LAKE KAMPESKA SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
BY
JERRY L. SIEGEL
-------
EPA-908/3-81-002
September 1982
LAKE KAMPESKA SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
FINAL REPORT
by
Jerry L. Siegel
East Dakota Conservancy Sub-District
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
EPA CLEAN LAKES GRANT NO. S804713-01
Project Officer
Ronald M. Eddy
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado 80295
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DENVER, COLORADO 80295
-------
DI S CLAI R
This report has been reviewed by the Water Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Envirormiental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute en-
dorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Lake Kainpeska is one of the largest, high quality lakes in
the Prairie lakes region of northeastern South Dakota. It was
incorporated into the Watertown City limits in 1970. The proposal
to riprap the most severely eroding shoreline areas was selected
for a grant award under EPA’s Clean Lakes Program in August, 1976.
This effort to reduce lake sedimentation followed the development
of a centralized wastewater collection system constructed around
the lake perimeter during 1975—76 through an EPA grant.
The project utilized city, county, multi—county (Conservancy
Sub—District), state and federal funding. Sites to be riprapped
were selected by a multi—agency project task force during two boat
inspection tours of the lake shoreline. Approximately 1152 m (3780
ft.) of shoreline were riprapped at a cost of $134,000. Most of
the work was completed by late 1977.
In the spring of 1978 the lake level reached 48 cm (19 in.)
above normal due to high surface inflow from the Big Sioux River
which flows within one hundred meters of the lake inlet/outlet.
During this period of abnormally high lake levels, waves from strong
storm winds pounded the project works. Although vegetation was not
yet established and fill areas had not settled properly, repair work
was needed in only one project area. These repairs were made in
1981 utilizing $7,310 in supplemental grant funds. Visual observa-
tion of both project areas and non—protected areas afterward by the
multi—agency project task force indicated that the stabilized areas
had significantly reduced lake sedimentation.
Due to the problem inherent in working around the heavily de-
veloped shoreline of Lake Kampeska with expensive homes and land-
scaped yards, the cost per foot of shoreline stabilized was higher
than for the Oakwood Lakes Shoreline Protection Project, a Clean
Lakes project on an undeveloped lake in the same general area.
lii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
Figures and Tables v
1. Introduction
The Lake Kampeska Resource
Problems Affecting the Lake
2. Conclusions and Recommendations
3. Development of Lake Restoration Project .
Development of Project Concept and
Grant Proposal
Objectives of the Demonstration Project.
Multi—Agency Participation in Project
Development
Technical Aspects of Project Features.
Project Activities After Submission of
Grant Application
4. Results and Discussions
Selection and Design of Project Works to
Maximize Benefit to Lake and Minimize
Benefits to Private Landowners
Economic Feasibility of the Technique.
Technical Effectiveness
Concurrent Impact of Other Activities
Water Quality Evaluation
Visual Observation of Project Effectiveness
in Reducing Lake Sedimentation during 1978. 13
References . . . 14
Appendices
A. Evaluation of Centralized Sewer System Project. .
B. Water Quality Analysis
111
1
1
1
4
5
5
5
5
6
8
11
11
11
12
12
12
15
18
iv
-------
FIGURES Ai’TD TABLES
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Map of Lake Kampeska showing location of
Project Areas 2
2 Typical Cross Section of Project Bank Shoreline
Protection Works 7
TABLES
Number Page
1 Specifications for Project Bank Shoreline
Protection Works . . . 8
V
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
THE LAKE KAMPESKA RESOURCE
Lake Kampeska is a picturesque 1950 hectare lake located on the
northwest side of Watertown, South Dakota. It has been incorporated
into the city for the purpose of developing a centralized waste
collection system to serve the 600 dwellings located around the
lake. The city obtains about 65% of its water for municipal use
from the lake.
Due to its size, depth, relatively good water quality, heavy
use, and proximity to a population area, the lake was ranked in the
first priority grouping by the State Lakes Preservation Committee
(1977) and was ranked second in the state on a Lake Significance
Ranking List prepared by the State Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (later called State Department of Water & Natural Resources
— Division of Water Quality) under State Lakes Protection Grant Pro-
cedures (1978). In early 1978, the lake was selected as a State
Water Quality Study area under the Section “208” Area Water Quality
Management Program of PL92—500. Figure 1 is a map of the Lake
Kaxnpeska area showing the location of the bank shoreline protection
areas financed through this project.
PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE LAKE
Total direct drainage area is small at about 55 sq. km (17 sq.
ml.). Due to the very close proximity of the Big Sioux River to the
lake outlet and the relative elevations of these two hydrologic re-
sources, river flood flows from about 4662 sq. km. (1,800 sq. ml.)
of uplands cause occasional high water levels and bring sediments
and nutrients into the lake. Consequently, it would be desirable to
restrict Big Sioux River inflows. A hydrologic study of the lake by
the South Dakota Geological Survey (1971) stated, however:
“During flooding a large quantity of water reaches Lake
Kampeska through the inlet—outlet channel. The flood of
1969 caused the lake level to rise 5.2 feet indicating
that 26,000 acre—feet of water was recharged into the lake.
1.
-------
City of
Water town
County Memorial
Park & Inspiration
Point
Map of Lake Kampeska showing Location of project areas
-------
“The rate of flow through the inlet—outlet channel was ap-
proximately 3 times greater than the rate of flow through
Watertown.
“A construction on the inlet—outlet channel to block the
flow of floodwaters to the lake without controlling the
quantity of water reaching the study area will not func-
tion during flooding. Either the sand and gravel deposits
on the sides of such a construction will be eroded and the
structure destroyed or the water will flow over the con-
struction. Even if the floodwater could be diverted from
the lake during flooding, without construction of a deep
wide channel through Watertown, flood damges in Water-
town would increase substantially.”
Another main source of inorganic sediments has been erosion of the
lake shoreline during high lake levels and/or strong winds.
A report of the turbidity of the lake by Schmulbach (1968)
indicated that the turbidity problem was to a large extent caused
by eutrophication of the lake. This conclusion was based on ob-
servations of the water mass which revealed moderate turbidity
levels but relatively large numbers of plankton, particularly blue
green algae.
3
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Visual inspection of the lake shoreline during the spring of
1978 by the EPA Project Officer and a multi—agency task force
showed that the project works had done an excellent job of reducing
bank erosion. Combined high lake levels and strong winds caused
extensive erosion on non—treated shoreline areas. Thus, lake
sedimentation has been reduced and severely damaged shoreline
erosion areas have been restored, improving the aesthetic beauty
of the lake and protecting shoreline property.
It is recommended for proposed publicly financed shoreline
protection projects that a reliable sediment budget for the lake be
developed in advance to determine whether shoreline erosion is a
major source of lake sediments. It is also recommended that the
selection of areas to be stabilized be made by a non—biased techni-
cal task force to minimize enhancement of private property.
Two aspects of project design should be evaluated carefully in
future projects. First, the benefit of adding a thin gravel filter
bed beneath the riprap should be considered. This is commonly done
when gabien structures are installed. Some sediment apparently
entered the lake when waves first washed over the completed riprap
and exposed sediments below the rock. Secondly, if a lake is sub-
ject to extreme high levels periodically from surface runoff and
if the fetch is long enough that strong winds could cause severe
wind action, the value of placing rock riprap one foot higher
vertically than in project design should be considered.
Consideration should also be given to adding the following re-
quirements to construction specifications for lake shoreline riprap:
(1) