... .............................52
5.4.1 Land Use .................................................................................................... .............................52
5.4.2 Transportation ........................................................................................... .............................55
5.4.3 Recreation ................................................................................................. .............................55
5.4.4 Water Supply and Conservation ................................................................ .............................58
5.4.5 Energy Needs ............................................................................................. .............................59
5.4.6 Safety ......................................................................................................... .............................59
5.4.7 Consideration of Property Ownership ...................................................... .............................60
5.5 Environmental Impact Comparison of Alternatives ......................................... .............................61
6.0 Executive Orders .................................................................................................. .............................63
6.1 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) .......................................... .............................63
6.2 Executive Order 1199990 (Protection of Wetlands) ...................................... ...............................
63
6.3 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations) ..... .............................63
6.4 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment) .................63
6.5 Executive Order 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds) .................................. .............................64
6.6 Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species .......................................................... .............................64
6.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks .........................
64
7.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action ........................................ .............................64
8.0 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... .............................64
9.0 Public Involvement/ Scoping ................................................................................. .............................65
10.0 List of Recipients Receiving Copies of This Document ....................................... .............................65
11.0 Point of Contact ................................................................................................ ...............................
66
12.0 List of Preparers ................................................................................................ ...............................
66
13.0 Finding of this Environmental Assessment ........................................................ .............................66
14.0 References .......................................................................................................... .............................66
Appendix A (Scoping Comments Received) ................................................................. ...............................
70
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
iii

Environmental Assessment
Appendix B (Federal and State Listed Species in Chatham County) .............................. .............................84
Appendix C (Fish Swim Speeds) ..................................................................................... .............................89
Appendix D (Jordan Lake Water Quality Improvement Demonstration Project (Session Law 2013 -
360§14.3A.(a)) .................................................................................................... .............................91
Appendix E (Study Plan for the Assessment of In -Lake Mechanical Reductions of Adverse Impacts Related
to Excess Nutrients in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake) ............................. 95
List of Figures
Figure 1 -
Location of Jordan Lake Monitoring Stations ................................................. ..............................5
Figure 2 -
Location of Jordan Lake Watershed ................................................................ ..............................7
Figure 3 -
Overview of Morgan Creek Arm APE .............................................................. ..............................8
Figure 4 -
Overview of Haw River Arm APE ..................................................................... ..............................9
Figure 5 -
Examples of Solar Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators ..................... .............................13
Figure 6 -
Examples of AC Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators ........................ .............................14
Figure 7 -
Example of Wind Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulator ....................... .............................15
Figure 8 -
Average Daily Wind Speed near Project Area ................................................ .............................16
Figure 9 -
Location of Circulators in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake ....................18
Figure 10
- Typical Circulator Anchoring ........................................................................ .............................19
Figure 11-
Deep Water Circulator Anchoring ................................................................ .............................20
Figure 12
- Estimated Swing Diameters for Circulators in the Morgan Creek Arm ....... .............................21
Figure 13
- Estimated Swing Diameters for Circulators in the Haw River Arm .............. .............................22
Figure 14
- Surface Area Potentially Affected by Circulation in the Morgan Creek Arm ............................
23
Figure 15
- Surface Area Potentially Affected by Circulation in the Haw River Arm ... ...............................
24
Figure 16
- Visibility and Safety Features of Operating Circulators ............................... .............................25
Figure 17
- Topographic Map of the Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake .................... ...............................
27
Figure 18
- Topographic Map of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake ........................... ...............................
28
Figure 19
- Soil Series Present in the Morgan Creek Arm APE ....................................... .............................30
Figure 20
- Soils Series Present in the Haw River APE ................................................. ...............................
31
Figure 21-
Flood Zones in the Morgan Creek and Haw River APES ............................... .............................33
Figure 22
- Historic Properties Located in APEs ............................................................. .............................40
Figure 23
- John A. Mason House ................................................................................... .............................41
Figure 24
- James A. Thomas House .............................................................................. .............................42
Figure 25
— Depiction of Solar Powered Long- Distance Circulators on Jordan Lake ..... .............................43
Figure 26
- Location of NCWRC Fish Attractors and Circulators .................................... .............................47
Figure 27
- NCWRC Fish Attractor .................................................................................. .............................48
Figure 28
- Water Flow through Circulator .................................................................... .............................49
Figure 29
- Land Cover in the APES ................................................................................ .............................54
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
iv

Environmental Assessment
Figure 30 - Image of Circulator in Operation ................................................................. .............................56
Figure 31— Jordan Lake Designated Recreational Areas ............................................... .............................57
List of Tables
Table 1 -
Comparison of Solar Powered Circulators ...................................................... .............................13
Table 2 -
NRCS Soils in the Morgan Creek Arm and Haw River Arm Areas of Potential Effects .................
29
Table 3 -
Summary of FEMA Designated Areas in the Areas of Potential Effects .......... .............................32
Table 4 -
History of 303(d) Listings in the Lake Jordan Watershed Management Area .............................35
Table 5 -
Summary of Ongoing Assessment of Water Quality in Jordan Lake Data 2009 - 2012 .................37
Table 6 -
Annual Air Quality Index Summary for Chatham County ( 2008 - 2012) ........... .............................39
Table 7 -
Managed Lands in the Areas of Potential Effects ........................................... .............................44
Table 8 -
Water Velocity versus Distance from Intake Hose .......................................... .............................49
Table 9 -
Federally Listed and Protected Species in Chatham County ........................... .............................50
Table 10
- Wetland Types in the Areas of Potential Effects ........................................... .............................52
Table 11
- Summary of Land Cover in the Areas of Potential Effects ............................ .............................53
Table 12
- Water Supply Allocations from Jordan Lake ................................................. .............................59
Table 13
- Summary of Alternatives Impacts ................................................................. .............................62
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
v

Environmental Assessment
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation:
Abbreviation Represents:
APE
Area of Potenial Effect
AQI
Air Quality Index
AU
Assessment Unit
BGPA
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
CAA
Clean Air Act
CWA
(Federal) Clean Water Act
EA
Environmental Assessment
ESA
(Federal) Endangered Species Act
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
fps
Feet per Second
gpm
Gallons Per Minute
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
JLNMS
Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDPR
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
NCDWR
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NCEAS
North Carolina Endangered Species Act
NCNHP
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCWRC
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSHPO
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
SEPA
(North Carolina) State Environmental Policy Act
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
vi

Environmental Assessment
1.0 Introduction
B. Everett Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake) is located primarily in Chatham County, North Carolina, in the
central part of the State. Jordan Lake has a surface area of 13,900 acres and drains an area of
approximately 1,686 square miles in parts of Orange, Wake, Chatham, Alamance, Caswell, Randolph,
Guilford, Rockingham, Forsyth, and Durham Counties. Jordan Lake is part of the Cape Fear River basin.
The history of Jordan Lake begins nearly 70 years ago, on September 17, 1945, when a category 1
hurricane swept across North Carolina after making landfall in southern Florida. Although the intensity
of the hurricane wasn't severe, the storm contained a lot of precipitation. The path took the storm
through central North Carolina, significantly affecting the Cape Fear River Basin. It had already rained in
the area for several days prior and the storm left an additional eight inches of rain. The duration and
amount of rain led to severe flooding and damage in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hudgins, 2000).
Afterwards, The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was directed by Congress to
comprehensively study the water resource needs and address flooding issues in the basin. It was
decided that a reservoir would be built to provide five congressionally authorized purposes: flood
control, recreation, water supply, water quality, and fish and wildlife enhancement. At the time, the
project was known as New Hope Lake, named after the river that was to be dammed to create the
reservoir. The project was approved in 1963, with construction beginning in 1967. In 1973 the project
was renamed in honor of former Senator B. Everett Jordan (NCDPR). The reservoir was allowed to fill in
1981, and reached normal pool level in 1982 (USACE).
Much of the area surrounding Jordan Lake is leased to the State of North Carolina and managed by three
state agencies: NC Division of Parks and Recreation, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC
Forest Service. These public lands and waters are leased by the State from the Federal Government for
public park, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes (Lease No. DACW21 -1 -81- 2603). Popular activities
include camping, fishing, swimming, hunting, hiking, boating, and bird watching. Recreational
infrastructure includes 16 recreation areas, 233 picnic sites, over 1,000 camping sites, numerous
playgrounds, eight swimming areas, 23 miles of trails, 15 boat ramps, and one marina. Annual visits to
Jordan Lake and associated recreational areas average over 970,000 persons (USACE, 2010). Most
recreational facilities are overseen by the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (NCDPR). The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) manages the Jordan Lake Game Lands,
manages the lake fisheries, and enforces state fishing and boating regulations. The North Carolina Forest
Service (NCFS) manages the Jordan Lake Education State Forest. Water levels in Jordan Lake and the
dam are operated and maintained by the USACE.
The Morgan Creek Arm has been listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for chlorophyll a since
2004; the Haw River Arm has been on the list for chlorophyll a since 2006. Other waters in the Jordan
Lake watershed have been listed on the State's 303(d) list going back as far as 2000, including New Hope
Creek, the New Hope River Arm of Jordan Lake, and the Haw River. All of these waters are included on
the current 2012 list or have been included on past lists for other water quality concerns including high
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
1

Environmental Assessment
pH, turbidity, and biological integrity. These listings support the ongoing need to take action to reduce
these concerns.
As a result of the ongoing impairment and water quality concerns, especially regarding recreation and
public water supply, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Session Law 2013 -360. The law
mandates that the North Carolina Division of Water Resources ( NCDWR) establish a 24 month solar in-
lake circulator demonstration project for the management of algal blooms and chlorophyll a in the Haw
River and Morgan Creek Arms of Jordan Lake. The demonstration project is to specifically focus on
preventing and reducing noxious algal blooms and excessive chlorophyll a attributed to elevated
nutrient levels found in Jordan Lake.
The NCDWR has requested the use of waters within the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan
Lake from the USACE for an in -lake long- distance circulator demonstration project. This requested use
does not fall within the scope of the State's lease so a separate government real estate license is
required. The Federal action for the demonstration project is the granting of a USACE real estate license
to the NCDWR for placement of circulators within the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires that the environmental
consequences of Federal actions be evaluated, and the details of this proposed action, and the potential
environmental consequences must be presented to the public. The purpose of this Environmental
Assessment (EA) is to provide a summary of this evaluation and facilitate review by relevant government
agencies and the public.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses a request for a proposed demonstration project which
would place a total of 36 floating in -lake long- distance circulators within Jordan Lake. Twenty -four
circulators would be deployed in the Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake and 12 would be placed in the
Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake for a 24 month period. The circulators would upwell water from near the
bottom of the hypolimnion to the surface (epilimnion) of the lake. According to the State, the circulators
are expected to improve water quality by suppressing phytoplankton activity such that chlorophyll a,
pH, and turbidity measurements would meet State water quality standards within the project areas.
Water quality would be monitored within the project areas and compared with data collected outside of
the project area as well as historically collected data. Such comparisons would allow the NCDWR to
verify if this project is having the intended results of reducing chlorophyll a.
Should the use of the project areas on Jordan Lake be approved by the USACE, the demonstration
project would be conducted in accordance with all requirements set forth by the USACE. This EA is being
submitted so ensure that all environmental consequences of the proposed action are presented and
available for interested stake holders to review. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40
CFR Parts 1500 - 1508), and Engineering Regulation 200 -2 -2 (33 CFR Part 230),
1.1 Background
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), as amended, outlines federal water quality standards
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
2

Environmental Assessment
and implementation plans to protect public waters, including streams, lakes, and coastal waters. Water
quality standards established under the CWA are to be designed to protect public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water, and serve the purpose of the CWA, and shall be established in
consideration of their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, and
recreational purposes while also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has delegated the development of standards meeting
these requirements to the State of North Carolina.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to identify those waters which are not meeting approved
State water quality standards. In order to meet this requirement, the State routinely reviews historical
water quality data and collects necessary data to complete the determinations. A list of all surface
waters which the state has jurisdiction over is submitted to the USEPA for approval on a biannual basis
(every even year). After the list is approved by USEPA, the state must address those waters which are
not meeting State water quality standards and are therefore deemed impaired. In many cases
impairments are addressed through a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. A TMDL is a calculation
which takes into account how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can assimilate in a given day and
still meet State water quality standards. This calculation is then compared to actual measured levels,
and the difference is the amount of reduction in source inputs required to align the waterbody with
compliance standards. To be conservative, a small percentage is added to the required reduction,
placing the targeted goal slightly below the actual maximum load. This calculated reduction is then
equitably allocated to all sources (point and non -point sources) of a specific pollutant within the
watershed. If North Carolina does not develop a TMDL for an impaired water then the USEPA has the
authority to do so. After a USEPA approved TMDL is implemented, the State is required to ensure that
the TMDL allocations are having the desired pollutant reduction effect in the applicable watershed. This
is accomplished through assessing post TMDL water quality data. The results of TMDL monitoring are
evaluated every five years, and adjustments to required reduction goals and allocations are adjusted
accordingly.
On June 20, 2007 the USEPA approved a TMDL for Jordan Lake. The TMDL addresses excessive total
nitrogen and total phosphorous concentrations in seven assessment units of the Jordan Lake watershed.
On September 28, 2010 an addendum to the original TMDL was approved, adding another four
assessment units.
Jordan Lake was partially created as a recreational lake, and has become very popular for numerous
recreational activities which help support the regional economy. It is also important as a drinking water
supply reservoir. In looking at ways to preserve and improve water quality in the lake, important for
both recreation and water supply, the State of North Carolina decided that a demonstration project
should be undertaken to determine if in -lake long- distance circulators would help improve water quality
and in turn expedite TMDL goals.
1.2 The Demonstration Project
The project is being proposed as a demonstration project. If all necessary approvals are granted and the
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
3

Environmental Assessment
project is conducted, the circulators would be in place for 24 months. It is anticipated that the
circulators would be deployed sometime in the spring of 2014, being removed in the spring of 2016.
In order to gauge the effectiveness of the demonstration project several monitoring stations have been
established not only within the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms, but also throughout the mainstem of
Jordan Lake. As is shown in Figure 1, a total of 20 monitoring sites are now located on Jordan Lake.
Eleven new stations have been established including four within the Morgan Creek Arm study area and
five within the Haw River Arm study area. One new station is located in the New Hope Creek arm. These
eleven sites have been established to monitor and determine the effectiveness of this demonstration
project and have been monitored monthly since July 2013 in anticipation of the project. There are nine
existing stations which have been monitored monthly from January — April and October — December,
and twice a month from May — September (17 samples per year) since July 2009.
Sample collection would focus on nutrient related physical, chemical, and biological water quality
parameters. Water samples tested for chemicals would be collected from the photic zone. The photic
zone is defined as a vertical area from the water surface to a depth equal to two times the secchi depth,
and represents the region of the water column which is most reflective of nutrient enrichment impacts.
Depth stratified physical parameters would be collected at the surface (0.15 meters), at 1 meters
increments to a depth of 10 meters, and every 5 meters thereafter. Phytoplankton samples would be
collected at selected sites chosen by proximity to circulators. Microscopic analysis would used to
determine species composition. Water quality sample collections and field operations would follow
State approved Standard Operating Procedures, which include Physical and Chemical Monitoring Version
2.1 and Ambient Lakes Quality Assurance Project Plan Version 1 (July 2012). Data from sample collection
would be used to help determine the effectiveness of using circulators to effectively reduce chlorophyll
a concentrations in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake. A copy of the sampling plan
for the demonstration project and sample locations is included as Appendix E.
Data collected at monitoring stations in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms would be compared to
other data collected to help determine the effectiveness of the circulators on water quality. The primary
objective of the project is to address water quality concerns associated with the TMDL. Therefore, the
project would be considered completely successful if water quality goals for chlorophyll a, pH, and
turbidity are met as they relate to the TMDL. Due to the nature of the project, varying results may be
achieved. The extent to which water quality improves would aid in the state's decision to either
abandon the project or extend the deployment time beyond 24 months. This EA only discusses the
demonstration project for 24 months; any deployment beyond the scope of this EA would need to be
evaluated on its own merit.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
4

Environmental Assessment
Figure 1- Location of Jordan Lake Monitoring Stations
Legend
F-1 Area of Potential Effect (APE)
Project Area
Sample Site
Existing CPF086CUPS , CPF081AIS
751
Added for Demonstration Project xx
CPFMCO2
RWh'-
CPFMC03
CPF086F
CPF087B3
0 CPF087D
IR CPF081A1C
CPF.MC04
CPF055C1 CPF055C2
CPF088A
CPF055C3 CRFI55G
I
CPF055C4
CPF055C5, I
CPF055C6 " " "'
CPF055f]
CPF055E
J

Environmental Assessment
1.3 Project Area Locations
The two project areas are located in eastern Chatham County, North Carolina. A map showing the
general area and the two project areas is included as Figure 2.
The Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake is located in the northeastern portion of Chatham County, south
of Chapel Hill. It is bordered to the north by NC 54, to the south by US 64, to the west by Farrington
Road, and to the east by NC 751. The project area, which is the area which would be directly affected by
the proposed project, is 803 acres and is entirely composed of Jordan Lake water surface. The Area of
Potential Effect (APE), selected because it includes the areas in which any potential impacts from the
project are expected to be seen, is 4,218 acres. Figure 3 shows the Morgan Creek Arm APE and project
area.
The Haw River Arm is in southeast Chatham County, east of Pittsboro. It is bordered to the north by US
64, to the south by US 1, and to the west by US 15/501. The project area is 650 acres and is composed
entirely of Jordan Lake water surface. The Haw River APE is 3,893 acres. Figure 4 shows the Haw River
Arm APE and project area.
Both project areas are within the Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina. The Morgan Creek Arm is
wholly located within the Triassic sub basin of the Piedmont. The Haw River Arm is partially located
within the Triassic sub basin and partially located within the Carolina Slate Belt sub basin. Both project
areas are surrounded by lands managed primarily by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
These two areas of Jordan Lake were selected because they exhibit some of the highest chlorophyll a
readings in Jordan Lake. The majority of water coming into Jordan Lake comes from the Haw River,
passing through the Haw River Arm project area. The Haw River Arm accounts for 70 -90 percent of the
flow coming into Jordan Lake. This allows for a relatively short residence time of only five days. The Haw
River Arm project area is rather deep - upwards of 35 feet in many areas. The Morgan Creek Arm is
much shallower, typically less than ten feet, and has a much longer residency time of 418 days (NCDENR,
2007). The project encompasses two project areas with dissimilar characteristics, yet captures a large
amount of water that passes into Jordan Lake.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
6

Environmental Assessment
Figure 2 - Location of Jordan Lake Watershed
r
/
g �
E
a m
C
J fa o d Q
Q)
cc
j
a i Z
a I
i
t U I
i
--� t
_J
w
w
`)1l
I
` N
T i �
} i
L
2 7 AID
2
; O
/a 9
W � I
a O
a Z i L
LL
n
p. m
O rn
rn i x
w } d E v I
0 U
a c c 4
N O y
o `\
a
U =
6
;3
c�
U
N
U
U j fj
97
E
Y
C
LL
ro
N 9
a m
U: B
m
2
H
0
- - -- - - --
\
0
0
\I
w
Y
Q
__
Q
c
rn
LU
LU
a I
i
t U I
i
--� t
_J
w
w
`)1l
I
` N
T i �
} i
L
2 7 AID
2
; O
/a 9
W � I
a O
a Z i L
LL
n
p. m
O rn
rn i x
w } d E v I
0 U
a c c 4
N O y
o `\
a
U =
6
;3
c�
U
N
U
U j fj
97
E
Y
C
LL
ro
N 9
a m
U: B
w
w
J
w
i0
I
I
II
p � v
U.
Ci
L
Z
r 2
C.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
7
U �
IK
m
2
H
- -- --- - -
- - -- - - --
0
0
Q
w
w
J
w
i0
I
I
II
p � v
U.
Ci
L
Z
r 2
C.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
7
U �
IK

Environmental Assessment
Figure 3 - Overview of Morgan Creek Arm APE
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake

Environmental Assessment
Figure 4 - Overview of Haw River Arm APE
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake

Environmental Assessment
2.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Jordan Lake was authorized to provide flood control, drinking water, recreation, fish and wildlife
enhancement, and augment low -flows for the purposes of pollution abatement and water quality
control in the Cape Fear River Basin (USACE). As a drinking water reservoir, Jordan Lake is a source of
drinking water for the greater Raleigh metropolitan area. As the area population continues to grow, so
will the demand for clean, safe drinking water, and it should be anticipated that Jordan Lake will need to
be a viable source of water to at least partially meet this demand. Additionally, Jordan Lake is also a
major regional recreational attraction. In 2010, it is estimated that 970,000 people enjoyed some
recreational aspect of Jordan Lake, which include swimming, camping, boating, hunting, fishing, etc.
(USACE, 2010). Tourism associated with recreational activities created an estimated $32 million dollars
regionally, and was responsible for creating or maintaining 361 jobs (USACE, 2010).
There is a need for water quality within the Jordan Lake watershed to meet or exceed State water
quality standards in order to provide safe drinking water and reduce costs associated with treating
water for consumption. From a recreational standpoint water quality needs to be maintained to protect
human health and protect aquatic species. Because recreational opportunities within and around
Jordan Lake are significant contributors to the regional economy, and many of the activities are water
related, it is very important to improve and maintain water quality within Jordan Lake. As evident by the
2012 303(d) list, there are many waterbodies in the Jordan Lake watershed which are not meeting their
designated uses or do not meet State water quality standards (discussed further in Section 5.1.6). These
waters are therefore considered impaired by the State and the USEPA. Due to Jordan Lake's impact on
the economy, recreation, and public water supply, it is imperative that water quality in Jordan Lake
achieve, at a minimum, state standards for monitored parameters.
The biggest water quality concern in Jordan Lake is nutrient loading; specifically relating to nitrogen and
phosphorus. These two nutrients have contributed to excessive chlorophyll a concentrations and
noxious algal blooms. Excess nutrient loading can cause algal blooms which block sunlight and can
shade submersed plants and aquatic life. As native plants are negatively affected, undesirable and
invasive vegetation may begin to increase its presence in the lake. As excess algae die and sink to the
lower depths of the water column, increases in bacterial respiration (corresponding to increased
consumption of decaying algae) contribute to hypoxic conditions and may result in fish kills.
The Jordan Lake Reservoir has historically been one of the most eutrophic reservoirs in North Carolina
(NCDENR, 2007). Exceedances of the state water quality standard for chlorophyll a have been noted
frequently, especially in the Upper New Hope Arm which includes the Morgan Creek Arm. As a result of
this excessive nutrient loading and the resulting increases in chlorophyll a, many of the streams draining
into Jordan Lake, as well as the Lake itself, have been included on past lists of impaired waters.
The project purpose is to demonstrate if deployment of in -lake long- distance circulators can reduce
chlorophyll a concentrations in Jordan Lake without negatively impacting water quality or other Jordan
Lake resources. In order to meet the purpose and intent of the demonstration the circulators would
need to be deployed within surface waters of Jordan Lake, and is therefore a water dependent action.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
10

Environmental Assessment
Session Law 2013 - 360 §14.3A.(a), "Jordan Lake Water Quality Improvement Demonstration Project,"
(see Appendix D) directs the NCDENR to establish a 24 month demonstration project for the
management of nutrients in Jordan Lake. The Law also specifically states the demonstration project will
occur in the Haw River and Morgan Creek Arms of Jordan Lake. These two areas of Jordan Lake were
selected because they exhibit some of the highest chlorophyll a readings in Jordan Lake. Additionally,
the majority of water coming into Jordan Lake comes from the Haw River with the Haw River Arm
accounting for 70 -90 percent of the flow coming into Jordan Lake. Due to these factors, no other areas
within Jordan Lake are being considered for the proposed action at this time. The locations of the Haw
River and Morgan Creek Arms of Jordan Lake are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
3.0 Alternatives Considered
The State continues to have concerns over the water quality in Jordan Lake, especially those associated
with increased nutrients and elevated chlorophyll a concentrations. While existing rules, regulations,
and best management practices (BMPs) have had some effect on combatting these concerns, the State
is proposing a demonstration project that would place in -lake long- distance circulators in two areas of
Jordan Lake to see if water quality goals can be expedited. Due to stipulations outlined in Session Law
2013 - 360 §14.3A.(a), consideration of installation feasibility, and likely product efficacy, solar powered
in -lake long- distance circulators have been selected as the preferred action for this demonstration
project.
This EA considers four different alternatives, including the no action alternative:
• No Action
• Solar Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators
• AC Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators
• Wind Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators
3.1 No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would maintain current BMPs in Jordan Lake. With the no action alternative, it
is likely that water quality concerns in Jordan Lake would gradually improve because the TMDL would
remain in place. The TMDL is intended to result in reducing and managing nutrient inputs to the Jordan
Lake watershed over an extended period of time. The initial TMDL approved in September 2007 set
nutrient reduction goals for both point and non -point sources of total nitrogen and phosphorous inputs.
A condition of the TMDL is that nutrient and chlorophyll a values would be evaluated annually and
reviewed every five years to determine if water quality targets are being met and if required reductions
would require modification to achieve required targets. It is assumed that other programs, such as
stormwater BMPs, riparian buffer rules, implemented JLNMS components, and nutrient management
strategies implemented through local and municipal ordinances or state statutes, designed to protect
Jordan Lake as a drinking water supply that are currently in place would remain in place.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
11

Environmental Assessment
A historical summary of chlorophyll a, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and pH values from 2009 -2012 is
presented in Table 5 and discussed in Section 5.1.6 (Water Quality). The data indicate that for the
Morgan Creek Arm, the chlorophyll a exceedance rate has actually increased from 59 percent in 2010 to
76 percent in 2012. Although turbidity has shown annual decreases, in 2012 the exceedance rate was 12
percent, which is still above target concentrations. Dissolved oxygen had no exceedance (zero percent)
from 2010 -2012, and pH exceedance rate increased from 6 percent in 2010 to 12 percent in 2011 and
2012.
In the Haw River Arm, the chlorophyll a exceedance rate has declined from 35 percent in 2010 to 18
percent in 2012, but is still well above the 10 percent exceedance target. Turbidity exceedances have
decreased from 12 percent in 2010 to no (zero) exceedances in 2012. There were no (zero) exceedances
of dissolved oxygen from 2010 — 2012, and there were no exceedances of pH in 2012.
Implemented programs have shown mixed results based on reported sampling. Thus far, the chlorophyll
a exceedance rate has declined in the Haw River Arm but increased in the Morgan Creek Arm. Based on
these results, it is difficult to predict when water quality targets would be achieved under the no action
alternative.
The projected time required to reach in -lake water quality targets hasn't been established, and would
be difficult to predict due to lags in measurable responses associated with implemented programs. This
is to say that when a program is fully implemented, the time required before measurable results
manifest may be difficult to predict and span many years; in part because factors, such as weather, may
play a role in the lake's response. Water quality in Jordan Lake is expected to gradually improve with
this alternative. Therefore, it was retained for comparison with the proposed plan and is discussed in
Section 5 (Environmental Consequences) of this EA.
3.2 Solar Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators
Solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators contain an array of solar panels that power an impeller
which is used to circulate water. On some models, the solar panels charge batteries that operate the
impeller at night and in less than ideal solar conditions, enabling 24 -hour operation. Based upon a
review of the market, it has been determined that there are primarily three manufacturers of solar
powered in -lake long- distance circulators. Representative circulators from these manufacturers have
been considered for this demonstration project. Aquago manufactures circulators under the Sungo
name; Medora under the Solarbee name; and Aeromix Systems under the LumenAER name.
Depending upon the manufacturer, the circulators are powered by either three or six solar panels which
sit on the top of the unit. Circulators are approximately 10 -16 feet across and rise two -to -ten feet above
the water's surface (Figure 5). Solarbee and LumenAER models are equipped with an adjustable intake
hose, whereas the intake hose is an optional addition to Sungo models. The circulators would be set
such that the intake hose is set above the thermocline such that only water above the thermocline is
circulated. With LumenAER and Solarbee models, water is drawn up through the intake hose, passed
through the impeller, and discharged radially on the water's surface at a non - turbulent velocity.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
12

Environmental Assessment
Discharge velocity quickly drops with distance from the circulator's center. With LumenAER and
Solarbee models, the initial discharge velocity is approximately 0.2 fps at the outer edges of the float,
dissipating as the water moves away from the circulator. Sungo models operate slightly differently than
LumenAER and Solarbee models, as water is circulated via a vortex created by impeller movement.
Figure 5 - Examples of Solar Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators
Table 1- Comparison of Solar Powered Circulators
Manufacturer
Aquago
Aeromix
Medora
General Model Name
Sungo
LumenAER
Solarbee
Approximate Footprint Size (feet)
10x 6
16 (diameter)
16 (diameter)
Approximate Height above Water (feet)
10
2
2
Onboard Batteries
Optional
Optional
Optional
Maximum Circulated Area (acres)
25
16
35
Each individual unit would be anchored to the lake bottom with one or more anchors capable of holding
the circulator in place during all anticipated weather events. Enough slack in the tether line would be
available to allow for changes in water level.
One advantage of solar powered models is that they are stand -alone units. This type of circulator does
not require an alternating current (AC) power source, which would need to be installed and supplied
from a land based source. Circulators with batteries would allow the unit to operate uninterrupted; at
night or in less than ideal solar conditions, such as overcast or partly sunny days.
A disadvantage of solar powered circulators with batteries is that over time the batteries could fail,
which would require battery replacement. Battery failure could affect circulator performance when
battery power is required until replaced. Additionally, solar panels may need to be cleaned for optimum
performance, especially during periods of little or no rain. However, the units would be inspected for
proper operation and any necessary maintenance performed on a routine basis (at least weekly). It
would be possible to clean solar panels at that time as required.
This alternative would meet the purpose and need of the project, and is further discussed in Section 5
(Environmental Consequences) of this EA.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
13

Environmental Assessment
3.3 Electrically Powered In -Lake Long - Distance Circulators
In addition to solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators, Medora also manufactures an alternating
current (AC) powered version sufficient for use in reservoirs such as Jordan Lake (Figure 6). Aeromix
manufactures a solar /AC electric hybrid model, which uses AC power when the solar panels are unable
to sufficiently operate the circulator. The circulators operate in a manner similar to solar powered
versions; however, they lack the batteries and operate from land based AC power. Because the
operating specifications are the same as solar - powered circulators, the number required and placement
would expected to be the same. Performance would also be the same as for solar powered models.
Because these circulators would require an AC power source, an onshore power source would be
necessary in addition to the in -water units. The State would be responsible for the cost of power supply
installation and removal upon termination of demonstration project, as well as the cost of powering the
circulators, and the acquisition of any easements necessary for power line installation and maintenance.
Also, the power lines would require placement along the lake bottom from shore to each circulator.
Boaters would not be allowed to anchor over power lines, reducing available recreational area for
certain activities. Installing necessary power lines would have greater impacts to terrestrial resources
and the lake bottom as compared to other alternatives considered.
Figure 6 - Examples of AC Powered In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators
This alternative would meet the purpose and need of the project. However, this alternative would have
increased adverse impacts as compared to comparable solar powered models. Because AC powered
circulators would be as effective as solar powered models in disrupting the formation of algal blooms,
but would have greater adverse impacts as compared to comparable solar powered models, this
alternative is not being carried forward, and will not be retained for comparison in Section 5
(Environmental Consequences) of this EA.
3.4 Wind Powered In -Lake Circulators
One manufacturer of wind powered in -lake circulators was also considered for this demonstration
project; Aquago offers the Ventgo line of water circulators which are dependent upon inherently
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
14

Environmental Assessment
variable winds to power the units. The circulator is approximately 10 feet long, six feet wide, and rises
10 feet above the water surface (Figure 7).
The circulator has a turbine at the top, which rotates when the wind is strong enough, and in turn drives
an impeller which creates a vortex in the water column. According to company literature, the circulator
impeller would begin to turn in a breeze or gust of 1.9 miles per hour (mph). A vortex begins to form
with approximately 4.3 mph wind speeds. When wind speeds reach approximately 15 mph, the Ventgo
would operate comparably to a solar or AC- powered unit, mixing a water surface area up to 17.2 acres.
In order to achieve satisfactory performance wind speed would need to average at least 6.2 mph
annually.
Figure 7 - Example of Wind Powered In -Lake
Long- Distance Circulator
The closest National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) station
to the project areas with historic wind speed data is
Raleigh- Durham International Airport (RDU). Historical
average daily wind speed data from January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2013 at RDU was obtained from
the NCDC (Figure 8). This station is approximately 11.5
miles west - northwest of the Morgan Creek project area.
The obtained dataset contains 1,096 observations. Data
indicate that there were 1,019 days (93 percent) where
the average wind speed was at least 1.9 mph, which
would allow the turbine to begin to rotate. There were
692 days (63.1 percent) during which the average wind
speed was 4.3 mph and a vortex may be expected to form.
In order to perform as efficiently as a solar or AC- powered
unit, wind would have to be at least 15 mph, of which
there were nine days; less than 1 percent of the record. The average wind speed during this time was
5.6 mph, which is just below the 6.2 mph required for satisfactory operation.
An advantage of this wind powered circulator is that they, like solar powered models, are self- contained
and do not require a shore -based power source. This also means that no power lines would need to be
installed on the lake bottom, and no easement would be required. However, since the circulators
require wind to turn the impeller, the project area would require sufficient wind speeds of long enough
duration to effectively power the units. Based on nearby wind speed, there would most likely be
sufficient wind speed to produce a circulating vortex on most days; however, average wind speeds in the
project areas would not allow for satisfactory circulation results as compared to solar or AC- powered
units. For these reasons, this alternative will not be considered a viable alternative and will not be
retained for comparison in Section 5 (Environmental Consequences) of this EA.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
15

Environmental Assessment
Figure 8 - Average Daily Wind Speed near Project Area
20
18
16
a 14
E
v
12
v
10
c
3 8
r
0 6
ai
> 4
2
0
Average Daily Wind Speed Near Project Area
­1 r1 r-A ­4 .--I i 1 r-I r 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M
0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
C -r— i M C 7 M . +' U> u C U i C . U. +' U .. C U i >. O. +-. .> .
coLL M< ��< 0 coLL o< ��Q��zO coLL�Q� 5< a)0 Ln
Average Daily Windspeed Vortex Forms
Satisfactory Performance Achieved Performance Equals Powered Version
Data obtained from the National Climactic Data Center; http: / /www.ncdc.noaa.gov /cdo- web /search
4.0 Proposed Action - Demonstration of Solar Powered In -Lake Long-
Distance Circulators
After considering solar powered, AC powered, and wind driven in -lake long- distance circulators from
various manufacturers, the State has selected solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators as the
preferred alternative to be implemented for the proposed demonstration project. The use of solar
powered circulators would not only supplement the existing TMDL and other programs currently in
place, but would also have fewer impacts to the environment than AC powered versions and would
perform better than wind powered circulators. Therefore, the NCDENR may enter into a contract with a
third party that can deploy floating arrays of solar powered, in -lake, long- distance circulators to reduce
or prevent the adverse impacts of excessive nutrient loads, such as algal blooms, taste and odor
problems in drinking water, and low levels of dissolved oxygen in Jordan Lake.
Three manufacturers of solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators were investigated as previously
described in Section 3.0, Alternatives Considered. After considering various aspects of each
manufacturer's product and associated environmental impacts, the State has chosen the Solarbee
SB10000 v18 model for use in this demonstration project. At nearly 10 feet high, the Sungo models
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
16

Environmental Assessment
negatively impact aesthetic resources to a degree greater than do LumenAER and Solarbee models,
which rise about two feet above the water surface. The Solarbee unit is capable of circulating more
water than Sungo and LumenAER models (Table 1), requiring fewer circulators to meet the goals of the
proposed project. The deployment of fewer circulators would reduce the overall cost of the project
because there would be fewer units to lease or purchase, install, and maintain. Fewer circulators in the
project areas would also reduce the demonstration project's visual and recreational impacts. For these
reasons the State would prefer to deploy Solarbee models for the purposes of the proposed
demonstration project.
The State of North Carolina is proposing a demonstration project which includes the installation of 36
solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators in portions of Jordan Lake (Figure 9). These circulators
are capable of a direct flow rate of up to 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) (401 ft3 per minute) with an
induced flow rate of 10,000 GPM (1,337 ft' per minute). The effects of this circulation could potentially
reach as far out as 700 feet from the circulator. The circulators are expected to address the effects of
excessive nutrient levels in the project area by suppressing phytoplankton activity such that chlorophyll
a, pH, and turbidity samples collected within the project areas would meet State water quality standards
using the current methodology to determine impairment, which is less than ten percent exceedance
with at least 90 percent confidence for all parameters of concern.
In order to meet the objectives of the demonstration project, a total of 24 circulators would be placed in
the Morgan Creek Arm. Circulators placed in the northern portion of the Morgan Creek Arm would need
to operate in shallow water. The deepest part of the Morgan Creek project area is near the mouth,
where the depth is approximately 10 -12 feet and becomes progressively shallower moving upstream,
with no apparent channels (Triangle J Council of Governments, 2013). The Haw River Arm is deeper, and
does have a more defined channel. The deepest parts are near the mouth where depths are about 45
feet deep and are about 35 feet deep in the upper part of the project area.
The upper (northern) part of Morgan Creek is shallow and may dry up under extreme drought
conditions. As a result, circulators placed in the upper parts of Morgan Creek Arm would be configured
to operate in shallow water and not suffer failure if operated out of water. Circulators can operate in as
little as three feet of water, and would completely stop circulating water at approximately two -foot
depth.
Because the motors are sealed, even if they continue to operate with no water passing through, they
would not be damaged.
All circulators would be secured to a tether line attached to an appropriate anchor using one of two
methods. Using the standard method, circulators would be anchored using two 70 pound anchors
(Figure 10). The circulator would be allowed to float free on a tether line that is five -to -seven times the
depth, allowing the most flexibility of movement for the circulator. Actual tether lengths would not be
known until final installation as they are based on the depth at the actual individual installation sites,
although it may be possible to shorten the tether lengths on circulators in the middle Haw River Arm
where the water is deeper.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
17

Environmental Assessment
Figure 9 - Location of Circulators in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
18

Environmental Assessment
In deeper waters, circulator anchoring could consist of several anchors attached to a single cable with a
float at the surface. The circulator is attached to the anchor line swivel at the buoy with several feet of
tether cord, allowing minimal movement of the circulator around the buoy. This method, illustrated in
Figure 11, would be used on Roberson Creek in the Haw River Arm. This method would help eliminate
much of the swing associated with the standard method and may therefore help reduce safety concerns
relating to boating navigation hazards. However, anchor retrieval at the end of the demonstration
project could be extremely difficult with this method as the weight of several anchors together could
allow the anchors to settle into the lake bottom. Figures 12 and 13 show estimates of the swing
diameter for each unit based on the anticipated anchoring method. This information is based on
bathymetry made available through the Triangle J Council of Governments with five -foot contours at a
mean lake elevation at 216 feet above mean sea level which is the normal operating level. To be
conservative, the measurements shown reflect the diameter of the swing of the circulator based on 1:7
depth to tether length ratio and is expected to be the maximum necessary.
The units would need to be periodically inspected by boat for proper placement (to ensure they have
not moved), operation, and maintenance. It is anticipated that the units would be inspected at least
once a week by NCDWR personnel as well as after significant weather and lake fluctuation events. Any
adjustment necessary to ensure proper function of the units would be performed. Since boaters are the
most likely members of the public to come in contact with the circulators, signs explaining the project
and information about the circulators would be posted at boat ramps and would meet specification
outlined in the USACE sign manual. A telephone number to call for more information or to report any
issues would be posted on the signs. The placement of these signs would need to be coordinated with
the appropriate boat ramp management agency or concessionaire.
Figure 10 - Typical Circulator Anchoring
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
19

Environmental Assessment
Figure 11 - Deep Water Circulator Anchoring
The units would need to be periodically inspected by boat for proper placement (to ensure they have
not moved), operation, and maintenance. It is anticipated that the units would be inspected at least
once a week by NCDWR personnel, as well as after significant weather events, and after major lake
fluctuations. Any adjustment necessary to ensure proper function of the units would be performed.
Since boaters are the most likely members of the public to come in contact with the circulators, signs
explaining the project and information about the circulators would be posted at boat ramps and would
meet specification outlined in the USACE sign manual. A telephone number to call for more information
or to report any issues would be posted on the signs. The placement of these signs would need to be
coordinated with the appropriate boat ramp management agency or concessionaire.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
20

Environmental Assessment
Figure 12 - Estimated Swing Diameters for Circulators in the Morgan Creek Arm
�a
o�
e`
F, m ft" EaefP
70 feet
(MC07)
C•
70�e
(MC20)
70 feet
(MC 01)
7et
(MC22)
(MCO2)
70 feet 70 feet
(MC03) (MC04)
70 feet t{
(MC05) 70M)
70 feet 70 feet
70 feet
(MC09) (MC10) ( 8)
70 feet 70 feet
(MC12) (MC11)
70 feet 70 feet
(MC15) (MC14)
� A
l�
f�f •
y
• 70 feet
70 feet (MC17)
(MCI 8)
6 pS
Morten ftdvylkloWra�
Legend
Project Area Boundary
- Estimated Circulator Swing Diameter (to scale)
Lake Bottom Elevation (5 foot contour)
A
6
p aLLt farrinpfan Rd
70 feet
(MC24)
r
140 feet
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
21
70 feet
(MC19)
70 feet
(MC20)
70 feet
(MC22)
70 feet
(MC24)
r
140 feet
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
21

Environmental Assessment
Figure 13 - Estimated Swing Diameters for Circulators in the Haw River Arm
Jordcni
Lake
�, -i eatic - n Ore rI
i41 fa I,
L .4.?
F:e�_neitir�ri
210 feet
(HR01) ,
490 feet
- - �3O (HR02)
Circulator HRO5 Inset ' I-) 490 feet
,, (HROS)
Legend
Project Area Boundary
- Estimated Circulator Swing Diameter (to scale)
Lake Bottom Elevation (5 foot contour)
4a.
0�5
-/
• f
70 feet
(HR09)
70 feet
(HR10)
f
140 feet
(HR11)
i
4`
280 feet
(HR12)
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
22
450 feet
r _
(HR04)
� f
m
`m �
.E ' a 30 feet
© (HRO5)
CL
Q
140 feet
(H R06)
140 feet
(HR07)
420 feet
(HROS)
Legend
Project Area Boundary
- Estimated Circulator Swing Diameter (to scale)
Lake Bottom Elevation (5 foot contour)
4a.
0�5
-/
• f
70 feet
(HR09)
70 feet
(HR10)
f
140 feet
(HR11)
i
4`
280 feet
(HR12)
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
22

Environmental Assessment
Figure 14 - Surface Area Potentially Affected by Circulation in the Morgan Creek Arm
�a
Rd °r (M C07 v
ci
(MC01)
(ML)
(MC03) (ML4) (MCO5)
(MC06)
(MC09) (MC10) (MC08)
(MC12) (MC11)
MC13
IMC14)
(MC 16) (MC15)
Pv (MC17)
(MC18)
Morton Rd VvillrnNhec
Legend (MC19)
Project Area Boundary (MC20)
Maximum Surface Area Circulated
• Circulator Location (ML)
(MC22)
(MC23)
c .
(MC24)
A
pawl Farrtnaton Rrf
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
23

Environmental Assessment
Figure 15 - Surface Area Potentially Affected by Circulation in the Haw River Arm
t15
0
v
J,rl. in
LaV
F -r-Iti ri ,r
Jordan
Praridence Church ftdE
Legend
71 Project Area Boundary
n,. Maximum Surface Area Circulated
• Circulator Location
31,3 FaQ1e Dr
Gee
rc
(HRC76)
(HR10)
r
(HR11)
i
(HR12)
1
i
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
24

Environmental Assessment
Circulators would be properly marked for navigation and safety purposes and would be required to
meet applicable navigational marking requirements set forth in the NCWRC's Navigation Aids and
Regulatory Markers, which apply to Jordan Lake. This would include a flashing strobe light on the top of
the unit, orange reflective pylons on each float, and safety warning signs attached to the unit warning
the public to stay a safe distance from the circulator. Figure 16 illustrates an operating circulator with
referenced safety devices in place.
Figure 16 - Visibility and Safety Features of Operating Circulators
Circulators have an adjustable depth
intake hose. This allows water to be
drawn in from a desired depth. Solarbee
models have an intake plate one -foot
below the bottom of the intake hose
which is illustrated hanging below the
intake hose in Figure 28. This allows a
column of water, one foot in height, to
be drawn in at the desired depth. In
deeper areas where a thermocline is
present, the intake hose and intake
plate would be set so that water just
above the thermocline is drawn in and
water below is not. This would establish
a circulation pattern in the upper portion of the water column, above the thermocline. The thermocline
itself would not be affected. In shallower areas where a thermocline is not present the unit would be set
such that water near the bottom is drawn in but benthic sediment would not be disturbed.
One potential concern with upwelling water from depth is the potential for anoxic water to be brought
to the surface potentially reducing dissolved oxygen at the surface. There is a possibility that anoxic
conditions could be present, especially in deeper areas of Jordan Lake. However, as previously
mentioned, the water would be drawn up from above the thermocline, where dissolved oxygen levels
are relatively higher than those below the thermocline. Therefore, it is not likely that anoxic water
would be brought to the surface from deeper areas, as this water is typically present below the
thermodine. There is a possibility that hypoxic or anoxic conditions may periodically exist; however, any
decrease in dissolved oxygen levels at the surface are expected to be relatively short lived, lasting no
more than a few days.
There would be a transition zone between the project areas that are circulated and nearby waters in
Jordan Lake. Areas beyond the demonstration project's influence would remain unchanged. Based on
the resident time and quantity of water which moves through the Haw River Arm, the transition zone
would expect to be larger than that of the Morgan Creek Arm where less water flows through the
system and the residence time is much longer. Larger rain events or strong winds blowing from the
north or northwest could also create a larger temporary transition zone.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
25

Environmental Assessment
While circulators are designed to continuously operate for many years, it is possible that a unit could
malfunction. Were this to happen, the water in the immediate vicinity of the malfunctioning unit would
gradually return to without - project conditions until such time repairs are made. It is unknown how long
it would take for pre - circulation conditions to fully return, as this would depend on variable physical and
biological factors. If the units are regularly inspected and maintained as necessary, then the incidence
and duration of mechanical failure should be reduced, preventing the return of pre - circulation
conditions. By minimizing time spent repairing equipment, benefits of the circulated water would
remain.
The Morgan Creek Arm circulators could be deployed from the boat ramp at Farrington Point; the Haw
River Arm circulators could be deployed from the Robeson Creek boat ramp (Figure 31). A small,
temporary staging area would likely be needed to assemble and prepare the circulators. The location of
this staging area is currently unknown. No long term or short term storage is anticipated and the boat
ramps would remain open to the public during deployment. Once circulators are placed in the water,
they would be towed to the individual deployment sites by boat.
5.0 Environmental Effects
5.1 Physical Environment
5.1.1 Topography
The Morgan Creek Arm study area is located on the Farrington and Green Level United States Geologic
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps; the Haw River Arm study area is located on the Merry
Oaks USGS topographic quadrangle maps. Both study areas are located within the Piedmont
physiographic region of North Carolina. Elevations within the Morgan Creek Arm range from 214 to 302
feet above mean sea level. The Haw River Arm exhibits much more relief than the Morgan Creek Arm.
Elevations in the Haw River Arm range from 218 to 446 feet above mean sea level (NRCS, 2006). Figures
17 and 18 show the project areas overlain on USGS topographic quadrangle maps.
There would be no grading or excavation associated with the proposed action in either study area, so
the topography would not be changed or affected in any way with this alternative. The circulation units
would be deployed from existing boat ramps and towed to the deployment site.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect or change topography.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
26

Environmental Assessment
Figure 17 - Topographic Map of the Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake
r
EN",
s
1 ..a
bs
� I
s
try
=r CD
a
r -
0
V
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
27
bs
� I
► �aI
Legend
Area of Potential Effect (APE)
Project Area
@` `
U '
try
=r CD
a
r -
0
V
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
27

Environmental Assessment
Figure 18 - Topographic Map of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake
5.1.2 Geology
The Morgan Creek Arm is located within the Triassic basin. The southeast half of the Haw River Arm is
located primarily in the Triassic basin; with the northwestern half located in the Carolina Slate Belt. This
part of the Triassic basin is part of the Deep River basin and these project areas are completely located
within the Durham Sub -basin of the Deep River basin. The Deep River basin was formed by early
Mesozoic rifting of the supercontinent Pangea. This rifting created a series of irregularly- shaped half -
grabens along the Atlantic coast, of which the Deep River basin is the southern- most. During formation
the basin filled with a variety of clastic sediments. Sediment deposits in the Deep River basin consist of
conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, clay- stone, shale, coal, and smaller amounts of limestone and chert
(Clark, 2001).
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
28

Environmental Assessment
The Carolina Slate Belt origins are volcanic eruptions and sedimentation during the Triassic - Jurassic
period. The low -grade metamorphism gives many rocks a slaty cleavage, hence the Slate Belt name.
Areas in the belt contain various granites, quartz, and feldspar (Research Laboratories of Archeology,
2006). Rock within the Carolina Slate Belt is categorized as Felsic Metavolcanic, dating to the
Cambrian /Late Proterozoic era (USGS).
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect or change the geology.
5.1.3 Soils
The project areas contain many different soil series (Figures 19 and 20; Table 2). There are several more
soil series located in the Haw River Arm than in the Morgan Creek Arm.
Table 2 - NRCS Soils in the Morgan Creek Arm and Haw River Arm APES
MORGAN CREEK ARM OF JORDAN
LAKE
Soil Symbol
Soil Series Name
Acres
Percent of APE
W
Water
1812.61
36.70%
CrB
Creedmore - Green Level complex
1,590.10
32.20%
CrC
Creedmore - Green Level complex
723.66
14.65%
ChA
Chewacla and Wehadkeesoils
589.84
11.94%
CrD
Creedmore - Green Level complex
187.73
3.80%
PeA
Peawick fine sandy loam
14.18
0.29%
MdB
Ma odan fine sandy loam
10.95
0.22%
WhB
WhiteStore - Polktoncom lex
9.30
0.19%
TOTAL:
4,938.36
100.00%
HAW RIVER ARM OF JORDAN LAKE
Soil S mbol1
Soil Series Name
Acres
Percent of APE
W
Water
1813.43
36.63%
GkD
Geor eville- Badin complex
592.48
11.97%
NaC
Nanford - Badin complex
450.29
9.09%
BaE
Badin - Nanford com lex
398.51
8.05%
GkE
Geor eville- Badin complex
324.9
6.56%
GaC
Geor evillesiltloam
265.12
5.35%
NaD
Nanford - Badin complex
174.83
3.53%
M D
Ma odan gravelly sandy loam
168.49
3.40%
GeC2
Geor eville silty clay loam
131.38
2.65%
GoE
Goldston - Badin complex
120.42
2.43%
GaB
Geor evillesiltloam
104.39
2.11%
WhB
WhiteStore- Polktoncomplex
90.55
1.83%
MdC
Ma odan finesandy loam
62.83
1.27%
MhE
Ma odan - Brickhaven complex
62.33
1.26%
CcC
Carbonton - Brickhaven complex
61.64
1.24%
WhC
WhiteStore - Polktoncomplex
32.1
0.65%
ChA
Chewakla and Wehadkee soils
27.65
0.56%
PsB
Pitts boro - IredelI com lex
21.25
0.43%
CrB
Creedmore - Greenlevel complex
13.45
0.27%
RvA
Ri vervi ew si It I oa m
12.09
0.24%
NaB
Nanford - Badin com lex
8.31
0.17%
CcD
Carbonton - Brickhaven complex
7.42
0.15%
PcA
Peawick fine sandy loam
7.19
0.15%
TOTAL:
4,951.02
100.00%
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
29

Environmental Assessment
Figure 19 - Soil Series Present in the Morgan Creek Arm APE
A
CrC
CrC CrC ChA
w
CrC w
A CrB GrD
CrD
f
cr
ChA
Crc
D
�r
Ci CID
7D a
;rC p+
C CrD
,rB
w
w
ChA
r8 W CrC CrB
UdC
G
UdC
ID
B
:�rC Crc
G CrC CrB
E W CrD QFQ
C
Soil series names and abbreviations can be found in Table 2.
CrC IN
CrB
CrB
W
Cr
vV
MdB
MdB
CrD
PeA
i
CI
C
C
P
C
Cr
C
L
PeA
Cr
C
Cr
PeA C
CrB
Crc
PeA
PeA
Soils in the Morgan Creek Arm APE are predominately Creedmore — Green Level and Chewacla and
Wehadkee. Creed moore -Green Level soils are typified as somewhat poorly drained or moderately well
drained, and can have low permeability. They tend to be located on gently sloping to moderately sloping
terrain. Major uses are woodland, public recreation facilities, cropland, pasture and hay, and urban
development (NRCS, 2006). Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are poorly drained or somewhat poorly
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
30

Environmental Assessment
drained with a loamy surface and subsoil. They are located in nearly level areas and floodplains. Because
they are located in floodplains and therefore subject to frequent flooding and inundation the major use
is cropland (NRCS, 2006).
Figure 20 - Soils Series Present in the Haw River APE
NaC
GaB
NaC
GaB
GkD
RvA GkD GaC GaC
BaENaD BaE GkD QkF
NaC
Nab
NaB
BaE
NaC
GoE
GkD
PsB
BaE
NaD
NaC
GkE
BaE
BaE
GkD
NaD
Gab
GkE
GkD
BaE
G EGaB NaC
BaE
RvA
GkE GaB
NaD
GkE
GkD GoE
GkD
ME
NaC
GO
GkE
GaC
GkD GkD
NaD
NaB
GaG
GkD
GkE
GaC
GaC w
GaB
GaB
PaBNaD GkE
GaB
GkD
GkD GaB GkE GaC MhE
GkD
NaD
w
GaB
w
GaG CoD Mg
GaB
Na
GkD GaB
GaB
WE Md
�
GaC
GaC
MdC
rr
GkD
MdC
CmB
BaE
7
NaB
Na
GaC
MdC Md
0,
CkC NaD
GkE
MdC
MdC
NaD
NaC NaD
MgD
gD
NaC
GaC
aD BaE
r
NaDGkE NaC
Nap GaC MhE MdC Ch A NaC NaD NaD
BaE NaG
PsB NaD NaC
NaC NaD
NaC
Soil series names and abbreviations can be found in Table 2. BaE
GaB
NaC
CCC
GaB
Mc
GaB
MdC
MB
WhC WI
Wh©
W
Wic
Gk
B;
GkD aB
D BaE
BaE Ni
aC
NaC
W BaE
GkE
Col
CcB Col
GI
GI
Predominate soils in the Haw River Arm are Georgeville, Nanford, Badin, and Mayodan. These soils are
typically found on gentle to steep slopes. They are a well- drained series with a silt loam or silty clay loam
surface and clayey subsoil and are associated with upland areas. Major uses of these soils include
woodlands, pasture and hay, cropland and urban development (NRCS, 2006).
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect or change the soils.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
31

Environmental Assessment
5.1.4 Floodplains
Both the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arm project areas are located within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100 year floodplain. This means that there is a one percent
chance that the designated area would flood in any given year. Flood prone areas within the 100 year
floodplain in the APE (Figure 21) are further designated as Zone AE (formerly Al —30). Zone AE describes
areas subject to flooding or inundation by the 1 percent chance flood event as determined by a
traditional detailed survey (FEMA, FEMA, Zone AE and Al -30). Structures in this Zone are typically
required to be covered under a flood insurance policy.
In the Haw River Arm, a portion of the Robeson Creek Arm is designated as a regulatory floodway. This
means that property on the adjacent floodplain must be regulated by the municipality to ensure that
there are no increases in upstream flood elevations (FEMA, Floodway). A small area of the Haw River
Arm abutting this floodway is designated as being in the 0.2 percent floodplain, meaning these areas
have a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in any given year. Other areas in the project areas are classified as
Zone X. At a higher elevation than those areas in the 0.2 percent floodplain, these areas have a minimal
chance of flooding and are located outside of the Special Hazard Flood Area. A summary of flood zone
types within each of the two project areas is presented in Table 3.
All of the Morgan Creek Arm project area is Zone AE. Of the 650 acres in the Haw River Arm project
area, 29.83 acres are in the Floodway Zone, 0.001 acres are in the 0.2 Percent Annual Flood Zone and
the rest of the project area is Zone AE.
Table 3 - Summary of FEMA Designated Areas in the APES
Project Study Area
Floodzone Type
AE
(acres)
Floodway
(acres)
0.2 Percent
(acres)
X
(acres)
Morgan Creek Arm
2,242.65
0.00
0.00
1,975.35
Haw River Arm
2,856.40
42.77
3.68
990.15
The proposed action would have no noticeable effect on the FEMA 100 year floodplain. The displacement
of water the Morgan Creek Arm and Haw River Arm would be negligible and immeasurable. Additionally,
the circulators would not impede the flow of water through the project area or within Jordan Lake and
therefore would not adversely affect the existing designated flood zones or the regulated floodway.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect or change floodplains.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
32

Environmental Assessment
Figure 21 - Flood Zones in the Morgan Creek and Haw River APES
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
33
b
a
0
LL
4J
a
_ U
w
m 2
3
Q
°
m
t
0]
Y
a a
a
RS
J
m
g
d pp m v
N O
N N
co
'
n¢
�
G O
o
N,
O
LJ
W
G
E
L
CI}
Y
CIO
RS
J
C
Ri
G
w
Q
E
d
Y
43
CD
U
C
CA
G
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
33

Environmental Assessment
5.1.5 Surface Hydrology
Jordan Lake is part of the Cape Fear River Basin, which is the largest watershed in North Carolina, and is
entirely located within the State. The watershed drains an area of 9,322 square miles, originating in the
north central part of the piedmont near Greensboro and flowing southeast to the Atlantic Ocean. The
Cape Fear River originates at the confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers near the borders of Chatham
and Lee Counties (NCDENR, 2002), approximately 4.2 river miles downstream of the Jordan Lake
Reservoir Dam. The Cape Fear River watershed is in Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030004.
Jordan Lake Reservoir is created by the B. Everett Jordan Dam, which is located near the lake's southern
extent. The Dam is located about 25 miles southwest of Raleigh and about 202 river miles upstream of
the Cape Fear's confluence with the Atlantic Ocean. The top of the conservation pool is at elevation 216
feet above mean sea level. At that elevation, the reservoir has a storage volume of 215,130 acre -feet
and a shoreline of 200 miles (USACE).
The Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake receives water from the Morgan Creek watershed. The
watershed generally drains to the southeast and has a drainage area of approximately 59.6 square miles
and is part of HUC 030300020607. The Haw River Arm primarily receives water from the Haw River
along with several tributaries, and supplies 70 -90 percent of water entering Jordan Lake. The Haw River
watershed is approximately 1,349 square miles. The Haw River Arm Project area is in HUC
030300020704. The proposed demonstration project would not have any effect on surface hydrology.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect or change surface hydrology.
5.1.6 Water Quality
Both the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms exhibit signs of poor water quality and impairments related
to excessive nitrogen and phosphorous (nutrients) loading from both point and non -point sources. Point
sources as a whole contribute an average of 1.5 million pounds of nitrogen and 140 thousand pounds of
phosphorus to the reservoir each year. Nonpoint sources contribute an average of 2.5 million pounds of
nitrogen and 350 thousand pounds of phosphorus per year (NCDENR, 2007). Heavy nutrient loading has
led to increased chlorophyll a concentrations, increased turbidity levels, and high pH.
The State does not have water quality standards for nitrogen or phosphorous concentrations. However,
the State does have a standard for chlorophyll a, which is 40µg/l_ and is currently used as a surrogate for
nitrogen and phosphorous. Algae, which contain chlorophyll a, require nitrogen and phosphorous for
growth. When concentrations of nitrogen and /or phosphorous are high enough algae can grow at
accelerated rates, creating algal blooms. Algal blooms can discolor the water, lower dissolved oxygen
levels, increase pH, and limit light availability within the water column. These conditions can adversely
affect aquatic life and recreational opportunities, and increase costs associated with water treatment.
The Morgan Creek Arm project area has not met state water quality standards for chlorophyll a since at
least the 2004 303(d) assessment. The Haw River Arm has not met State water quality standards for
chlorophyll a since at least the 2006 303(d) assessment. In order to address water quality concerns the
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
34

Environmental Assessment
USEPA requires a TMDL be developed for waters included on the 303(d) list. As can be seen in Table 4,
the Morgan Creek Arm project area is included in assessment unit (AU) 16- 41- 2 -(9.5) (Morgan Creek
[Lake Jordan]) and has been listed for chlorophyll a and biological integrity. Listed impairments were
high pH and turbidity on the 2012 303(d) list. The Haw River Arm project area, AU 16- (37.5)a, has been
listed for chlorophyll a in the past and is still listed for turbidity and high pH on the 2012 303(d) list. It
should be noted that data in Table 4 only reflects parameters listed as Category 5 in the applicable
303(d) lists. Once a TMDL is developed, parameters included in the TMDL are moved to Category 4T,
which are not reflected in the table.
Table 4 - History of 303(d) Listings in the Lake Jordan Watershed Management Area
Assessment
Unit Number
Assessment Unit Name
Impairment
Classification
303(d) Listing Year
(only includes Category 5)
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
N
0
N
N
0
N
NEW HOPE RIVER BASIN
16- 41- 2 -(9.5)
Morgan Creek (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS -IV; NSW,CA
✓
✓
16- 41- 2 -(9.5)
Morgan Creek (Jordan Lake)
Biol. Integrity
WS -IV; NSW,CA
✓
16- 41- 2 -(9.5)
Morgan Creek (Jordan Lake)
High pH
WS -IV; NSW,CA
✓
✓
16- 41- 2 -(9.5)
Morgan Creek (Jordan Lake)
Turbidity
WS -IV; NSW,CA
✓
✓
✓
16- 41- 1 -(14)
New Hope Creek (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS -IV; NSW
✓
✓
✓
16- 41- 1 -(14)
New Hope Creek (Jordan Lake)
Turbidity
WS -IV; NSW
✓
✓
✓
16- 41- (3.5)a
New Hope River Arm (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
16- 41 -(0.5)
New Hope River Arm (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
✓
✓
HAW RIVER BASIN
16- (37.5)a
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
16- (37.5)a
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
High pH
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
✓
✓
✓
16- (37.5)a
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
Turbidity
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
✓
16- (37.5)b
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
16- (37.5)b
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
High pH
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
✓
✓
✓
✓
16- (37.5)b
I Haw River (Jordan Lake)
Turbidity
WS- IV,B;NSW,CA
I
I
I
I ✓
✓
✓
16- (37.3)
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
Chlorophyll a
WS- IV;NSW,CA
✓
16- (37.3)
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
High pH
WS- IV;NSW,CA
✓
✓
✓
Project study areas are located in Assessment Units in RED
As required by federal law, the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina Phase 1 Total Maximum Daily
Load was developed and approved by the USEPA on September 20, 2007. The TMDL was developed to
satisfy state Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) requirements and the federal requirement for a TMDL. The
TMDL outlines nutrient load reductions required within the Upper New Hope Arm (including the Morgan
Creek Arm), the Lower New Hope Arm, and the Haw River Arm. Necessary nutrient contribution
reductions from point and nonpoint sources were established to meet state standards for chlorophyll a
concentrations (NCDENR, 2007). The TMDL requires a 35 percent target reduction of total nitrogen in
Upper New Hope Arm (including the Morgan Creek Arm) and an eight percent target reduction of total
nitrogen in the Haw River Arm. Five percent target reductions of total phosphorous are required in both
the Upper New Hope Arm and the Haw River Arm.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
35

Environmental Assessment
In addition to the TMDL, the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (JLNMS) has been devised.
There are several parts to the strategy, which include BMPs and restrictions for nitrogen and
phosphorous inputs from new and existing development, agriculture, stormwater, wastewater, and a
riparian buffer protection component. At least portions of all these components have been
implemented, but most have not been fully implemented as of yet. The Jordan Lake Buffer Rules were
fully implemented in 2009 by the adoption of Session Laws 2009 -216 and 2009 -484. These riparian
buffer rules were established in part because the shoreline protection and water quality benefits
provided by riparian buffers throughout the watershed are an important element of the overall Jordan
Lake water supply nutrient input control strategy. Understanding the importance and significance of
riparian buffers in nutrient control, the riparian buffer rules were established with the purpose of
protecting and preserving the existing riparian buffers throughout the Jordan Lake watershed. In 2013,
the portions of the JLNMS not yet fully implemented were delayed for three years (Session Law 2013-
395) until 2016. However, it is anticipated that the riparian buffer rules would continue to remain in
effect during the duration of the demonstration project and no new parts of the JLNMS would go into
effect during this project due to the delay.
Due to partial implementation of the overall Jordan Lake nutrient management strategy rules, water
quality in Jordan Lake has yet to meet State water quality standards as expected. As such, the State is
exploring additional measures which may help improve and maintain water quality within Jordan Lake.
This demonstration project is intended to assess the effects of circulating water within Jordan Lake as a
possible measure to help ease the effects of elevated nutrients in Jordan Lake.
As discussed previously in Section 1.2, there are nine existing monitoring stations located in Jordan Lake
(Figure 1). These nine stations have been monitored monthly from January — April and October —
December, and twice a month from May — September (17 samples per year) since July 2009. One of the
stations, CPF086C is located in the Morgan Creek Arm project area. Station CPF055C is located within
the Haw River Arm study area. Station CPF055D is located just outside of the Haw River Arm project area
to the southeast. Another station, CPF081A1C, is located within the Morgan Creek project area but is
within the New Hope Creek Arm of Jordan Lake. Because this station is not representative of the Morgan
Creek Arm, it is not included in discussions of water quality. A summary of chlorophyll a, turbidity,
dissolved oxygen, and pH data for these three stations from 2009 through 2012 is presented in Table 5.
This information was collected as mandated in Session Law 2009 -216 §3.(c) to evaluate progress in
reducing nutrient and nutrient related pollution in Jordan Lake.
Historical data collected at these three sites (CPF086C, CPF055C, & CPF055D) shows that chlorophyll a
continues to be a concern (Table 5). The state standard for chlorophyll a (corrected) in freshwater is 40
µg /L. Data from the Morgan Creek Arm show that chlorophyll a readings are often above 40µg /L. The
mean concentrations from 2009 to 2012 all exceeded 40µg /L. In order for the TMDL for Jordan Lake to
be successful, no more than 10 percent of samples can exceed 40µg /L with 90% confidence. Exceedance
rates between 2010 and 2012 were 59 to 76 percent. The turbidity standard is 25 NTU, which was
exceeded many times. Dissolved oxygen levels above the state standard of 5.0 mg /L are frequently
recorded in the Morgan Creek Arm as nearly all readings were above 5.0 mg /L. In freshwater systems,
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
36

Environmental Assessment
the pH standard range is 6.0 - 9.0 SU. Although a portion of pH readings were greater than 9.0 SU, none
were below 6.0 SU.
In the Haw River Arm at site CPF055C (in the project area), mean chlorophyll a concentrations were
below 40µg /L except for 2009; but percent exceedance rates were all above 10 percent from 2009 -2012.
At site CPF055D (outside and downstream of the project area) all mean chlorophyll a concentrations
were below 40µg/l_ and percent exceedance rates were much lower than at CPF055C. Mean turbidity
readings for both sites were below 25 NTU. Nearly all dissolved oxygen readings for both sites were
above 5.0 mg /L. There were exceedances of the pH standard at both sites, but the means were within
the acceptable range.
Table 5 - Summary of Ongoing Assessment of Water Quality in Jordan Lake Data 2009 -2012
Statistic
Chlorophyll a L
(µg /)
Turbidity NTU
Y ( )
Dissolved Oxygen
�mg /L)
H SU
p ( )
Ol
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
ci
ti
O
N
N
N
O
N
(n
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
m
O
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
CPF086C - MORGAN CREEK ARM PROJECT AREA
Mean
89
54
54
55
33
20
19
19
8.5
9.3
9.3
9.1
8.0
8.2
8.1
8.0
Min
20
22
12
35
16
9
6
9
4.1
6.2
7.3
5.5
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.1
Max
126
98
110
82
45
39
32
40
10.9
12.S
13.3
14.0
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.4
n
9
17
17
17
9
17
17
17
9
17
17
17
9
17
17
17
n >Standard*
j 7
j 10
1 11
j 13
j 8
j 5
j 4
1 2
j
j 0
j 0
1 0
1 3
j 1
2
1 2
% Exceedance **
59
65
76
1
1 29
1 24
1 12
1
1 0
0
0
6
12
12
CPF055C - HAW RIVER ARM PROJECT AREA
Mean
42
29
31
29
17
16
10
10
7.3
9.3
9.7
9.3
7.6
8.0
8.1
7.8
Min
4.0
2.7
4.6
13.0
5.7
4.8
4.3
4.7
5.5
7.5
7.4
6.8
7.3
6.9
7.1
6.6
Max
82
54
57
53
75
85
31
55
9.7
13.0
13.6
12.0
8.4
9.5
9.2
8.7
n
9
17
17
17
9
17
1
17
9
17
17
17
9
17
17
17
n >Standard*
1
6
5
3
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
% Exceedance **
35
31
18
12
6
0
0
0
0
6
13
0
CPF055D - HAW RIVER ARM OUTSIDE PROJECT STUDY AREA
Mean
31
25
26
29
16
14
10
6
6.9
9.0
9.0
9.1
7.7
7.9
8.0
7.8
Min
5
3
7
13
4
4
4
4
4.2
6.1
6.1
7.6
6.9
6.8
7.1
6.9
Max
46
46
48
40
75
80
32
11
9.6
12.8
12.7
11.0
8.7
9.3
9.2
8.9
n
7
17
17
17
7
17
17
17
7
17
17
17
7
17
17
17
n >Standard*
1
1
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
% Exceedance **
6
13
0
18
6
0
0
0
0
12
-L4
6
0
*Number of dissolved oxygen samples exceeding standard was not reported for2009
"Percent exceedance of standard was not calculated for 2009 because less than 10 samples were collected
Historical data from 2009 - 2012 indicate that chlorophyll a values regularly exceed state standards. In
nearly all years the exceedance rate for chlorophyll a was above 10 percent in the Morgan Creek and
Haw River arms.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
37

Environmental Assessment
According to the State, implementation of circulators in the Morgan Creek Arm and Haw River Arms is
expected to improve water quality by enhancing nutrient management strategies already in place. These
strategies include the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina Phase 1 Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) allocations which require reductions from both point and non -point sources of nutrients, the
Jordan Lake Buffer Rules which require riparian zones in the watershed to be protected, stringent
stormwater collection and treatment requirements, and Unified Development Ordinance regulations in
more developed areas and portions of the JLNMS. The circulators are expected to improve water quality
by decreasing chlorophyll a concentrations, reducing turbidity, and lowering pH.
The no action alternative would be expected to improve water quality over time. The goal of the existing
TMDL and JLNMS is to improve water quality in the Jordan Lake watershed. However, it is unknown how
long it will take for water quality to improve with the TMDL and the partially implemented JLNMS.
Water quality sampling data will be evaluated every five years and measures to improve water quality
will be adjusted accordingly until water quality targets are achieved. While portions of the JLNMS have
not been fully implemented and have been recently delayed, other programs and BMPs previously
mentioned have been put in place to protect Jordan Lake as a drinking water supply. Because
implemented programs will remain in place, water quality should be expected to improve over time.
Water quality is expected to improve under the no action alternative, although it is difficult to
determine how long it may take to reach water quality goals. The proposed action is expected to help
accelerate reaching water quality goals for chlorophyll a, turbidity, and high pH readings in the Morgan
Creek and Haw River Arms when compared to the no action alternative.
5.1.7 Air Quality
Air pollutants can come from numerous sources including combustion engines, the burning of coal,
wood, and oil, and manufacturing and processing processes. Pollutants in high enough concentrations
can be detrimental to humans and wildlife and lead to health problems such as breathing trouble,
burning eyes, and irritated throat. Long -term exposure can lead to cancer, immune system damage, and
reproductive and neurological damage. The USEPA is responsible for setting limits on pollutants which
are considered noxious to humans and the environment ( USEPA).
The USEPA evaluates overall air quality concerns through the Air Quality Index, or AQI. The AQI is
calculated for five pollutants of concern: ground -level ozone (03), particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SOA and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). These five pollutants are regulated
under the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) as amended, which requires the USEPA to set limits for them. The
AQI conditions are reported as colors which represent a corresponding health affect category — green
(good), yellow (moderate), orange (unhealthy for sensitive groups), red (unhealthy), purple (very
unhealthy), and dark red (hazardous). Chatham County meets all attainment criteria set forth in the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Annual report values for the AQI in Chatham County for 2008 -2012 are shown in Table 6. The majority
of time Chatham County was in the Good category for any given year, with several days in the moderate
category. For all five years, only two days were in the Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups category and one
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
38

Environmental Assessment
day in 2008 was in the Unhealthy category. In all years the pollutants of concern were 03 and PM 2.5;
for 2011 S02 was also a concern.
Table 6 - Annual Air Quality Index Summary for Chatham County (2008 -2012)
Source: USEPAAir Quality Index Report ( http:// www. epa .gov /airdata /ad_rep_agi.htmI)
Solar powered circulators would not produce air emissions of any type. Air emissions from the
deployment, retrieval, and maintenance of solar powered circulators would produce minimal and
temporary air pollution in the project areas. This would be primarily in the form of automobile and
marine combustion engine exhaust. Such engines would be required for the delivery, placement,
inspection, and maintenance of the circulators. Impacts to air quality would be negligible for this
project.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would adversely affect air quality to any
significant degree.
5.1.8 Noise
Excessive noise can affect people's daily routines and way of life as well as that of wildlife. Noise induced
impacts to wildlife may include disruptions in communication, breeding, hunting, and migration.
Existing noise in the project areas is associated with traffic on local roads, maintenance of maintained
areas (such as lawn mowers, weed eaters, etc.), recreational activities such as boating and swimming,
and those generally associated with residential living. Noise is measured in A- weighted decibels, or
dB(A), using a sound level meter that meets or exceeds criteria set forth by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). Increases of three dB(A) or less are generally not perceivable to humans.
Chatham County has a noise ordinance which became effective on August 8, 2006. The Ordinance
prohibits particular noises, such as the unnecessary blowing of car horns, unreasonably loud audio
equipment, compressed air equipment (unless muffled), the sounding of any bell or gong attached to
any building that unreasonably creates a disturbing noise, and the discharging of firearms in the street
or elsewhere that creates an unreasonably loud or disturbing noise. The Ordinance also allows for
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
39
Number of Recorded
Days in AQI Categories
Unhealthy
for
a
Pollutants of
AQI
AQI
Year
Moderate
Sensitive
nhealthy
Unhealt
Concern for AQI
Maximum
Median
(51 -100)
151 -200)
Groups
(201 -300)
(101 -150)
2012
252
10
1
0
0
0
03 /PM 2.5
127
35
2011
328
37
0
0
0
0
03 /SO2/PM 2.5
84
31
2010
213
47
0
0
0
0
03 /PM 2.5
93
37
2009
231
33
0
0
0
0
03 /PM 2.5
87
34
2008
314
50
1
1
0
0
03 /SO2/PM 2.5
159
33
Source: USEPAAir Quality Index Report ( http:// www. epa .gov /airdata /ad_rep_agi.htmI)
Solar powered circulators would not produce air emissions of any type. Air emissions from the
deployment, retrieval, and maintenance of solar powered circulators would produce minimal and
temporary air pollution in the project areas. This would be primarily in the form of automobile and
marine combustion engine exhaust. Such engines would be required for the delivery, placement,
inspection, and maintenance of the circulators. Impacts to air quality would be negligible for this
project.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would adversely affect air quality to any
significant degree.
5.1.8 Noise
Excessive noise can affect people's daily routines and way of life as well as that of wildlife. Noise induced
impacts to wildlife may include disruptions in communication, breeding, hunting, and migration.
Existing noise in the project areas is associated with traffic on local roads, maintenance of maintained
areas (such as lawn mowers, weed eaters, etc.), recreational activities such as boating and swimming,
and those generally associated with residential living. Noise is measured in A- weighted decibels, or
dB(A), using a sound level meter that meets or exceeds criteria set forth by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). Increases of three dB(A) or less are generally not perceivable to humans.
Chatham County has a noise ordinance which became effective on August 8, 2006. The Ordinance
prohibits particular noises, such as the unnecessary blowing of car horns, unreasonably loud audio
equipment, compressed air equipment (unless muffled), the sounding of any bell or gong attached to
any building that unreasonably creates a disturbing noise, and the discharging of firearms in the street
or elsewhere that creates an unreasonably loud or disturbing noise. The Ordinance also allows for
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
39

Environmental Assessment
exceptions, such as construction operations, emergency operations, parades and other gatherings, and
aircraft (Chatham County, 2006).
The proposed action would not lead to significant noise impacts. The circulators have low RPM motors,
which are sealed to protect them from the environment. The motors produce very little noise, about 25
decibels, and are difficult to hear beyond the support floats. For comparison, the American Academy of
Audiology reports that leaves rustling measure 20 decibels, and a whisper is equal to 30 decibels.
Deployment, retrieval, inspection, and maintenance of the circulators would not result in noises louder
than those commonly associated with recreational uses of Jordan Lake. Noise associated with the
proposed action would be intermittent in nature and only during daylight hours. The circulators would
not produce any noise that would be considered a negative impact to humans or wildlife and would be
in compliance with the Chatham County Noise Ordinance.
Neither the no action nor the proposed action alternative would produce any noise impacts.
5.1.9 Cultural Resources
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO), there are two registered
existing historic properties within the APES (Figure 22). The John A. Mason House is located on a
peninsula on the eastern side of the Morgan Creek Arm (NPS, 1974). The James A. Thomas Farm is
located along the shore of the Haw River Arm (North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1983).
Figure 22 - Historic Properties Located in APES
James A. Thomas Farm
jcirca 1870)
-
John A. Mason House Project Area
(circa 1850)
q
O
7
m '
W
Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake

Environmental Assessment
5.1.9.1 The John A. Mason House
The John A. Mason house is located on the eastern side of the Morgan Creek Arm on a peninsula, at the
end of S.R. 1728. The house itself is located approximately 2,000 feet from the shore. The house is
surrounded by forested land, so it is doubtful that views of the lake are possible from the house. The
house and property were deeded to the United States on June 29, 1973 as part of the New Hope Dam
Project. The property is currently managed by the North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
Figure 23 - John A. Mason House
The house is a two story Greek
Revival structure believed to be
built around 1850 by John Acree
Mason (Figure 23). The land was
deeded to John A. Mason by
William Mason, his father, for
$1,000 on February 30, 1835. The
land was located "on the waters of
New Hope and Morgan Creeks"
and was approximately 600 acres
in size. The land was farmed by the
Mason family, with records
showing significant crops of wheat,
corn, and swine. More land was
acquired in the following decades, eventually totaling over 1,000 acres. After John's death in March
1858, his widow, Elizabeth Herndon Mason, lived on the property, which was valued at $25,000. Upon
her death in 1894, the property was divided amongst a grandson and two great - granddaughters. By
1917 the property had been heavily mortgaged and was sold to Wade Herman Scott. Mr. Scott was
killed in 1961 and the property was sold to H.D. Dickerson. Mr. Dickerson sold the property to Colonel
Miles Chase Shorey, Jr. in 1965, who then deeded it to the United States on June 29, 1973 (NPS, 1974).
The structure is of historical significance due to being a well preserved Greek Revival farmhouse. It is
distinguished from more ordinary vernacular examples by consistent and interesting detail. These
details include the treatment of the porch and corner posts, the ornament of the exterior corner blocks
and the vigorous and unusual stair treatment (NPS, 1974).
5.1.9.2 The James A. Thomas Farm
The John A. Thomas Farm is located on the eastern side of the Haw River Arm project area (Figure 22),
on the south side of S.R. 1941, 0.9 miles southwest of S.R. 1700. The property, which today is
approximately 43 acres in size, has several structures including the main house, smokehouse, barn, two
sheds, and a smaller cabin. The closest edges of the property lie approximately 625 feet from the Jordan
Lake edge of water; the area containing the structures is approximately 1,400 feet from the water's
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
41

Environmental Assessment
edge. The land surrounding the main house and structures is forested, so it is unlikely that views of
Jordan Lake are possible from the house. The house is privately owned and not on publicly owned lands.
The house is thought to have been built in the late 1860s or early 1870s as a one -story frame cabin. It is
believed that part of the original house burned in 1882. The house was rebuilt and a two -story wing was
added at that time. The farm was a small, but successful operation, growing cotton, corn, wheat, and
other grains. In the 1880s Mr. Thomas sold some of the farm land; the farm was decreased to 141 acres
from 170 acres, and was valued at $700 in 1892. James Thomas died in 1917, leaving the farm to his son
and widow. Successive generations have continued to live on the farm. Prior to the construction of the
New Hope Dam project in the 1970s, the federal government purchased 98 acres of the property. These
98 acres became part of the lake but had no effect on the structures on the property (North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, 1983).
Figure 24 - James A. Thomas House
The oldest portion of the main house
exemplifies such vernacular elements as a
steeply pitched gable -end roof extending over
the front porch, six - over -six sash double -hung
windows, extended rafter ends, and a large
exterior stone and brick chimney. The original
porch was modified in the 1890s and the
kitchen was also relocated to another part of
the house. The porch originally consisted of
unusual tapered posts which were also
modified in the 1890s; however, two of the
posts still remain (North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, 1983).
The proposed action would not impact either the James A. Mason house or the James A. Thomas Farm.
The project would not require the use of any land associated with the houses, structures, or the farm,
nor would they disturb the houses or associated structures in any way. The main houses and structures
are located at least 1,500 feet from the bank of Jordan Lake and the area between the bank and the
structures is forested. This forestation prevents any of the proposed action's visual or audio effects from
impacting the properties.
Neither the no action alternative nor the proposed action would have an adverse effect on either
historic property.
5.1.10 Hazardous Waste Sites
According to the North Carolina Division of Waste Management, there are no identified hazardous
waste sites within the project areas or within one mile of the project areas. There may be hazardous
materials contained in the circulator devices themselves, such as batteries and various oils and greases,
but these items should not discharge directly into the water as a result of normal operation. Although
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
42

Environmental Assessment
the units are sealed for protection from the elements there is a chance that these materials could reach
the water should a device have a catastrophic failure; however, any materials discharged would be
minimal in quantity. Should this happen, all appropriate agencies would be notified and all materials
would be collected and disposed of using approved procedures.
All equipment used to deploy solar powered circulators would follow proper and appropriate BMPs. No
motor fuels or lubricant would be stored or handled on site. There are no anticipated effects from
hazardous materials resulting from the deployment of solar powered circulators.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect hazardous waste sites or produce
hazardous materials.
5.1.11 Aesthetics
The solar powered circulator units themselves are relatively small, measuring approximately 16 feet in
diameter. The preferred circulators have a relatively low vertical profile floating with an approximate
vertical height of two feet above the water. The highest vertical point on the circulators would be the
solar panels. Any circulators deployed would need to be properly marked for navigational safety. A buoy
or marker would be used to mark the anchor point and give warning about the circulator. These would
be a highly visible color such as white or bright orange and be able to be seen from shore or from an
appropriate distance away. Other safety features would include Coast Guard approved lighting, and /or
reflective tape or bands, and /or highly visible signage and strobe lights for nighttime visibility. The
circulators would visually affect aesthetics in a manner similar to that of a channel marker (Figure 25).
Circulators and accompanying markers would present a small visual impact from shore or boat, but
would not significantly impact aesthetic resources.
Figure 25 — Depiction of Solar Powered Long- Distance Circulators on Jordan Lake
The proposed action would affect the aesthetics of the project areas. Aesthetics would be impacted as
the circulators would be seen floating on the water surface. However, the low profile of the circulators
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
43

Environmental Assessment
would make it difficult for them to be seen at a distance. Associated markers and signage may be visible
as well. The no action alternative will not affect aesthetic resources.
5.2 Managed Lands
All project areas and surrounding areas are managed by the USACE and its State partner agencies which
include the NCWRC and the Triangle Land Conservancy. Table 7 summarizes land management in the
two project areas.
Table 7 - Managed Lands in the APES
MORGAN CREEK ARM OF JORDAN LAKE
Managed Area Name
Managing Agency /Organization
Type of
Ownership
Management
Strategy
Area in APE
(acres)
B. Everett Jordan Lake
US Army Corps of Engineers and NCWRC
Federal
Multiple Uses
3,042.01
Jordan Lake Game Land
US Army Corps of Engineers and NCWRC
Federal
Multiple Uses
249.29
Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve
Triangle Land Conservancy and NCWRC
Private
Biodiversity
6.98
HAW RIVER ARM OF JORDAN LAKE
B. Everett Jordan Lake
US Army Corps of Engineers and NCWRC
Federal
Multiple uses
2,272.89
Jordan Lake State Recreation Area
and Jordan Lake Game Lands
US Army Corps of Engineers, NCWRC,
and NCDPR
Federal
Multiple uses
321.76
NCWRC - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, NCDPR - North Carolina Divi son of Parks and Recreation
Federal property including land and water areas on the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms are managed
by the USACE, in cooperation with the NCWRC and NCDPR, for multiple uses including flood control,
recreation, waters supply, fish and wildlife enhancement, and augmentation of low flows (USACE).
Private lands owned by the Triangle Land Conservancy in the project areas are managed, primarily to
preserve biodiversity.
There are currently 45,369 acres managed as B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake, of which only 1,653 acres
(3.6 percent) are within the two project areas and therefore have the potential to be affected by the
proposed action. The proposed project would not have an effect on the way the USACE and NCWRC
currently manage resources in the project areas. No foreseen additional management or action would
be required by the USACE as a result of the proposed action. Since this is a State funded project,
mandated by the North Carolina Legislature, there is the possibility that the NCWRC may be tasked with
assisting in the project in some way. Since the NCWRC is currently responsible for overseeing boating
activity on Jordan Lake, additional oversight of boating activities within the project areas could be
required. No additional land would be required by the proposed action; therefore, no change in
management activities would be required on terrestrially managed areas.
The proposed action would not represent an adverse impact on managed lands. While there is the
possibility that the NCWRC's enforcement of boating regulations on Jordan Lake could be expanded, it
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
44

Environmental Assessment
should not be viewed as a change in how the Lake is currently managed and therefore does not
represent an adverse impact.
The no action alternative would not affect managed lands or the way they are managed.
5.3 Natural Resources
5.3.1 Vegetation
The proposed action would affect the aquatic environment in the two project areas. Both submersed
and emergent plant species may be encountered near the project areas; however, survey work
conducted by NCDWR staff (October 18 and 22, 2013) revealed the absence of submersed macrophytes
in both the Morgan Creek project area and the Haw River project area. The survey utilized a recording
fathometer which mapped parts of the littoral zone at both sites, and physical sampling using a rake -
type tool. The shorelines at both project areas are partially colonized by emergent species, which
include Water Willow (Justicia americana) and Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Buttonbush was
less common. A few stands of Cattail (Typha latifolia) were observed within the Haw River project area.
Since emergent aquatic vegetation is only found in few places along the shoreline of the project areas,
and not in the immediate vicinity of the circulators, the proposed action would not adversely impact
aquatic vegetation. The no action alternative would not affect aquatic vegetation.
Terrestrial vegetation within the project areas was also surveyed (October 31, 2013). Terrestrial portions
of the project areas are primarily forested, with some disturbed areas which are primarily rural roads
and houses of low incidence. This is also supported by aerial photos and land coverage (Figures 3, 4, and
29). Most forested areas tend to be well vegetated and often contain loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red
maple (Acer rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus
americana), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would affect vegetation.
5.3.2 Fish and Wildlife
The land around Jordan Lake and the project areas are largely undeveloped and forested providing
ample habitat for abundant wildlife. According to the NCWRC, 313 bird species are found in or frequent
the Jordan Lake Recreational Area including Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard duck (Anas
platyhynchos), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red - headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocepholus), Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna). Twenty -five reptiles are commonly
found and include the eastern snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentine), northern rough green
snake (Opheodrys aestivus aestivus), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus), and
green anole (Anolis carolinensis). Common mammals include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
45

Environmental Assessment
virginianus). There are 27 species of fish known to reside in Jordan Lake which include redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and black crappie (Pomoxis
nigromaculatus) ( NCWRC).
The proposed action is not expected to adversely affect terrestrial wildlife including mammals, reptiles,
and most amphibians. The action does not involve land disturbance of any type. The proposed action
would deploy circulators in waters too deep (at least five feet) and too wide for most terrestrial wildlife
to cross. Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would result in an adverse impact to
terrestrial wildlife.
Many waterfowl frequent Jordan Lake and may rest, forage, or nest in or near the Lake. These activities
would be precluded in the immediate vicinity of circulators. The velocity of water at the circulator head
would be about 0.2 feet -per- second, which may be too turbulent for waterfowl to rest and possibly
paddle in. However, the velocity of the water leaving the circulator head dissipates with distance.
Swimming and foraging should be able to occur within a short distance of the circulator. Wading birds
would be less impacted. None of the circulators would be placed very close (greater than 100 feet) to
shore (Figure 9) and all would be located in water at least five feet deep, which is too deep for wading
birds. It is anticipated that wading birds would be unaffected by circulators in shallower waters of the
project areas. The circulators would be outfitted with bird deterrent devices to keep birds from resting
or roosting on them.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would have an effect on waterfowl.
5.3,2,3 Fisheries
Fishing is one of the main recreational attractions of Jordan Lake. In 2010 it is estimated that 292,797
anglers visited Jordan Lake. The Lake supports 27 species of fish, many of which are game fish such as
black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), redear sunfish (Lepomis
microlophus), largemouth bass (Micropterus solmoides), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), chain
pickerel (Exos niger), white perch (Morone americana), white bass (Morone chrysops), striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Nongame fish are found in the lake as well. The
NCWRC regularly stocks Jordan Lake with fingerlings of multiple species. In 2013, Jordan Lake was
stocked with 78,000 striped bass in the Farrington Point area and 2,400 threadfin shad in White Oak
Creek at Crosswinds Campground ( NCWRC, 2013). The NCWRC has also placed artificial reefs in areas of
Jordan Lake to act as fish attractors and enhance fish habitat. Twenty -seven PVC barrel structures
(Figure 26) have been placed throughout Jordan Lake for these purposes (Figure 27). Two of these
structures have been placed in the Haw River Arm project area. The circulators are far enough from the
fish attractors that fish behavior would be unaffected at the attractors.
The circulators are expected to increase dissolved oxygen in the water above the thermocline. Oxygen
poor water above the thermocline would be pulled to the surface where it can then be oxygenated by
surface contact. This oxygenated water would then be gradually pulled down towards the thermocline
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
46

Environmental Assessment
to replace the water being pulled to the surface. This increase in dissolved oxygen would benefit fish
populations and also decrease the chances of fish kills in warm, oxygen poor water typical in the
summer, such as the one that occurred in August 2011. The circulation would also suppress blue -green
algae and promote beneficial species of green algae, which is a food source for many juvenile fish. Blue -
Figure 26 - Location of NCWRC Fish Attractors and Circulators
Jordan
Lake stale •
Recreation Area
!
0
•
•
!
dracs Churches
CC
•
<J
O •
Haw River Arm Project Area
k
d
�IHSEdO Ea S,
Jordan Lake
O
!
jra`
•
z
Legend
• Circulator Location
NCWRC Fish Attractor
1`s%
Project Area

Environmental Assessment
Figure 27 - NCWRC Fish Attractor
green algae prefer water with little motion and are often
found near or at the surface. Beneficial green algae tend to
be distributed throughout the water column. The physiology
of green algae allows them to naturally migrate throughout
the water column. Excess blue -green algae at the surface can
prevent sunlight from filtering through the water column,
which beneficial green algae need to photosynthesize. When
water is circulated, as would occur with the proposed action,
blue -green algae are pulled from the surface and distributed
through the water column. This not only tends to disrupt the
formation of blue -green algae 'mats' on the water's surface,
but also makes blue -green algae more available for grazing
by zooplankton deeper in the water column, further reducing
populations. These two actions tend to better manage problematic blue -green algae, preventing
potential algae blooms. Green algae would benefit from the proposed action and the resulting water
column circulation.
Turbidity, which can clog gills in high enough concentrations, is expected to decrease as well. A decrease
in turbidity would also allow for improved macrophyte growth as light would penetrate deeper in to the
water column. Improved macrophyte growth provides higher quality habitat for fish foraging and
spawning.
The fate of juvenile and smaller fish in regards to the circulator intake and impeller is another concern.
The NCWRC has suggested that a one millimeter mesh intake screen be installed to prevent fishes from
contacting the impeller. Water is drawn into the hose radially between the bottom plate and the bottom
of the intake hose. With the proposed action, the velocity between the intake plate and the intake hose
would be 0.2 fps. This intake velocity is well below the 0.5 fps recommended by the NCWRC. The use of
an intake screen could significantly reduce the amount of water able to pass through the machine and
would therefore reduce the efficiency of the circulator. Also, the use of screens would increase the
potential for solids to get trapped and clog the intake. This too would also decrease the efficiency of the
machine. Fish, even juvenile fish, are able to swim at speeds faster than 0.2 fps (Appendix C), allowing
them to escape the water moving into the intake hose. Water is both drawn in radially and discharged
radially over the discharge dish at 0.2 fps. Water velocity at the opening of the intake hose abovethe
intake plate would be concentrated and could be as high as 1.0 fps. Water movement through a
circulator is shown in Figure 28. The impeller turns at a rate of 80 rpm and is designed such that a four -
inch solid spheroid can be safely passed through without becoming lodged. Smaller fish would be able to
pass through the intake and impeller and be discharged from the top with very little danger of being
harmed. Larger fish would have the swimming ability to avoid the intake altogether. The ability of small
fish to pass through the impeller and intake plate allow for an environment that poses little threat to
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
48

Environmental Assessment
fish. Table 8 shows the velocity of water for various distances as it approaches the intake hose (Knud-
Hansen C. , 2006).
Figure 28 - Water Flow through Circulator
Maximum
Diameter of
Flow Pattern
(feet)
Velocity 0.2 fps at
Solar Panel
end of float;
8
dissipating with
0.133
distance
479
50
Water Surface
0.021
1.3
77
100
Float
Max.
0.6
38
Discharge Dish
Velocity
0.005
0.3
19
300
600
0.0035
Intake Hose
1.0 fps
400
800
Maximum
Velocity 0.2 fps J
Water get drawn in from all Intake Plate (1 foot below intake hose)
sides
Table 8 - Water Velocity versus Distance from Intake Hose
Distance from
Center of Circulator
(feet)
Diameter of
Flow Pattern
(feet)
Velocity of flow
(feet /second)
Velocity of Flow
(feet /minute)
Velocity of
Flow
(feet /hour)
8
16
0.133
8
479
50
100
0.021
1.3
77
100
200
0.011
0.6
38
200
400
0.005
0.3
19
300
600
0.0035
0.2
13
400
800
0.0027
0.16
10
500
1,000
0.0021
1 0.13
8
600
1,200
0.0018
0.11
6
800
1,600
0.0013
0.08
5
The proposed action would not have an adverse impact on fish in the project areas. The no action would
not affect fish populations.
S.3.3 Endangered and Threatened Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for overseeing the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended. Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA protect species listed as threatened
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
49

Environmental Assessment
or endangered by the federal government. Any action that would potentially have an adverse impact on
a threatened or endangered species is subject to review by the USFWS. Species listed by the USFWS as
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded the same protection under the ESA.
Threatened or endangered species in Chatham County were verified using USFWS and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) databases. There are many federally listed species of concern in
Chatham County, but only three endangered species. The bald eagle is specifically protected under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and is found within Chatham County. Endangered and
protected species known to occur in Chatham County are presented in Table 9. Details of the USFWS
and NCNHP database search results are included as Appendix B.
Table 9 - Federally Listed and Protected Species in Chatham County
Scientific Name
Common Name
State Status
Federal Status
Record
Picoides borealis
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker
Endangered
Endangered
Historical
Notropis mekistocholas
Cape Fear Shiner
Endangered
Endangered
Current
Ptilimnium nodosum
Harperella
Endangered
Endangered
Current
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
I Bald Eagle
I N/A
I Protected (BGPA)
I Current
The Red - cockaded woodpecker is the only North American woodpecker to nest in living trees. They
prefer mature pine forests; more specifically longleaf and loblolly pines of 80 -120 years and 70 -100
years, respectively. A cluster may inhabit one to twenty trees or more on three to sixty acres. Breeding
pairs are monogamous and raise a single brood of three -to -four chicks per year. No recorded sightings
have occurred in Chatham County in the past 50 years (USFWS, 2008), and the proposed action would
not affect Red - cockaded woodpeckers.
The Cape Fear Shiner is a small, yellowish minnow with a black band along the side of its body about
two - inches long, first described as a new species in 1971. It can be found swimming in schools with
other minnows, but is not abundant enough to be the dominant species. During breeding season from
May to July, they seek slower moving waters with rocky substrates to lay eggs. The Cape Fear Shiner can
be found in a very few select areas in Chatham County; primarily in about four miles of the Rocky River
from NC 902 to County Road 1010 (USFWS, 2006). This area is south of Jordan Lake and the two APES;
therefore, the proposed action would not affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
Harperella is a perennial herb with hollow, quill -like leaf structures. It typically grows to a height of six to
thirty six inches. It has small white flowers, which occur in heads, somewhat resembling Queen Anne's
lace. Flowering may begin in May and continue until frost, depending upon location. Typical habitat
includes rocky or gravel shoals and sandbars as well as along the margins of clear, swift flowing stream
sections (USFWS, 2011). Since this project would occur within the confines of Jordan Lake itself, which
does not provide ideal conditions for Harperella, and would not involve land disturbing activities along
the shore, the proposed action is not anticipated to affect Harperella.
The bald eagle is a large predatory bird, easily identified by a brown body and white head. Females can
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
50

Environmental Assessment
weigh up to 14 pounds and have a wing span of eight feet. They can often be found soaring over open
water and wetland areas looking for prey. Bald eagles build large nests in the tops of large trees, which
may be ten feet across and weigh 1,000 pounds. They typically lay one to three eggs per year and mate
for life. Life expectancy in the wild is typically 15 to 25 years (USFWS, 2013).
Populations of bald eagle began to decline in late 1800's prompting Congress to pass the Bald Eagle
Protection Act in 1940, which was expanded in 1962 to include the Golden Eagle. By 1963, only 487
nesting pairs of bald eagles were known. In 1978 the bald eagle was listed as endangered on the
Threatened and Endangered Species List in all the lower 48 states. On June 28, 2007, bald eagle
populations had sufficiently recovered to the point of removal from the Threatened and Endangered
Species List. Today, although considered recovered, bald eagles are still protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (USFWS, 2013).
Bald eagles are a common sight on Jordan Lake, and watching them is a popular recreational activity. It
is reported that Jordan Lake is home to the largest population of bald eagles on the east coast (NCDPR).
The NCNHP has records of nesting bald eagles near the Morgan Creek Arm project area since 2011
(Weakley, 2013). The project would not affect bald eagle nests and would have no direct physical
impacts on bald eagles. One of the primary sources of food for bald eagles is fish, which are abundant in
waters of Jordan Lake. The circulators are not anticipated to have a negative effect on fish populations.
It is quite possible that circulating water may have a positive impact on fish populations, as more
desirable and edible algae would be available as food, turbidity is expected to decrease, and water could
have higher dissolved oxygen levels. An increase in fish populations could be a benefit to bald eagles.
The impacts of the project on fish populations are discussed further in Section 5.3.2.3. The proposed
action would not affect bald eagle populations.
In addition to the species listed above, threatened and endangered mollusks and finfish included in the
Natural Heritage Database for rare animal species were researched and verified as not existing in the
project area. There are recorded populations of eastern lamp mussel (Lampsilis radiata) in Jordan Lake;
however, known populations occur outside of the project areas. The proposed action would not affect
threatened or endangered aquatic mollusks or finfish.
Neither the proposed action nor the no- action alternative would affect any federally - listed protected
species.
5.3.4 Wetlands
According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) there are wetlands located within the Morgan
Creek and New Hope Arm project areas. In both project areas (Table 10) the largest wetland type (not
counting the Lake surface) is the freshwater forested and shrub wetland (Table 10). Both project areas
contain freshwater ponds. Additionally, the Morgan Creek Arm encompasses several acres of freshwater
emergent wetlands.
The proposed action would have circulators located within Jordan Lake and would not directly affect the
shoreline or terrestrial areas adjacent to the lake itself. Neither the proposed action nor the no action
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
51

Environmental Assessment
alternative would require land disturbing activities associated with the proposed action and no wetlands
would be affected.
Table 10 - Wetland Types in the APEs
5.4 Socioeconomic Characteristics
5.4.1 Land Use
Land within the project areas is largely undeveloped as much of the land immediately surrounding the
project areas are managed by the NCWRC. As shown in Figure 29, most of the APEs fall within a forested
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
52
Cowardan
Wetland Type
Wetland Type
Cowardan Classification Description
Acres
Classification
Total (acres)
MORGAN CREEK ARM
Freshwater Emergent
Palustrine Emergent; persistent; seasonally flooded;
PEM1Ch
20.70
Wetland
diked /impounded
29.20
Freshwater Emergent
Palustrine Emergent; persistent; semipermanently
Wetland
PEM1Fh
flooded; diked /impounded
8.50
Freshwater Forested/
Palustrine Forested; seasonally flooded;
PFO1Ch
302.68
Shrub Wetland
diked /impounded
Freshwater Forested/
Palustrinescrub - shrub; broad leaved deciduous;
PSS1Fb
0.34
Shrub Wetland
semipermanentlyflooded;beaver
Freshwater Forested/
Palustrine forested; broad leaved deciduous;
PFO1A
2.91
Shrub Wetland
temporarily flooded
Freshwater Forested/
Palustrine forested; broad leaved deciduous;
443.45
PFO1Fh
8.20
Shrub Wetland
semipermanently flooded; diked /impounded
Freshwater Forested/
Palustrine scrub - shrub; broad leaved deciduous;
PSS1Gh
12.56
Shrub Wetland
diked /impounded
Freshwater Forested/
Pa I ustri ne forested; broad leaved deciduous;
Shrub Wetland
PFO1Ah
temporarily flooded; diked /impounded
116.76
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom; permanently
Freshwater Pond
PUBHh
8.75
flooded; diked /impounded
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom; permanently
Freshwater Pond
PUBHb
0.53
9.42
flooded; beaver
Palustrinie aquatic bed; floating vascular;
Freshwater Pond
PAB4Hh
0.15
permanently flooded; diked /impounded
Freshwater Forested/
Lucastrine; limnetic; unconsolidated bottom;
Shrub Wetland
L1UBHh
permanently flooded ;diked /impounded
1,120.88
1,120.88
HAW RIVER ARM
Lucastrine; limnetic; unconsolidated bottom;
Lake
L1UBHh
permanently flooded ;diked /impounded
1,241.53
1,241.53
Freswater Forested/
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom; permanently
PUBHh
6.43
6.43
Shrub Wetland
flooded; diked /impounded
Freshwater Pond
I PFO1C
lPalustrine Forested; seasonally flooded
0.23
0.23
5.4 Socioeconomic Characteristics
5.4.1 Land Use
Land within the project areas is largely undeveloped as much of the land immediately surrounding the
project areas are managed by the NCWRC. As shown in Figure 29, most of the APEs fall within a forested
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
52

Environmental Assessment
land cover type, such as deciduous or evergreen. Much of the areas are also covered by open water (Fry,
2011). Table 11 compares land covers within both project areas.
The Haw River Arm encompasses approximately 3,893 acres. The largest land classification in the project
area is deciduous forest at 38.82 percent, followed by evergreen forest at 28.36 percent (1,104 acres).
The open water of Jordan Lake, where the project would actually be implemented, is comprised of 726
acres (18.65 percent) of the Haw Arm project area. There is no low, medium, or high density
development in the Haw Arm project area (Fry, 2011).
The Morgan Creek Arm project area encompasses approximately 4,218 acres. The largest land use
classification in the project area is evergreen forest, which comprises 1,235 acres (29.29 percent). Other
large classifications include open water (23 percent) and deciduous forest (21 percent). Unlike the Haw
River Arm, there is development in the Morgan Creek Arm study area. These areas include low density
and medium density development, which combined total 0.71 percent (30 acres) of the project area
(Fry, 2011).
No land would be required or converted to another type for the proposed action. Neither the proposed
action nor the no action alternative would have an adverse impact on current or future land use.
Table 11- Summary of Land Cover in the Areas of Potential Effects
Neither the proposed alternative nor the no action alternative would affect current land uses.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
53
HAW RIVER ARM
MORGAN CREEK ARM
Land Cover Attribute
Area (acres)
Percent of Total Area
Area (acres)
Percent of Total Area
Deciduous Forest
1,511.22
38.82%
893.94
21.19%
Barren Land (Rock /Sand /Clay)
2.45
0.06%
5.78
0.14%
Cultivated Crops
2.47
0.06%
201.31
4.77%
Developed, Low Density
0.00
0.00%
28.26
0.67%
Developed, Medium Density
0.00
0.00%
1.78
0.04%
Developed, Open Space
51.60
1.33%
72.45
1.72%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
22.46
0.58%
16.24
0.38%
Evergreen Forest
1,103.86
28.36%
1,235.30
29.29%
Grassland /Herbaceous
145.94
3.75%
174.17
4.13%
Mixed Forest
208.75
5.36%
150.53
3.57%
Open Water
725.88
18.65%
963.00
22.83%
Pasture /Hay
69.18
1.78%
143.36
3.40%
Shrub /Scrub
1 48.91
1.26%
5.12
0.12%
Woody Wetlands
0.00
0.00%
326.51
7.74%
TOTAL:
3,892.72
100.00%
4,217.72
100.00%
Neither the proposed alternative nor the no action alternative would affect current land uses.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
53

Environmental Assessment
Figure 29 - Land Cover in the APES
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
54

Environmental Assessment
5.4.2 Transportation
Primary roads in the general area are US 1, US 64, Interstate 40, and US 15/501. None of these roads are
located within either project area. There are numerous Secondary Roads (SR) located in the general
area. Secondary roads located within the Morgan Creek Arm include SR 1008 (Fearrington Road), SR
1726, SR 1728 (Transis Camp Road), SR 1727 (Whippoorwill Lane), SR 1753 (Paul Farrington Road), SR
1717 (McGhee Road) and several minor roads. Within the Haw River Arm, secondary roads include SR
1943 (Gum Springs Church Road), SR 1939 (Providence Church Road), SR 1941 (Seaforth Road), and
several other minor roads.
There are no airports or railroads located within the APEs. The waters of Jordan Lake are not utilized for
any type of shipping or major commercial activity. However, both project areas are used for recreational
purposes, including boating.
The proposed action would not impact any roads, airports, railroads or major commercial boating
activities. However, recreational boating may be affected. Potential impacts to recreational activities are
discussed below in Section 5.4.3.
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would impact any roads, airports, railroads or
commercial boating activities.
5.4.3 Recreation
Recreational opportunities at Jordan Lake are many and include swimming, boating, hiking, camping and
bird watching, to name a few. Figure 31 is a map showing the locations of recreational opportunities
discussed below.
Hiking is a popular activity within the recreational areas and there are nearly 19 miles of designated
hiking trails at Jordan Lake. Since hiking is a land -based activity, and the circulators would be placed on
the Lake, no direct impacts to hiking activities are expected. The circulators, while in operation, would
not produce noise noticeable from trails and would not present an audio intrusion on trails. It is unlikely
the circulators would affect aesthetic resources as seen from marked trails and are not expected to have
any effects on hiking activities.
Camping is also a popular activity within the recreational areas of Jordan Lake. There are five designated
camping areas located within the Jordan Lake Recreational Area. These sites offer a variety of group,
tent, and RV camping options. Designated camping areas are located at New Hope Overlook (tent
camping only), Poplar Point (tent and RV camping), Crosswinds Campgrounds (tent and RV), Parkers
Creek (group, tent, and RV), and Vista Point (group and RV). All five designated camping areas are on
property maintained and managed by the NCDPR. None of these areas are located within either of the
project areas and therefore the project would have no effect on designated camping areas.
There are twelve boat ramps on Jordan Lake. Most boat ramps are managed by the NCDPR, including
the ramps in the areas of New Hope Overlook, Poplar Point, Ebenezer, Crosswinds Campground,
Robeson Creek, Seaforth, Parkers Creek, Vista Point, and White Oak. The Farrington Point boat ramp is
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
55

Environmental Assessment
managed by the NCWRC and the Poes Ridge boat ramp is maintained by the USACE. The Robeson Creek
boat ramp is located on Robeson Creek in the Haw River Arm project area, and is the only boat ramp
located within either of the two project areas. A circulator is planned to be placed in Robeson Creek,
approximately 0.65 miles downstream of the boat ramp. Therefore, boaters utilizing this boat ramp
would need to pass by the circulator to reach the Haw River Arm and the rest of Jordan Lake. Robeson
Creek is approximately 285 feet wide where the circulator would be placed. This circulator would be
anchored with a deep mooring setup. A 10 -15 foot tether would eliminate nearly all of the swing from
the circulator. This would cause the circulator to remain in close proximity to the buoy and allow for safe
navigation around the unit. All circulators, including this one, would be well marked to warn boaters of
its presence (see Section 5.4.6). After deployment, known conflicts with circulators would be evaluated.
It may be necessary to relocate a circulator due to boating safety concerns or other unforeseen issues.
Seven designated public swimming areas are located along the Jordan Lake shoreline. Swimming areas
are located at Poplar Point, Ebenezer, White Oak, Crosswinds Campground, Seaforth, Parkers Creek, and
Vista Point recreation areas. Beach sand has been brought in to these locations and swimming areas are
marked off with ropes to protect swimmers. All swimming areas are managed by the NCDPR. These
swimming areas are located along the central part of Jordan Lake and none are located in or near the
project areas.
While swimming is encouraged only at designated swimming areas, it is possible that swimming within
the project areas may occur. Despite the fact that the Medora Corporation states that there are no
reported incidents in which swimmers have been injured by circulators, swimming in the immediate
area of a circulator may pose a slight risk to some unexperienced swimmers due to the velocity of water
being discharged. At the edges of the float the velocity is approximately 0.13 fps (1.6 inches per second
or 0.09 mph). While it is not anticipated that swimmers would be between the floats, the water velocity
at the circulator head is 0.2 fps ( <2.5 inches per second or 0.13 mph); at 50 feet from the circulator head
the velocity decreases to 0.021 fps (0.25 inches per second or 0.01 mph). Figure 30 shows a circulator in
operation, with the water gently leaving the circulator. Should a swimmer get too close to a circulator
and not be able to swim, they would slowly be pushed away from the circulator, not under water.
Figure 30 - Image of Circulator in Operation
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
56

Environmental Assessment
Figure 31— Jordan Lake Designated Recreational Areas
Legend
Hiking Trail
Boat Ramp
Q Camping Area
® Swimming Area
Area of Potential Effect
Project Area
• Circulator Location
Robeson C
•
Farrington Pointe
�k
Crosswinds 'Marina
Parkers Creecp
®
®EI NC
9 rosswinds Campground
•
White Oak
Seaforth®
IP
®
o IarPoint
�k
•
•
•
•
i
•
Vista Point
®� ® Ebenezer
® New Hope Overlook
Poes Rid a '.'�
Ridge
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
57

Environmental Assessment
The recreational areas allow for great bird watching activities, due to the number and types of species
attracted to the lake and its largely undeveloped areas. The circulators would have no effect on non -
aquatic species. Wading birds are most likely to be found in shallower areas of the lake, such as along
shorelines. Shorelines would be minimally impacted by the proposed project, if at all. The circulators
would not be placed in less than three feet of water, where wading birds are likely to be found. At
normal pool elevation, the circulators would be located in areas too deep for wading birds. The water
velocity dissipates quickly with increased distance from the circulator, and by the time the water travels
several hundred feet to shore areas the velocity would be negligible and unlikely to impact wading birds.
The proposed action would have minimal impact on aquatic birds and bird watching activities.
Jordan Lake hosts robust fish populations and many are desirable, game fish species. This makes Jordan
Lake a very popular fishing area. Fishing opportunities are available at all 12 recreational areas and
throughout the Lake by boat. The NCWRC has further enhanced fish habitat by deploying fish attractors
(described previously in Section 5.3.2.3) throughout Jordan Lake. The circulators would have a minimal
impact on fishing. While boaters would be able to approach the circulators to fish, anchoring within 100
feet of the circulator would be discouraged as to not entangle the tether line. A floating marker
indicating no anchoring would be attached to the circulator anchor warning boaters of this. The impacts
of the circulators to fish are described in more detail in Section 5.3.2.3.
The proposed action would have minimal impacts on recreational opportunities. Hiking, swimming in
designated areas, camping, and bird watching are not expected to be impacted by the proposed action.
These activities do not generally occur within the project areas. Although boaters may be
inconvenienced by having to navigate around circulators and by not being able to anchor in the
immediate vicinity of the circulators, adequate space would be available for navigation and anchoring in
the project areas while maintaining a safe distance from circulators. Circulators would be properly
marked to alert boaters of their location, during all types of light conditions (day and night). The
proposed action represents a small adverse impact to recreation in the project areas.
The no action alternative would not impact recreation.
5.4.4 Water Supply and Conservation
Jordan Lake was partially created as a reservoir to supply public drinking water to the Raleigh regional
area. The Towns of Cary and Apex operate a potable water treatment facility which draws raw water
from Jordan Lake. The intake is located on the east central side of the Lake, just north of highway US 64.
Water is drawn in via two 54 -inch pipes. Currently, 63 million gallons per day are allocated to several
municipalities from Jordan Lake, Table 12 (HDR Engineering, 2012). In 2009, the Jordan Lake Partnership
was created. The Partnership's purpose is to jointly plan for the expanded use of available water supply
within Jordan Lake (HDR Engineering, 2012). The proposed action does not involve withdrawing or
adding any water to Jordan Lake and would not affect the allocation of water within the region.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
58

Environmental Assessment
Table 12 - Water Supply Allocations from Jordan Lake
Municipality
Allocation (MGD)
Towns of Cary and Apex
32
Chatham County
6
City of Durham
10
Town of Holly Springs
2
Town of Morrisville
3.5
Orange County
1
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
5
Wake County - RTP South
3.5
TOTAL:
63
The proposed action may improve the water quality within the project areas of Jordan Lake by reducing
the frequency of algal blooms, increasing dissolved oxygen, and increasing the pH in the project areas.
However, due to the distance of the raw water intake to the project areas (approximately six miles from
each project area), it is unlikely that any benefit would be seen at the intake. Neither the proposed
action nor the no action alternative would have an adverse effect on the water supply or conservation.
5.4.5 Energy Needs
The solar powered circulators proposed for this project would not require any external energy, such as
land -based electrical current, to supply power. The only energy required would be that necessary for
deployment, inspection, maintenance, and retrieval of the circulators at the demonstration's conclusion.
Petroleum and diesel fuels would be required to run engines in the delivery truck, any equipment
necessary to unload the circulators, and for boats to place them in the water. During the course of the
demonstration, fuel would be required to run the boats for inspection and maintenance. These non -
solar energy uses would only be temporary and intermittent in nature. Energy requirements for the
demonstration project would be minimal and insignificant. The no action alternative would not require
energy use of any type.
5.4.6 Safety
A safety concern with the proposed action, deployment of circulators in Jordan Lake, is that they may
pose a navigational safety hazard to boaters. With the exception of Robeson Creek, the circulators
would not be placed in the main channel; should one exist. The circulators would present a navigational
impediment similar to that of floating markers which already exist in some areas of Jordan Lake. The
circulators would be marked appropriately to ensure visibility during both daytime and nighttime
navigation, as outlined in the U.S. Aids to Navigation System published by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Circulators would have a flashing beacon located at the unit's highest point, orange pylons, and
reflective orange and white tape for nighttime navigational purposes. The bright orange tape, signs, and
orange pylons would aid in daytime navigation as well. The circulators would be anchored to the lake
bottom and allowed to float on tether lines to allow for minimal movement during water level
fluctuations and severe weather events. Because these units float, and are not a rigidly mounted, the
units would move with minimal effort should they be accidentally struck by a boat.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
59

Environmental Assessment
Another safety concern is the velocity of the water leaving the circulator and its impact to both the
public and wildlife. The velocity of the water would be greatest at the circulator head itself, dissipating
with distance from the circulator heads and is discussed further in Section 5.3.2.3. This velocity may
make it difficult for casual approaches in canoes, kayaks, and swimmers of the circulators, as water
exiting the circulator would tend to push them away (Knud- Hansen, 2013). Since the water is being
pushed away horizontally from the circulator and not vertically, swimmers would not be pushed or
pulled underwater. The circulators would be marked appropriately to ensure visibility during both
daytime and nighttime navigation, as outlined in the U.S. Aids to Navigation System published by the
U.S. Coast Guard. It is not anticipated that any type of powered craft would have difficulty navigating
near the circulators. Non - motorized watercraft would be able to navigate around the immediate vicinity
of the circulators with minimal effort.
Since the units would be solar powered, there would be no need for buried power cables. The units
would, however, need to be tethered to an anchoring system. Boaters would be discouraged from
anchoring in the immediate vicinity of the circulators, as boat anchors may become entangled in the
tethering line. In an effort to help reduce this hazard, an anchor buoy would be deployed and secured to
the anchor block. This would help boaters identify the origin of the tethering line and anchor blocks and
give them an opportunity to avoid anchoring too close. These buoys would be a high visibility color,
durable, of sufficient size to be easily seen, and would be marked with text notifying boaters not to
anchor 100 feet of the buoy. Several of the circulators in the deeper parts of the Haw River project area
would be anchored with a shorter tether line to a swivel located under a floating buoy. This example is
illustrated in Figure 8. The significantly shorter tether line would further reduce potential boater anchor
conflicts with the tether line.
The circulators would pose a safety risk. However, the circulators would be appropriately marked as
outlined in the U.S. Aids to Navigation System published by the U.S. Coast Guard. Should warning signs
be observed, and educational materials concerning the project be made available to the public at
locations such as boat ramps, the safety risks would be greatly reduced.
The no action alternative would not have an effect on safety in the project areas.
5.4.7 Consideration of Property Ownership
The project areas are completely located within the surface waters of Jordan Lake. These areas are on
government property and under the stewardship of the USACE. The area is leased to the State of North
Carolina by the Federal Government for public park, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes (Lease N.
DACW21 -1 -81- 2603). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) manages the lake
fisheries, and enforces state fishing and boating regulations. Water levels in Jordan Lake are managed by
the USACE through operation of the dam. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is
currently seeking permission to utilize the necessary areas for this project from the USACE. The
deployment of the circulators would most likely be conducted from the Farrington Point boat ramp
(managed by NCWRC) for the Morgan Creek Arm and from the Robeson Creek boat ramp (managed by
NCDPR) for the Haw River Arm (Figure 31). Utilization of boat ramps would only be temporary in nature,
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
60

Environmental Assessment
lasting only until the circulators are deployed and operating and later during inspection, maintenance,
and removal at the demonstration's conclusion. The time required would depend upon many factors,
such as weather, delivery delays, unforeseen issues, etc. Under ideal conditions, the deployment in the
Morgan Creek Arm would take approximately two weeks and one week in the Haw River Arm
(Tormaschy, 2013). While these boat ramps are open to the public, the deployment would still be
coordinated with the NCDPR and NCWRC. While not anticipated, if any long -term staging areas are
necessary for storage they would be requested and coordinated through the NCDPR and NCWRC. The
deployment, inspection, management, and retrieval of the circulators would be performed in such a
manner that as little interruption in public access as possible would occur.
It is not anticipated that any land access other than at boat ramps would be necessary during
deployment, inspection, management, or retrieval of the circulators. Circulators would be accessed via
boat over the course of the project duration (24 months) and would not need to be accessed through
private property. While the proposed project would require a lease agreement between the USACE and
the State, this agreement would not affect property ownership (discussed in Section 5.4.7). Neither the
proposed action nor the no action alternative would have a negative impact on property ownership.
5.5 Environmental Impact Comparison of Alternatives
A comparison of impacts for solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators (proposed action) and the
no action alternative are presented below. No other alternatives other than in -lake long- distance
circulators have been carried forward for further consideration, as they would not meet the stipulations
of Session Law 2013 - 360 §14.3A.(a). Various types of in -lake long- distance circulators, including solar
powered, AC powered, and wind powered were considered and discussed in Section 3.0. All alternatives
except for the no action alternative and solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators were dismissed
as alternatives for various reasons and are therefore not included in the Table below.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
61

Environmental Assessment
Table 13 - Summary of Alternatives Impacts
Resource
Proposed Alternative
No Action Alternative
Physical Environment
No adverse impact to geology in the project
No adverse impact to geology in the project
Geology
study areas
study areas
Topography
No adverse impact to topography in project
No adverse impact to topography of the
study areas
project study areas
No adverse impact to soils in the project
No adverse impact to soils in the project
Soils
study areas
study areas
No adverse impact to floodplains in project
No adverse impact to floodplains in project
Floodplains
study areas
study areas
No adverse impact to surface hydrology in
No adverse impact to surface hydrology in
Surface Hydrology
project study areas
project study areas
Water Quality
No adverse impact to water quality
No adverse impact to water quality
Air Quality
No adverse impact to air quality in project
No adverse impact to air quality in project
study areas
study areas
Adverse impact; will lead to very minimal
No adverse noise impacts in project study
Noise
increase of noise in project study areas
areas
No adverse impact on cultural resources in
No adverse impacts to cultural resources in
Cultural Resources
the project study area
the project study areas
Hazardous Waste
No adverse impact; there are no hazardous
No adverse impact; there are no hazardous
Sites
waste sites in project study areas
waste sites in project study areas
Aesthetics
Minor adverse effect on aesthetics in the
No adverse impacts to aesthetics inthe
project areas
project study areas
Natural Resources
No adverse impact on vegetation in project
No adverse impact on vegetation in project
Vegetation
study areas
study areas
Fish and Wildlife
No adverse impact; may improve fishery
No adverse impact to fish and wildlife
resources in project study areas
populations in project study areas
Threatened and
No affects on endangered or threatened
No affects on endangered or threatened
Endangered Species
species within project study areas
species within project study areas
No adverse impact on wetlands within
No adverse impact on wetlands within
Wetlands
project study areas
project study areas
Socioeconomic Characteristics
No adverse impact on current or future land
No adverse impact on current or future land
Land Use
use in project study areas
use in project study areas
No adverse impact on transportation in
No adverse impact on transportation in
Transportation
project study areas
project study areas
Recreation
Adverse impact in that boaters will not be
No adverse impact to recreation
able to anchor within 100 feet of circulator
Water Supply and
No adverse impact adverseon water supply
No adverse impact adverseon water supply
Conservation
No additional energy needs except for those
Energy Needs
needed for deployment, maintenance, and
No additional energy requirements
retrieval of circulators
Safety
Would pose minor safety concerns in project
No new safety concerns in project study
study areas
areas
Consideration of
No adverse impact to ownership; will require
No adverse impacts to ownership in project
Property Ownership
lease agreement with USACE
study areas
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
62

Environmental Assessment
6.0 Executive Orders
6.1 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
This Order requires agencies to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human
safety, health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains. Neither the Proposed Action nor the no action alternative would impact floodplains.
Potential effects on floodplains are discussed in detail in Section 5.1.4. Floodplains in both project areas
would not be altered or impacted and no additional flooding would occur as a result of either the
proposed action or the no action alternative.
6.2 Executive Order 1199990 (Protection of Wetlands)
This Order requires agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to
preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's
responsibilities. It is intended to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts
associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of
new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
The proposed action would not affect wetlands, only surface waters of Jordan Lake. Wetlands within the
project areas are discussed in Section 5.3.4. No wetlands would be filled or modified and no
construction would result as a result of the proposed action. The no action alternative would not affect
wetlands.
6.3 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low
Income Populations)
The EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group
of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of
the negative environmental consequences of industrial, municipal, or commercial operations or the
execution of federal, state, local, or tribal programs and policies. There are no residential neighborhoods
within the project area. Based on this evaluation, neither the proposed action nor no action alternative
is anticipated to have the potential for disproportionate health or environmental effects on minorities or
low- income populations or communities.
6.4 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment)
This Order mandates that federal agencies take measures to protect and enhance the cultural
environment. As discussed in Section 5.1.9, there is one historic property located within each of the
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
63

Environmental Assessment
APES. The John A. Mason house is located within the Morgan Creek Arm and the James A. Thomas farm
is located in the Haw River Arm. The James A. Mason house is owned by the United States; the James A.
Thomas farm is privately owned. Neither property would be affected by the project. No impacts would
be expected as a result of either the proposed action, or no action alternative.
6.5 Executive Order 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds)
Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would have a significant impact on migratory
birds.
6.6 Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to
"not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that is believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction
or spread of invasive species... ". Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative is anticipated
to cause or promote the spread of invasive species.
6.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks
This Order mandates federal agencies identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children as a result of federal policies, programs, activities, and standards
(63 Federal Register 19883 — 19888). Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative would
result in short or long -term actions that would disproportionately affect the safety and health of
children.
7.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action
The short -term installation of solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators would not have significant
unavoidable impacts within the project areas. The purpose of the proposed action is to improve water
quality within the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake. The proposed action is short -term
(24 months) and any associated impacts would be eliminated with the termination of the demonstration
project. No land disturbing activities or development would occur. Any impacts of the proposed action
to the environment would be minimal and no mitigation would be required.
8.0 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Indirect or secondary effects are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project, but
occur at a different time or place. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth- inducing effects and
other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate,
and related effects on air and water and other natural systems.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
64

Environmental Assessment
Certain parts of the JLNMS are being delayed during this demonstration project. The delay is required
by N.C. General Session Law 2013 -395, for the purposes of evaluating those measures, and to further
explore other measures and technologies to improve the water quality of Jordan Lake. The particular
technology addressed by this EA is required by N.C. General Session Law 2013 -360. The particular
technology does not address all of the stated reasons for the delay in implementation of parts of the
JLNMS, and there is no indication that delay would not occur even if this demonstration project were
not carried out. Neither the proposed action nor the no action alternative is anticipated to have indirect
effects.
Cumulative effects have been defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR 1508.7 as: "the impact on the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non - Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions." No other significant future actions have been identified in the project
areas; therefore, the impacts of the proposed action, when added to other past, present, and future
actions, should be negligible. The proposed action would not induce any type of development, nor is the
proposed action dependent upon the development or construction of any other project. The no action
alternative is not anticipated to have an appreciable cumulative impact.
9.0 Public Involvement /Scoping
The project was scoped following North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) protocols. A
copy of the scoping letter was sent to the North Carolina Department of Administration - State
Clearinghouse for distribution. A notice of scoping was published in the North Carolina Environmental
Bulletin on August 22, 2013 with a 30 day review period (September 23, 2013). The State Clearinghouse
sent hardcopies of the Scoping Letter to appropriate State Agencies for review and comment. Copies of
comments received are included as Appendix A. This EA incorporates scoping letter review comments
received as applicable.
This EA will be distributed appropriately and made available for public review and comment with a
minimum 30 day review period. No public meetings have been held for this project and none have been
requested as of this time.
10.0 List of Recipients Receiving Copies of This Document
This EA will be circulated for review to Federal, State and Local agencies, interest groups and the general
public.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
65

Environmental Assessment
11.0 Point of Contact
Any comments regarding this Environmental Assessment should be directed to:
Mr. Justin Bashaw
United States Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 251 -4581
12.0 List of Preparers
The following people aided in the preparation of this document:
Name
Position
Credentials
David Wainwright
Environmental Senior Specialist
B.S. in Biologywith seven years experience issuing
401 Water Quality Certifications and workingwith
NEPA /SEPAdocument reviews. Eightyears of
experience analyzing water quality samples and
creating 303(d) lists.
13.0 Finding of this Environmental Assessment
The proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment: therefore an
Environmental Impact Statement would not be required. If this opinion is upheld following circulation
and review of this EA, a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) would be signed and circulated.
14.0 References
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC Health Studies Program. Retrieved August 26,
2013, from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs): http: / /www.cdc.gov /nceh /hsb /hab /default.htm
Chatham County. (2006, August 8). Chatham County Noise Ordinance. A Resolution and Ordinance to
Provide for the COntrol of Noise in Chatham County.
Clark, T. P. (2001, April). Depositional and Structural Framework of the Deep Riveer Triassic Basin, North
Carolina. Field Trip Guide for the 50th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Geological Society of
America.
FEMA. (n.d.). FEMA, Zone AE and Al -30. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from
http: / /www.fema.gov /floodplain- management /zone -ae- and -a1 -30
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
66

Environmental Assessment
FEMA. (n.d.). Floodway. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://www.fema.gov /floodplain-
management /floodway
Fry, J. X. (2011, Vol. 77(9)). Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous
United States. PE &RS, pp. 858 -864.
Hans W. Paerl, R. S. (2001). Harmful Freshwater Algal Blooms, With and Emphasis on Cyanobacteria. The
Scientific World Journal, 76 -113.
HDR Engineering. (2012). Environmental Assessment for Direct IMpacts of the Proposed Jordan Lake
Aeration System for the Cary /Apex Water Treatement Facility. Cary: Town of Cary.
Hudgins, J. E. (2000). Tropical cyclones affecting North Carolina since 1586: An Historical Perspective
(NOAH Technical Memorandum NWS ER -92). Blacksburg, VA: NOAA, National Weather Service.
Knud- Hansen, C. (2006, March 23). Potential Benefits ofSolar- Powered Circulation for Lake Cochituate,
with and Empahsis on Controlling Eurasion Watermilfoil. Presentation to the Cochituate State
Park Advisory Committee.
Knud- Hansen, C. F. (2013). Boating Safety in Lakes and Reservoirs when SolarBee Circulators are Installed
for IMproving Water Quality. Dickenson, ND: Medora Corporation.
Medora Corporation. (n.d.). Lake and Raw Water Reservoir Circulators. Retrieved October 24, 2013,
from Product Information: http: / /lakes.medoraco.com /lakes /product- information
NCDENR. (2002). Cape Fear River Basin Water Quality Plan. Raleigh.
NCDENR. (2007). B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina Phase 1 Total Maximum Daily Load. Raleigh.
NCDENR. (2007). B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina Phase 1 Total Maximum Daily Load. Raleigh.
NCDPR. (n.d.). Jordan Lake State Recreation Area, History. Retrieved August 21, 2013, from North
Carolina State Parks: www.ncparks.gov /visit /parks /ford /main.php
NCDPR. (n.d.). Jordan Lake State RRecreational Area. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from Activities:
http: / / www.ncparks.gov / Visit /parks /ford /activities.php
NCDPR. (n.d.). Natural Resources Inventory Database. Retrieved October 1, 2013, from
http: / /www.dpr.ncparks.gov /nrid /public.php
NCDWM. (n.d.). ArcGIS REST Services Directory. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from
NC1Map_Hazardous_Waste (MapServer):
http: / /services.nconemap.com /arcgis/ rest / services/ NC1Map _Hazardous_Waste /MapServer
NCDWR. (n.d.). Retrieved August 23, 2013, from North Carolina TMDL Program:
http: // portal .ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /mtu /tmdl
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
67

Environmental Assessment
NCWRC. (2013). Fishing in North Carolina. Retrieved October 1, 2013, from Warmwater Stocking
Summary: http: / /www.ncwildlife.org/ Fishing/ HatcheriesStocking /NCWRCStocking.aspx
NCWRC. (n.d.). Natural Resources Inventory Database (Jordan Lake Recreational Area). Retrieved
October 1, 2013, from http: / /www.dpr.ncparks.gov /nrid /public.php
NCWRC. (n.d.). Navigation Aids and Regulatory Markers. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from Boating in
North Carolina:
http: / /www.ncwildlife.org /Portals /0/ Boating/ documents /VOG /UniformWaterMarkers.pdf
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. (1983). Indivisual Report From form, James A. Thomas
Farm.
NPS. (1974). National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, John A. Mason House.
NRCS. (2006). Soil Survey of Chatham County, North Carolina.
Research Laboratories of Archeology, U. C. (2006). Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt
(Report 25). Chapel Hill.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (2003). B. Everett Jordan Lake TMDL Watershed Model Development.
Tormaschy, C. (2013, September 17). Personal Communication via email.
Triangle J Council of Governments. (2013, April 18). Jordan Lake Bathemytry GIS Coverage
(ftp: / /ftp.tjcog.org/ pub /planning /water /JLbathymetry /). Durham, NC.
USACE. (2010). Value to the Nation Fast Facts. Retrieved August 21, 2013, from Lake Level Report B
Everett Jordan Dam and Lake:
http: / /www.corpsresuIts.us/ recreation /fastfacts /lake.cfmI ?lakeID =18
USACE. (n.d.). B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake Project, Cape Fear River Basin, NC, Pertinent Data.
Retrieved August 21, 2013, from http: // epec .saw.usace.army.mil /BEJPERT.TXT
USACE. (n.d.). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wlimington District. Retrieved August 21, 2013, from U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wlimington District, B. Everett Jordan History:
http: / /www.saw.usace.army.mil/ Locations /DistrictLakesand Dams /BEverettJordan /History.aspx
USCG. (2011, June). U.S. Aids to Navigation System.
USEPA. (n.d.). Air and Radiation. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from Basic Information:
http: / /www.epa.gov /air /basic.html
USFWS. (2006, September 25). Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
USFWS. (2008, January). Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Picoides borealis.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
68

Environmental Assessment
USFWS. (2011, July 26). Raleigh Ecological Service Field Office. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum): http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /es_harperella.html
USFWS. (2013, March 18). Bald Eagle. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from Fact Sheet: Natural History,
Ecology, and Histroy of Recovery: http: / /www.fws.gov/ Midwest /eagle /recovery /biologue.htmi
USGS. (n.d.). Mineral Resources On -Line Spatial Data. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from Felsic
Metavolcanic Rock: http: / /tin.er.usgs.gov /geology/ state /sgmc- unit.php ?unit= NCCAZfv%3B6
Weakley, A. (2013, September 24). Repsonse to Proposed Jordan Lake Mechanical Aeration Sytem
Scoping Letter.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
69

Environmental Assessment
Appendix A
Scoping Comments Received
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
70

Environmental Assessment
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Pat McCrory, Governor
September 30, 2013
Ms. Hannah Headrick
NCDF R
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Programs
1 6 1 1 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617
Bill Daughtridge, .lr -, Secretary
Re: SGH File # 14- F,- 4300 -0069; SCOPING; Proposed is a demonstration project for a
mechanical aeration system for the management of nutrients in Jordan Crake. Project will
deploy floating arrays of solar powered in -lake long- distance circulators.
Dear Ms. Headrick:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is regUired its prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental. document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy pct. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course; of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this ofi ice for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cal].
Sincerely,
Crysta Rest
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Rcgioin T
,Y aUnW Addrem T•elephovre: [phone] Location Address:
1.301 Mail Sei vice Center Fax {919 }733 -9571 116 Wei ]anec Street
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1301 $¢ate Courier #51 -01-00 Raleigh, Kurth L:aroliola
E-MG Vfupe. . .+1C. g0jr
An &p olOpporfuraaylllfrmative Action F.'mployer
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
71

Environmental Assessment
MEMORANDUM
To: Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse
From: Lyn Hardison
Division of Environ ental Assistance and Customer Service
Environmental Assistance and Project Review Coordinator
RE: 14 -0069 Scoping
Proposed is a demonstration project for a mechanical aeration system for the
management of nutrients in Jordan Lake to include deploying floating arrays of solar
powered in -lake long- distance circulators
Chatham County
Date: September 27, 2013
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal for the referenced
project. Based on the information provided, several of the agencies have identified permits that may be
required. NC Wildlife Resources Commission has concerns that the proposed aeration system may have
direct impacts to the aquatic resources and the recreational boating activities. They are requesting the
applicant provide alternative options and analysis to the proposed aeration system in the environmental
document. These comments are attached for the applicant review.
The Department will provide more specific comments during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
1661 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, hiorth Carolina 27699 -1661
Phone, 919 - 707 -66661 Internet: www ncdenr.gov
An Equal Oppodunily 1 Affirmative Avion Eirlploye3 — 501k Recycled t 101 Posl Consurner Paper
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
72

Environmental Assessment
0 Nofth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance Coordinator
NCDFNR Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinatort�u o�as
Habitat Conservation Program
BATE: 16 September 2013
SUBJECT: Scoping for Mechanical Aeration System for the Management of Nutrients in Jordan Lake,
Chatham County, DENR Project No, 14 -0069.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
66I- 667e), North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A -1 through 113A -10; 1 NCAC 25), and
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et sett.).
The Division of Water Resources proposes to install a mechanical aeration system to reduce adverse
impacts from excessive nutrient loads and low levels of dissolved oxygen in the Morgan Creek and Haw
River arms of Jordan Lake. The project areas include approximately 750 acres of the Morgan Creek arm and
700 acres of the Haw River arm, The purpose of the project is to determine whether long - distance
circulation will suppress phytoplankton activity so chlorophyll a, pH and turbidity will meet State surface
water quality standards within the project areas,
Jordan Lake supports a diverse fishery including sunfish (Lepomis spp.), crappie (Pomoxis spp,),
catfish (letalurus spp.), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis).
Listed terrestrial species in the area include the state threatened bald eagle (Hahaeetus leucoeephalus).
We are concerned about direct impacts of the aeration system on aquatic resources and recreational
boating. The EA should include an alternatives analysis that evaluates other alternatives (e.g., bottom
diffuser) to the proposed surface aeration system, and includes a discussion of environmental impacts from
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed aeration system as well as the other alternatives.
More specifically, we request the following information regarding the aeration system is included in the EA:
Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries
B The total number of aerators needed to improve water quality within each of the project areas.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
73

Environmental Assessment
Page 2
16 September 2013
scoping — Jordan Lake Mechanical. Aeration System
13FNR Project No.: 14 -0069
• How the aeration system will be operated, According to information provided in the scoping
document, the aeration system will be capable of continuous operation (i.c., a minimum of 97% of
the total hours during the course of one year); however, it is unclear whether this system will be
operated year - round. If the system is not operated year - round, then the .months of the year it is
anticipated the aerations system will be operated and whether it will be operated daily or periodically
during this time period should be discussed in the EA,
• How temperature and dissolved oxygen will be affected in the area immediately surrounding the
aeration system at start up particularly if the aeration system is started after a thermocline has
formed,
How temperature and dissolved oxygen will be affected should one or more of the aerators
malfunction or cease to operate.
° Describe whether it is anticipated that there will be areas with low dissolved oxygen when the
aeration system is first started. Also, describe the average amount of time it would take for the
thermocline to disappear in the area affected by the aeration system,
If multiple aerators are needed within each of the project areas, then describe the area (e.g., acreage)
each aerator will affect,
• How temperature and dissolved oxygen will. transition (i.e., abrupt change or a transitional change)
between aerated and non - aerated areas.
• Detailed information regarding any screening to prevent fish from entering the aeration system, and
the mechanical parts inside of the aeration system that fish would have to pass through if they
became entrained in the aeration system. Based on information provided in the scoping document,
flow through the hose and intake will not exceed one foot per second. NCWRC recommends that
intake structures have passive screens with openings not to exceed one centimeter and with a
maximum intake velocity of 0.5 feet/sec to minimize impingement and/or entrainment of fish.
Boating Traffic and Safe
According to information provided in the scoping document, ingress /egress through the Morgan
Creek and Haw River ands will be impacted, and aerator placement will be done to minimize
interference within primary boating and access channels. The EA should include a figure showing
the proposed locations for the aerators within the Morgan Creek and Haw River arms of Jordan
Lake. We are concerned the aerators may be a navigational hazard that could create boating safety
issues,
• According to information provided in the scoping document, the floating aerators will be 16 -feet in
diameter with highly - visible markers. Detailed information can how each of the aerators would be
marked to alert daytime and nighttime boaters of its location should be included in the EA. For a
similar project, we recommended the aerator was marked with strobe lighting to make it more visible
during nighttime hours. We also recommended that buoys such as "Boats Keep Out" were placed
approximately 20 yards from the structure to alert anglers or boaters of its presence and minimize the
chances of boaters entering the area.
• According to information provided in the scoping document, the aerators will be anchored by two
mooring blocks covered with polyethylene, High water levels in Jordan Lake often can relocate
floating objects. If these aerators are relocated during high water levels this could create additional
boating safety issues. The EA should include specific details on how the aerators will be anchored,
and how frequently they will be maintained to ensure they remain in the appropriate location and are
functioning properly,
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
74

Environmental Assessment
Page 3
16 September 2013
Scoping — Jordan Lake Mechanical Aeration System
DENR Project No.; 14 - 0069
Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, are important in developing and maintaining quality
reservoir fisheries, Nutrients stimulate production and growth of the planktonic organisms that are the base
of the aquatic food chain. When determining the nutrient load reduction targets for the Jordan Lake TMDL,
we recommended a mean summer chlorophyll a lower limit of 15 pgll for the middle section of the reservoir
be used, This recommendation was based on a study by Maceina and Bayne (2001) that documented
significant reductions in nutrients could adversely affect a largemouth bass fishery. However, excessive
nutrients can be detrimental; high density planktonic or algal blooms can degrade water quality and increase
fish stress which can manifest as disease or in extreme cases as a fish kilt.
Although the proposed mechanical aeration system may improve water quality and reduce the
adverse impacts from excessive nutrient loads into Jordan Lake, it will not reduce or eliminate nutrients
being discharged to the lake. For long -term improvement of water quality and aquatic habitat in Jordan Lake
nutrient loads in the lake also must be addressed, The EA should include a discussion regarding nutrient
loads in the lake and measures that may be used to reduce these nutrient loads.
In addition to addressing the concerns outlined above, the environmental document should include a
detailed assessment of existing natural resources within the project area and should discuss the potential of
mitigating impacts to wetlands, waters, and high quality upland habitat. We encourage the applicant to
consult the Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Guidance for Preparing SEPA Documents
and addressing Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in preparing the environmental document. To facilitate
our review of proposed project impacts on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, we request the following
information is included in the environmental document. Although some of the information, requests and
comments may not be applicable to this project, these should facilitate preparation of an environmental
document that addresses impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
1. Include descriptions of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources within the project area, and a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. A listing of designated
species can be found on the N.C. Natural Heritage Program's website at httt3://www.ncnh or
2. Surveys should be conducted by biologists with both state and federal endangered species permits.
3. Include descriptions of any streams or wetlands affected by the project.
4. Include project maps identifying wetland areas. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished through
coordination . with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). If the USAGE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
5. .Provide information on existing, planned, and projected sewer and water infrastructure service
throughout the service area. A map showing the location of the existing and projected lines and areas
containing special resources should be included,
6. Define the service area for the project, including any ETJs (extra- territorial jurisdiction), and provide a
map of the service area.
7. Provide a description of project activities that will occur within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreage of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be listed.
S. Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
project.
9. Discuss the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands and uplands).
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
75

Environmental Assessment
Page 4
16 September 2013
Scoping — Jordan Lake Mechanical Aeration System
DENR Project No_ 14 -4064
10. Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate unavoidable
habitat losses,
1.1. Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development facilitated by the proposed project. Such
discussion should weigh the economic benefits of such growth against the costs of associated
environmental impact.
(a) Include specific measures (e.g., Local ordinances) that will be used to address stormwater and
sedimentation at the source. Include specific requirements for both residential and industrial
developments and Best Management Practices (RMPs) that will be required.
(b) Include specific measures (e.g., local ordinances) that will be used to protect stream corridors,
riparian habitat, and a minimum of the 100 -year floodplain from filling and development.
Commitments by the project sponsors to protect area streams with riparian buffers through purchase
or conservation casement are of particular interest.
12. Include a list of document preparers that shows each individual's professional background and
qualifications.
At this time, the information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive
recommendations or conclusions concerning this project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in
the early planning stages for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (336)
449 -7625 or shari.bryant dncwildhfe.org,
Literature cited
Maceina, M,J. and D.R. Bayne, 2001. Changes in the black bass community and fishery with
oligotrophication in West Point Reservoir, Georgia. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 21:745 -755.
cc: Jessica Baumann, NCWRC
Corey Oakley, NCWRC
Reggie Barker, NCWRC
Bryan Scruggs, NCWRC
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
76

Environmental Assessment
NCDENR
Forth Carolina Department of Environment and Neural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
Pat McCrory Linda Pearsall Jahn E. Svarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
September 24, 2013
TO: Lyn Hardison, NCDENrt State Clearinghouse Coordinator
FROM: Allison (Schwarz) Weakley, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program t%
SUBJECT: Scoping — Proposed Jordan Lake Mechanical Aeration System (Chatham County)
REFERENCE: Project No, 24 -0069
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on the proposed project referenced above, The
NCNHP database shows various records for rare species, high quality natural communities, significant
natural areas, or conservation /managed areas within the vicinity of the proposed project sites in the
Morgan Creek and Haw River arms of Jordan Lake,
The request for scoping shows lines on maps of the generall2ed area where the proposed mechanical
aerators will be placed, but also states that the area of impact will encompass approximately 750 acres
of the Morgan Creek Arm and approximately 700 acres of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake, It is not
clear from the maps provided what larger defined area of impact is being considered, so below is a fist of
records for rare species from the NCNHP database from within approximately 0.5 miles of the proposed
project sites displayed on the maps. Also discussed below are records for natural communities,
significant natural areas, and conservation /managed areas tracked in the NCNHP database within close
proximity to the proposed project sites on the map that may be considered.
Within 0.5 miles of the three individual proposed project sites, the NCNHP database shows records for
documented occurrences of the following rare species (listed by taxonomic group):
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EO— ST,4,TUS
NC STATUS
. USA STATUS
Halloeetus Ieucocephalus Bald
Eagle
Current
T
BGPA
Gomphusseptlmo
Septima's Clubta il
Current
SR
FSC
Notropismekistochoias
Cape Fear Shiner
Historical
E
E
Scutelioria nervosa
Veined Skullcap
Historical
FE
_
For status detin €lions, please see the Help document at http:llwww,nc�ho.ar weh /nhplrfatai ase- search.
The record for the Bald Eagle occurrence is located north /northeast of the proposed Morgan Creek
project site an land owned by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, The NCNHP database shows that
the Bald eagle nest was active as of 2011.
1601 Nail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 -11801
Phone: [phone]! Internet, www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal OpPcAUMY t Alfirmafive Action Ernptyer - 50% Recycled :10% Posl Coosvmer?apec
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
77

Environmental Assessment
Pro3ect #24- 0069- 5coping - Proposed Mechanical Aeration System in Jordan Lake
5eptemtaer 36, 2013
Page 2
Said Eagles were removed from the federal Rst of threatened and endangered species on August 9,
2G07, and are no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, However, Bald Eagles remain
protected underthe Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Bald
and Golden Eagle Act prohibits anyone from taking, possessing, Qortransporting a Bald Eagle, orthe
parts, nests, or eggs of such birds without prior authorization. This Includes inactive nests as well as
active nests, Take means to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy,
molest, or disturb. Activities that directly or indirectly lead to take are prohibited without a permit. For
more information, please contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Raleigh Office).
The record for Cape Fear Shiner is # ocated in the lower reach of Robeson Creek at its confluence with
Haw River, and is considered historical (last documented in 1968). The US Fish and Wildlife Service has
begun a re- introduction program for this species in Chatham County where the species was formerly
known to occur. For more information, please contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Raleigh Office).
The record for Septima's Clubtail is documented from the Haw River Aquatic Habitat and Haw River
Levees and Bluffs Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs), in riffle habitat just north of the
northernmost proposed project site on Haw River, The record for Veined Skullcap is located east of the
proposed site on Morgan Creek, and is believed to have been destroyed from the impoundment of
Jordan lake.
Within or adjacent to the proposed project site below Robeson Creek in the Haw River arm, we have
records for the Guth Springs Church Road SNHA, located on the western side of Haw River on land
owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers. This SNHA is significant for its high quality natural
communities, including Dry Basic Oak- Hickory Forest, Dry Oak- Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype), and
Dry -Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype).
The NCNHP database also shows records for Colonial Wading Bird Colonies within the vicinity of the
proposed project site on Morgan Creek; the closest is located in Cub Creek, ca. 1 mile north of the
proposed site.
Please note that the use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field
surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, important natural
communities, or priority natural areas.
The new NCNHP website (www.ncnhp.org) offers access to data and other information on rare species,
natural communities, significant natural areas, and lands managed for conservation. We are also glad to
provide more detailed information and maps as requested.
Please feel free to contact me at 919 -707 -8629 or AlhsomWeakle ncdenr. av if you have questions or
need more information.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
78

Environmental Assessment
1 epartment of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
.3roject Number: 14 -0069 County: Chatham Date Received: 08/27/2013
project Description: Scoping - proposed is a demonstration project for a mechanical aeration system
for the management of nutrients in Jordan Lake. Project will deploy floating
arrays of solar powered in -lake long - distance circulators.
'iris Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Offiee Regional Office Area
_ Asheville f Air
Fayetteville ✓ DWR- Surface W
Mooresville IJ�W- Aquifer
e/ Raleigh ,/ DEM R�`
Washington UST 66iipp ��aa
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
In- Horse Review
_Air Qualify
L)C - Marine Fisheries
✓ Parks & Recreation
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt (D WR)
MR- Water Supply
Military Affairs
BWR -Water Quality prograar
Water Quality - DOT
✓
Wildlife Shari Bryant
Wildlife - LOOT
1 Sdnager Sign - Off /Regiow Date' to -House. Reviewer /Agency:
J—&Le'fu_�. 6 - ? //& � I
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review _ Other (specify or atiaeh comments)
If you have any questions, phase contact:
Lyn Hardison at lyn.hardisonnnedenngov or (252) 948 -3842
943 Washington Square Mall Washington NC 27889
Courier No. 16-04 -01
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
79

Environmental Assessment
State, of North Carolina
llegartnfenf of F nvirouulent and Natural RiEsources ReviemingC3ffice:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RRVIRW - P R0,1FCT MlvUVIYNTS Project Number: _dL Duc hate.. _.. _..._
Aficr review of mhia project It Aux been determined that the GNR:pem1i1(5).VWor appmvals.indicxted:may.need to he oh{ained in nrdL'r for this project In uanply wilh.Nuall
Carolina Law Questmns mgardiog Pheac pnrmrtc.rhould-he addressed in the R'e'gional ortice Indicated on the reyorsc of the form, All app]iculimu, Infarinaliorr nrrd geidellncs
rclallve I:o meat plans and lscnrrt115 lux uwlilabic fern) ilia same Reglvnnt Oftlee.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
80
Normal Process Time
P1eftMI7 Sp�C!A1, APPUCAT"N PROCEDURES or RI7LQII3R L M f:3 i'S
[aWlaY[Ny stint Vlnvl7
1
I Perm11 to COnStrvcl dt operatt wastewater Ireatme:
iLppfltrltiorr90 days hcfdre begin sunstravion nr aWalC)df u]aS{ruehurY
i I
�fl dilyS
f
�Incihtie5 sesvcr system exiension: K sewer systems
I r:nn traoctfi furl -site In4peZil nn i nSr 4ppl ti ILChfl ICa] ' Doti!FMC'C USUR
I
{0 davi}
nul dnchargun iritq Stale Snrroee waltm
I
I Appllcatloli 180 days before begin mi viry. 0,f ite inspection. Pre- applicaliorl
I cnnfcr ^nc Baal Add iii nhally oblairi permit 10 tOnstratn mvasLm for
]
[�
NPALS - pertrul 10 disc lutrge into surface water sndlol
In Upurate and ClHistru,( w -stcww ier fnl:ijrhei
$f3 -17{f days
permit
an after td PDi S.'Re 11utC, dt] days al�tn rteCillt Or
� ruc
{ t`+r1A]
discharging+ jnio stim %surtm H'ale€S.
Or i *Iy'-[;trllled il.i
plonk nr 15FrIC dl hl f]t:.�] perllll {- Wl94chL'yLT lS' Iaicr.
pl
fl
i
F F-1 Wale List 93armil
Ilse- app hrali on tecbnreaY COnfCreneC usually nwye55aly
t days
I (MIA)
I
�irlu:ngn
-�
7nr?nkro apt hlim ion must he recei v0 and pertoh issued prior to l)Pr
7 days
i Well `�[f Pentiil
insiftllgnnn of it swell.
I [ 15 day.:] I
I
Ciredge Fiil P.'rotlil
AT>pli Cation copy milsi lit Served on each adjacent rlpYrn-in p. MpOny nlAlldi.
Qn lift maneeLiOfl Pr. aypiitutlorl miftivice usual Fit ling inay ivgcnic
1
j
r 55 days
arxE
F nxcment. to FIII from N.C. Dgartmul of AJminrsrmiinc, and Federal
Ive days]
Drcdpn mtu{ pill Parrral
I i
i PCrllYli lV CUnsiract Fc operate Air ]'P1lul)Gn Abrit4lnan[ Application 111u51 no 5ulanioed and permit receiver} Iniar To
ff condo ebOn and opersti an a the:.courcc. IE a pemtn is required in an
Faciiilics arador Emission Sources as per I5 A NCAC 90 clays
_; araa Without local mitn[;, Il'icrl there are additional onluireinents and
id?{1:C31o0 tha7 3[x1.0300) �
timelines {2l1. 171 13)
E PGfmit to ctmistnM:t iSG aperl{m Transpnrtalicm t ar,011y' as j Appiic&hon must bee-uhnnilted At Wmi q!] daps prior Ioctonstoolloll or
pct I � R NCAC (2 U.0800, 2Q.0601 ) 90 daps
Imo- mr4l iflcaiion fir ilte Source.
j Arty ulxn boning associated with subject proposal
+muXl lie In compliance with 15 A NCAC 3D. 1900 0
I l}eiYlsl lti®Ym dr rtnOYPiiOnS of Slftlet sties Cginaillinh'
1 anw5lda 1r1Rlcrial M1IMI bC 111 cnmplt, no- �v!t It 15 A
i ` -1 •^#CAC 20. I I I G laf 11; WI11[`7} ry`qulm5 t1gi11tCanUrl Rod I NIA 6 days
I
! rclrwvnl Hour to Jcmnlitida. Cnnwet Azllcstns C.ur4ro1 � r faG 'Joys)
I roup 919. 707.5930. ': s
t I
t r
Complex Sour Permit required under 15 A NCA,'
F-1 1 re
af) OAw
The, Sed imenind on Poll ut loll Cunlrpl ACt Of 1473 inusi be prpperl4 addressed For any land lilmorhing acth way. An erosion & I
E
I srdiinenialian wnrrol plan will Lr ieyuirtd !`one or more acres to be dislurbcd. Plan iF]ed lvith prnlmer 8eyiran3] CYfflee (Load r�ualil)' � ?G days '
I
I—'
Section) At tryst 30 days stellar ileginnlnp, 4etivlty, A fee of � t$ ftx the First rtaru w soy.) Aran Iwrt. Ad cxpre:;s rci ILiY npiirrn is 3G days l
( ]
�avaiiahle ivoll nddihonal fats. f
�Il Sedinicrim6un and erosion control must be N9dres5ed in accordance with NODOT s a{ plovers program. Pamticator ntteariuo sly ld Ion ^_ivtlt )o i tS(7 days)
dcyign a11CI imtoijoice, orapprotanuie prrilmirlcl seei nelll trappmyt dCy CCs 9t5 well as stable SlDmliVAteF COnI^CyallC ds and Qullet5. ! i
-�-`
•
'r�li•SItC mSpcCi1Dt1 41 sal. Surery bond AILxf .tai r NR fkmd amount varies
i [ -I
Mirung Permit
IYiII1 type mono and niunlret df acres of af:ccicll land. Any am mimed greater I 30 days
j
Ili in not ae. rd must be pernldncd. the appropriate bond natal M: noel ved f60 days} ;
r
before the permit can be issued
Ori -site mxpoclion by N.C. Disismo Forew. Rewurcea!f pelmil excc d 4 Jays I tkny 1
I
["?
Noah Carulirla Su rung lmnnil
�
I
I. tV•Al I
�Opi
— —.J
�—
-sit 1 rsptrc1iori by N C. Dive ma Forest ors ®ulcer iNMECd "iFrrwrc ban
r`
Speofal Gtr?und C:lderara:r Ruining Grnnn - _
I
h Jov
five Beres. dl gruund clear it 19 ACln•inca arc inyolyed. Iinpcctio�ls share Id be
J R`
! i
ouaiics in coastal N.C. with organic soils :
requeatcd at lent ten guys Ufuic ucwnl tram 1s plun-d.." i {NrAy
1
7 r 'jv7rl
R,C {solos ['.acllktleS ,>,f7A
9f)- V-6 dms
(NIA)
If permtl required, application 60 Jaya bviore begin construnicln Applicant
inusi bipt N.C. qua rood itnymbor IU prepare plans, inspect IS{rm-ivxn
ijlll
I
cuilify cUnainngion is acoording to ENR npplgt11 plain. f✓ w atso mqulre
pennn under rrtosquno wiAtul progrsa n. And a 40§ permit from Corgis o ;
Dam Safety Permit
JG drty5
I_rngmeers An inspection nFsim IS nVUVOan' In VVIFx Ho-,d C'lassibcnl on A ;
160 days] I
minimum fink of S3ll6.RU must accompnliy the applleaito-rl Ar,addiki(nn[
1 proce55inp.. lte based on a pC.fCenlega or 1}1C ;nral project Cast will be regwrcYl
ivrtnni•iouln
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
80

Environmental Assessment
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the
-1 Asheville Regional Office l Mooresville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Mooresville, NC 28115
(828) 296 -4500 (704) 663 -1699
Regional Office marked below.
'1 Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
(910) 796 -7215
Fayetteville Regional Office
Normal Process Time
7 Winston - Salem Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Raleigh, NC 27609
7[
Permit sa drill exploratory oil or gas we11
File surely bond of $5,000 with ENR running to State orNC conditional that
any well opened by drHi operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged
10days
N/A
Geophysical Exploration Permit
according to ENR rules and regulations,
p_�
Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue orpe T14.
Application by letter No standard application form,
10 days
( N 1 I
i_1
State takes Construction Permit
Application fees based on structure size is charged, Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
5-2 2 0 days
_
a art
A
401 Water Quality Certification
NIA
60 days i
( €30 days)
1
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250,04 rec must accompany application
55 days
(150 days)
F-1
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
_
$50.00 fee must accompany application
22 days �
;25 days) {
_1
several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area, If any monument needs to be moved or destroved, please notify:
—y
f
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
1
Abandonment of any wells, if requi €ed must be in accordance with Tillc 15A, Subchapter 2C.Ot00.
3
' f­ l
Noilfication or the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS)are discovered during any excavation operation.
[i
Compliance with I SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stonnwater Rules) is required.
45 days
"rar
(NIA)
I 1
Pamlico or Neuse Riparian, Buffer Rules required.
t Othercjnmmems (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
r
N ,r ,1 y ; x TJ ! >' V.
v i 7 ZIZ . jZK �ivi�i , s7
�Fr�� ir- t���.}�'?, ✓/t� a'` � `� ���- acJ/.!/� C';� ti/�'.j� G.�.- �C��c -!� 1'V ,��-/� 1 � 1:3 �
6yJ T
I
i
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the
-1 Asheville Regional Office l Mooresville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Mooresville, NC 28115
(828) 296 -4500 (704) 663 -1699
Regional Office marked below.
'1 Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
(910) 796 -7215
Fayetteville Regional Office
7 Raleigh Regional Office
7 Winston - Salem Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
3800 Barrett Drive, 8siite 101
585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, NC 28301 -5043
Raleigh, NC 27609
Winston- Salem, NC 27107
(910)433 -3300
(919) 79 1 -4200
(336) 771 -5000
-] Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
(252) 946 -6481
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
81

Environmental Assessment
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: CHATHAN7 H12: OTHER STATE NUMBER: 7.4 —E -9300 -0059
A0r'�} DATE RECEIVED: 08/23/2013
cl AGENCY RESPUNSE: 69/18/2013
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/23/2013
MS RENEE GLEDHILL— EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH MC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS _ DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF' TRANSPORTATT.ON
TRIANGLE J COG
PROJECT INFOPIANTION
APPLICANT: NCDENR
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Scoping
C �' 13
'G/ v R 4Iba
DESC: Proposed is a demonstration project for a mechanical aeration system for the
management of nutrients in ,' ordan bake. Project will deploy floating arrays of
solar powered in -lake long-distance circulators.
The attached project has been submitted Co the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27599 -1301.
if additional review time is needed, please contact this office at ;919)801 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING 1S SGBMITTED. 19 too COPNENT [] COMMENTS ATTACHED,
SIGNED BY: � .�G�1 DATE: "l` C' L3
tr �a
•.T.?i
d�— j
�A
iAlIS 3 0 2413
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
82

Environmental Assessment
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: CRAT14AM H12: ' ,Ti 111
IBS CAROLYN PENNY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MSC # 471.9
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC &PS -- ?IV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
ADEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE S COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
F,PPLICANT; NCDF.NR
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Scoping
STATE NUMBER: 14 -E- 4300 -006!
DATE RECEIVED: 08/2312013
AGENCY RESPoNsE: 09116/2013
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/23/2013
.,i:
AUG 27 2013
k1i :i J
DESC: Proposed is a demonstration project for a mechanical aeration system for the
management of nutrients in Jordan Lake. Project will deploy floating arrays of
solar powered in -lake long - distance circulators.
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and "bmit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27599 -1301.
I£ additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919 )807 -2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THM FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: No COMMENT' ❑ COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: DATE-
fv
ppM
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
83

Environmental Assessment
Appendix B
Federal and State Listed Species in Chatham County
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
84

Environmental Assessment
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species,
Chatham County, North Carolina
1111 111 11
Updated: 12 -26 -2012
Critical Habitat Designations:
Cape Fear shiner - Notropis mekistocholas - Approximately 4.1 miles of the Rocky River from North
Carolina State Highway 902 Bridge downstream to Chatham County Road 1010 Bridge; and
approximately 0.5river mile of Bear Creek, from Chatham County Road 2156 Bridge downstream to the
Rocky River, then downstream in the Rocky River (approximately 4.2river miles) to the Deep River,
then downstream in the Deep River (approximately 2.6river miles) to a point 0.3river mile below the
Moncure, North Carolina, U.S.Geological Survey Gaging Station. Constituent elements include clean
streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas
with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively low silt
loads.
Federal Register Reference: September 25, 1987, Federal Register, 2: 36034- 36039.
Common Name Scientific name Federal Record Status
Status
Vertebrate:
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
FSC
Current
Bachman "s sparrow
Ainiophila aestivalis
FSC
Current
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Current
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
E
Current
Carolina darter
Etheostoma collis lepidinion
FSC
Current
Carolina redhorse
Moxostoma sp. 2
FSC
Current
Red- cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
E
Historic
Invertebrate:
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masoni
FSC
Current
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
85

Environmental Assessment
Brook floater
Alasmidonta varicosa
FSC
Current
Carolina creekshell
Villosa vaughaniana
FSC
Current
Septima's clubtail
Gomphus septima
FSC
Current
Yellow lampmiussel
Lampsilis cariosa
FSC
Current
Vascular Plant:
Buttercup phacelia
Phacelia covillei
FSC
Current
Harperella
Ptilimnium nodosum
E
Current
Sweet pinesap
Monolropsis odorata
FSC
Current
Virginia quillwort
Isoetes virginica
FSC
Historic
Nonvascular Plant:
Lichen:
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information
to support listing. (Formerly "C1" candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
FSC = federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the
future, and many of these species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
T(S /A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S /A) are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below.
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened
species on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or
"PT ", respectively.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA):
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346 - 37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and
removed (de- listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took
effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C.
668 -668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and
golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb ". The USFWS has
developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers,
landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For mor information, visit
http: / /www.fws. og v /mi rg atorybirds/baidea lg_e.htrn
Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(S /A)):
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822- 55825), the northern population of the bog turtle
(from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from
Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S /A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S /A)
designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
86

Environmental Assessment
southern population. The T(S /A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private
landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its official
status as T(S /A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle
as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental /migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable /potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of
known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
87

Environmental Assessment
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Natural Heritage Search for Chatham County
Taxanomic
NC
USA
State
Global
County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Group
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Status
Freshwater
Alasmidonta
Triangle Floater
T
S2
G4
Current
Bivalve
undulata
Freshwater
Alasmidonta
Brook Floater
E
FSC
S1
G3
Current
Bivalve
varicosa
Ambloplites
Freshwater Fish
Roanoke Bass
SR
FSC
S2
G3
Current
cavifrons
Ammodramus
Bird
Grasshopper Sparrow
W1,W5
S3B,S1N
G5
Current
savannarum
Anacamptodon
Moss
Knothole Moss
W7
S2?
G3G5
Historical
splachnoides
Bird
Anhinga anhinga
Anhinga
W2
S313
G5
Current
Thin -pod White Wild
Vascular Plant
Baptisia albescens
W1
S3
G4
Historical
Indigo
Basic Mesic
Natural
Forest (Piedmont
S3S4
G3G4
Current
Community
Subtype)
Crustacean
Cambarusdavidi
Carolina Ladle Crayfish
SR
S2S3
G3
Current
Vascular Plant
Carexfestucacea
Fescue Sedge
W7
S2?
G5
Current
Vascular Plant
Carex vestita
Velvet Sedge
SC -H
SH
G5
Historical
Moth
Catocala illecta
Magdalen Underwing
W3
SU
G5
Current
Choroterpes
Mayfly
a mayfly
SR
S2
G5
Current
basalis
Reptile
Clemmys guttata
Spotted Turtle
W1
S3
G5
Current
Collinsonia
Vascular Plant
Piedmont Horsebalm
SC-V
S1
G3G4
Current
tuberosa
Animal
Colonial Wading
S3
G5
Current
Assemblage
Bird Colony
Corallorhiza
Vascular Plant
Autumn Coral -root
W1
S4?
G5
Historical
odontorhiza
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
88

Environmental Assessment
Appendix C
Fish Swim Speeds
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
89

Environmental Assessment
Taken from the Town of Cary and Apex Environmental Assessment - Direct Impacts of the Proposed Jordan Lake Aeration
System for the Cary /Apex Water Treatment Facility
. Used as surrogate forwhite bass
NOTE: Burst /Startle speed calculated at 50% greater than Prolonged /Critical speed based on Bell (1991) unless
burst speed provided in the literature (e.g= adult bluegill. juvenile blue catfish. pallid sturgeon [Hoover et al. 2117575])
and paddlefish (Hoover et al. 2005).
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
90
ToWl
;S mint SWl
ed(ft1s)
Prulnntedl
Burs II
Life
Length
Species
stage
liw
Critical
Startle
References
I- arge.naouth Bass
Fry
0:79-0.87
0.78 -1.02
1.56-2.04
Lanmore and Deaver (1%8) cited in Bearish (1978)
Hocutt (1973); Farfinger and Bearish (1971) cited in Beanash
(1978); Larimore and Deuver (1968) cited in Beamish (1978).
Juvenile
105 -5.04
0.92 -1.64
1.84 -3.25
Dahlberg et al. (1968) cited in C ariander ( 1971); Kolok (1941);
Otto and Rice (1974) cited in Beamish ( 1978);
Juvenile
5.91 -10.63
1,51-2.1-
) - -4 =
Bearrish (1970) cited in Carkmder (1971)
Bluegdl
Juvenile
2,01-2,13
0.92
L64
Schuler (1968); Kin (1964); Beamish (1978);
Gardner et at (2006)
Adult
3.945.91
I.22
244
Webb ( 1478); Den g et at (2004); Brucker and Lauder(1999)
Adult
6.02
-
4.30
White Crappie
Juvenile
3.03
0.18 -O. 52
0.36-1.44
Schuler (1968): Kin (1969; Snilev and Parsons (1997)
Blue. Catfish
Juvenile
7.56
1 3.28
3.61
Beecham et al. (2004)
Hybrid Catfish (Tenia4e
Channel Catfish x Male
Juvenile
6.30 -9.06
3.94
7.88
Beecham et al. (3009)
Blue Cat fis h)
Brett 1964cited in The University of Iowa 2010; Brainbridge
Stri d Bass
Adult
47.0
7.87
32 .8
1961 cited in The University of Iowa 2010
Blue Sucker
Adult
26.20
4.36
19.51
Brett 1964cited in The University ofIcwa2010; Brainbridge
1961 cited in The University of Iowa 2011
Juvenile
5.26
1.54
:136
Hoover et al. (2005)
Pallid Sturgeon
Juvenile
3.59
1.51
242
Hoover et al. (2005)
Brett (1964) cited in The University of low {2010); Brain bridge
Pallid Sturgeon
Adult
32.10
5.36
23.39
(1961) cited in The University of Iowa (2010)
Brett (1964) cited in The University of Iowa (2010); Brainbridge
5hovelnose Sturgeon
Adult
28.30
4.72
20192
(1961) cited in The Universitv of Iowa (2010)
Paddlefish
Juvenile
3.53
135
217
Hoover et aI. (2005)
Brett (1964) cited in The University of Iowa (2010); Brainbridge
Paddlefish
.Adult
47.20
7.87
32.8
(1961 ) cited in The University of Iowa (20110)
. Used as surrogate forwhite bass
NOTE: Burst /Startle speed calculated at 50% greater than Prolonged /Critical speed based on Bell (1991) unless
burst speed provided in the literature (e.g= adult bluegill. juvenile blue catfish. pallid sturgeon [Hoover et al. 2117575])
and paddlefish (Hoover et al. 2005).
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
90

Environmental Assessment
Appendix D
Jordan Lake Water Quality Improvement Demonstration Project (Session Law
2013 - 360 §14.3A. (a)
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
91

Environmental Assessment
JORDAN LART WA TER QUAL.IT'i LV PROVEN EN-F DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
SECTION 143A.(a) Jordan Lake Nutrient Mitigation Demonstration P'rcr ect. —
Tiie Department of Fst uonment and -Natural Resources shall establish a twenty- four -month
demonstration Pro ect for the management of nutrients in Jordan Lake. The demonstration
probed shall spec cally f cus on preventing and reducing harmful algal blooms and excessi kT
chlorophyll as well pravidistg other nutrient mitigation measures in. the Haw Fiver arm and the
Morgan Creek = of Jordan Lake. In conduct ua the demonstration project, the Department
shalf enter into a contract with a third party that can deploy floating arrays of in -lake_
long - distance circulators to reduce or prevent the adverse impacts of excessive nutrient loads,
such as .algal blooms- taste and odor problems in drinking water, and love lev=els of dissob.,ed
oxygen At a minimum- the in -lake mechanical system chosen must meet the foilowin criteria-
1) Floating; equipment shall be capable of continuous operation on solar power
only during day- night, and extended overcast conditions 365 days per year.
Continuous operation shall be defined as operating a irmnimum of
ninety seven percent (97%) of the total horns daring the course of one year
on solar power without reliance on any connection to the alternating current
power grid.
(2) Achie�T a total flow rate through the impellers on a continuous basis for 24
hours per day of 72,000 galloas per nutmte m the Morna Creek arm and
36;0-70 gallons per minute in the Haw liver arm -
(3) The circulation equipment shall be constructed primarily of Type 316
stainless steel metal for strength and si�p�ior corrosion resistance - Each
machine shall also undergo a passivation bath_ also known as stainless steel
pickling. to restore corrosion resistance to the welds and other areas of
in4xp fection.
(4) The circulation equipment shall be mectLanicaily operated by a motor that
has the following characteristics =
a- Is brushless (brush motors requiring brush replacement are not
acceptable) -
b. Uses a direct drive with no gearbox to avoid lubrication maintenance.
C_ Contains stainless steel bearings requiring no scheduled lubrication
with a rated bearing life expectancy greater than 1007000 hours of
continuous Operation-
d. Is designed for a marine outdoor environment by having a sealed
housing with polymeric encapsulated internal windings for superior
corrosion resistance capable of withstanding - ironmental
conditions of one hundred percent (100%) humidity_ -40 degree to
140 degree Fahrenheit ambient temperature range, freeze resistance-
condensation resistance, and splash resistance-
e- Has a 10 year or greater replacement warranty.
(5) The circulation equipment shall be supplied with la motor controller acrd
power management with the following features:
Senate Bill 402 - Ratified Session Law 2013 -360 Page 19�.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
92

Environmental Assessment
a. An anti jam reverse feature that is automated and self - clearing for a
locked rotor triggered by high gent occurrences caused by a
jammed impeller.
b. Scheduled reverse cycles with daily- reverse impeller cycling for
self - clearing of impeller to minimize fouling -
c. Motor health status monitoring and recording that incliWes scheduled
speed._ commanded speed_ actual speed. motor current_ motor
voltage, and motor controller efrors.
d. Temperature- compensated charging so that battery charging
parameters are automatically adjusted for optimum restu is based on
battery temperature-
C. Povr_i conservation and continued operation mode managed by a
programmed algorithm for reducing motor lead and contimiing
operation by incremental speed reduction that is automatically
enabled when extended low- sunlight conditions occur or battery
resen T power is reduced.
f A NENMA 4 enclosure for protection against condensation and
moisture in a marine eniumment with internal circuit boards that are
conformal coated for added protection against moisture_
(6) The battery power storage shall be a single battery (,unless multiple batteries
are connected in series) to avoid charging problems and shall have the
following characteris es:
a. A battery rating capacity_ at a 24 -hour discharge rate in watt hours, at
least 50 times the motor load in watts during normal operation (frill
speed- peal: load).
b. Is a submergible battery to avoid temperature extremes and extend
battery life.
C_ Complies with DOT MOR49 nonspillable battery requirem mts.
d_ Is UL listed and compliant to UL 1989_
C_ Is maintenatace-free and does not require rewatering.
f Has a temperature sensor that monitors battery housing temperature
and not ambient temperatme to optimize charging cycles and extend
batten, life_
g. Is encased in double wall plastic and mounted in a stainless steel
cage for safety and battery protection puuposes.
( The photovoltaic modules on the unit shall have the following
characteristics:
a._ Have a nominal wattage rating that is five times the normal operating
wattage of the motor to ensure continuous operation of the motor and
impeller in all seasons_
b. Are monocrvstalline and not nn~ilticiWalline to ensure adequate
po'<4w collection during 1mv- sunlight conditions.
c_ Are certified to UL 1703 Class C_ IEC 61215, and IEC 610364
standards..
d. Have 25 -year manufacturer performance warranties_
(8) The digital controller of the machine shall have the following features:
a. Flashing light-emitting diodes in the control box readily accessible
by servi ce persommel and providing continuous electrical diagnostics
so the state of the power system can easily be determined.
b. Capability to store witbin controller memory a 3"Y rolling lob* of
all primary machine operation parameters.
(9) The machine shall have an adjustable horizontal water intake that is capable
of being field adjusted to a set level below the rater surface without
requiring machine removal or reinstallation The intake shall bring a
one -foot [tuck horizontal layer of water into the machine and include a
singular hose of adequate lend to reach the required intake depth setting -
The flow through the hose and intake shall not exceed one foot per second.
(10) The circulation equipment shall operate normally with the following
maintenance features:
Pape 196 Session Law 2013 -360 Senate Bill 402- Ratified
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
93

Environmental Assessment
a. -No scheduled lxsbrication requirements for any system component_
including motor and motor bearings_
b. No brush replacement on motor, gearbox replacement, or motor
replacement to be expected ,during a 25 -year expected life of the
amilation equipment.
ce -No spare parrs shall be required to be kept on hams.
d. The impeller assembly shall be removable without the use of tools.
ee The circulator equipment shall have a bird deterrent system to
mi nfinize bird roostrngs and droppings on photovoltaic modules-
(11.) The flotation a uipu ent shall have the following features and
characteristics=
a_ Adjustable float arses with a one -inch diameter shaft and turnbuckle
to achieve optimal performance setting. The arms shall be a closed
frame to minimize torsion forces on the circulation equipment and
pro ride balanced flotatiosl
b. The flotation buoyancy shall be 1,350 pounds or more to support the
weight of the assembled circulation equipment with a :safety factor
greater than 1.5. Each machine shall weigh approximately 850
pounds-
ce Flotation shall contain expanded polystyTme foam beads that are
steamed together to inin;mi a water adsorption -
d. The flotation shall not sink should the flotation enca.seuaent be
punctured. Encasements shall be resistant to damage due to annuals_
ice_ Nuups by watercraft_ and contact detedoration from petroleum
products and should be suitable for marine use -
(12) The circulation equipment shall be capable of being held in position by
neither attachment to mooring blocks at the bottom of the resenw or
tetherinn to the shores
Any contract entered into under this subsection shall not be subject to Article 3 or
Article 8 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes. Croce installed, the Department shall monitor
and evaluate the performance of the circulators m reducing the ad3.ww inYpacts of hamiLful
algal blooms and excessive chlorophyll and in providing other nutrient mitigation measures in
the Haug River arm and the Morgan Greek amt of Jordan Lake and report the results of the
morn touring and Evaluution as provided in subsection (b) of tLus section-
SECTION 14,3.AL.(b) Report_ — No later than October 1. 2015- the Department of
Emiromrnent and Natural Resources shall submit an interim report on (implementation of the
demoonstration oject to the Emironmental Re4iew Commission and the Fiscal Research
D�i,4 ision� of the general Assembly. No later than April 1. 2016_ the Deparlinwnt of Emironntmt
and Natural Resources shall submait a final report on m1plementation of the demonstration
project to the Euvuonmental Review Commission and the Fiscal Research Division of the
General Assembly.
SECTION 14.3 -A-(c) Fimding. — Of the funds appropriated by this act to the Clean
Water Management Trust Fund, a total of one million three hundred fifty thousand dollars
($1,350,000) for fiscal year 2013 -2014 and three hundred thousand dollars 300,01X for fiscal
year 2014 -2015 shalt be transferred to the Department of Environnxent and Natural Resources
to be used to implement the Jordan Lake Water Quality Improvement Denionstration Project_
In addition, the Department of Em ironmeut and Natural Resources shall contribute one
hundred (lily thousand dollars (` 150,000) for fiscal year 2014-2115 and one hundred fifty
thousand do ars ($15{},000) for fiscal year 2015 -2016 from available funds, inchsding those
appropriated by this aft to support the Departsitent's Eh lion of Water Resources activities to
manage and carry out the project including water &erupting, tinter testing_ and water analysis
of saexp les in the lake and connecting creeks prior to and during the demonstration project
deffimed in subsection (a) of this section.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
94

Environmental Assessment
Appendix E
Study Plan for the Assessment of In -Lake Mechanical Reductions of Adverse
Impacts Related to Excess Nutrients in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of
Jordan Lake
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
95

Environmental Assessment
Study Plan for the Assessment of In -Lake Mechanical Reductions of
Adverse Impacts Related to Excess Nutrients in the Morgan Creek and
Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake
Purpose
The objective of this study is to provide information for the Jordan Lake Nutrient Mitigation Demonstration
Project. Specifically this includes water sampling, water testing and water analysis of samples in Jordan Lake
and connecting creeks prior to and during the demonstration project detailed in Section 14.3A.(a) of S.L.
2013-402.
Study Plan
Design
In addition to the current monitoring study in place on Jordan Lake required by section 3.(c) of S.L. 2009 -
216, eleven additional monitoring stations will be sampled as part of this study, see Figure 1. These stations
will be sampled once per month in concurrence with existing Jordan Lake monitoring sites. Sites will be
located to provide water quality data in the immediate vicinity of mechanical water circulators, as well as in
background or control areas outside of the area affected by mechanical circulation.
Parameters
Sample collection will focus on nutrient related physical, chemical and biological water quality parameters.
Sites and parameters to be evaluated in this study are shown in Table 1. Chemical water quality samples will
be collected from the photic zone. The photic zone is defined as a vertical area from the water surface to a
depth equal to two times the secchi depth, and represents the region of the water column which is most
reflective of nutrient enrichment impacts. Depth stratified physical parameters will be collected at the
surface (0.15 m), 1 m increments to a depth of 10 m, and every 5 m thereafter. Phytoplankton samples will
be collected at selected sites chosen proximity to circulators to determine species composition while
efficiently performing microscopic analysis. Water quality sample collections and field operations will follow
DWR /ESS /ISU Standard Operating Procedures: Physical and Chemical Monitoring Version 2 (Nov 2011) and
Ambient Lakes Quality Assurance Project Plan Version 1 (July 2012). Quality control documents can be found
on the Environmental Sciences Section's website at: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ess /isu. Sampling
began in June 2013 and will continue through 2016 allowing for sufficient data to be collected in order to
evaluate implementation of the demonstration project.
Assessment
Evaluation of water quality data collected during this study will focus on nutrient related problems including
elevated pH and excessive chlorophyll o in the Haw River Arm and Morgan Creek Arm of Jordan Lake.
According to 2012 303(d) assessment information, Jordan Lake remains impaired for chlorophyll a and pH.
Success of the demonstration project will be measured by comparing concentrations of chlorophyll a and pH
to water quality standards using the current assessment methodology for impairment (less than 10%
exceedance with at least 90% confidence) which was approved by the Environmental Management
Commission in March of 2013. If additional data are required or changes to study area are required, this
study plan will be re- evaluated and updated accordingly.
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
96

Environmental Assessment
Figure 1. Jordan Lake Monitoring Locations
Jordan Lake Monitoring Locations
CPF086CUP �PPF081A1B
Demonstration Project Site CPF` °;
Existing Monitoring Site CPF086C
CPFM �CPF 1A1
CPFM 4 t`
C PF08
f
4
1
I
PF087B3
r`
4
C P F087
US 64
C P F055
CPFO55C1 CPF0880A N
P
CPF055C
PF
CPF056
P 0
CPF055
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
CPF055E
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
97

Environmental Assessment
Table 1. Sites and Parameters to be Evaluated
Station
Station Description
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Parameters
CPF086CUPS
JORDAN LAKE IN UPSTREAM MORGAN CREEK ARM
X
X
X
Physical:
Temperature( °C)
pH
Dissolved Oxygen (mg /L)
Conductivity (µs /cm)
Secchi Depth (m)
CPFMCO2
JORDAN LAKE AT MID - CHANNEL MORGAN CREEK ARM NR CUB CREEK
X
X
CPF086C
JORDAN LAKE AT MOUTH OF MORGAN CK NR FARRINGTON
X
X
X
CPFMC03
JORDAN LAKE NEAR XRDS OF SR1717 AND SR1008 IN MORGAN CR ARM
X
X
CPFMC04
JORDAN LAKE IN MORGAN CR ARM EAST OF CPFMC03
X
X
CPF081A1B
JORDAN LAKE DOWNSTREAM OF CROOKED CREEK IN NEW HOPE CREEK ARM
X
X
X
PF081A1C
JORDAN LAKE AT MOUTH OF NEW HOPE CREEK
X
X
X
CPF086F
JORDAN LAKE NEAR FARRINGTON NC
X
X
X
Chemical:
Chlorophyll a (pg/L)
Nutrients -
TP, TKN, NH3, NO2 +NO3 (mg /L)
Turbidity (mg /L)
CPF087B3
JORDAN LAKE AT BOUY #9 NEAR MERRY OAKS NC
X
X
CPF087D
JORDAN LAKE AT MOUTH OF WHITE OAK CREEK NR SEAFORTH
X
X
X
CPF0880A
JORDAN LAKE NEAR MOUTH OF BEAVER CREEK NEAR MERRY OAKS NC
X
X
CPF055C1
JORDAN LAKE IN HAW RIVER ARM BAY UPSTREAM
X
X
X
CPF055C2
JORDAN LAKE IN HAW RIVER ARM BAY NE
X
X
Biological:
Phytoplankton
CPF055C3
JORDAN LAKE IN HAW RIVER ARM BAY NW
X
X
CPF055C
JORDAN LAKE ABOVE STINKING CREEK NR PITTSBORO NC
X
X
X
CPF055C4
JORDAN LAKE IN HAW RIVER ARM BAY SE
X
X
CPF055C5
JORDAN LAKE IN HAW RIVER ARM BAY SW
X
X
CPF055C6
JORDAN LAKE IN HAW RIVER ARM BAY DOWNSTREAM
X
X
X
CPF055D
JORDAN LAKE IN CENTER OF HAW RIVER ARM
X
X
CPF055E
JORDAN LAKE ABOVE DAM NR MONCURE NC
X
X
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
98

Environmental Assessment
A Demonstration Project Showing the Impact of Floating In -Lake Long- Distance Circulators in B.E. Jordan Lake
99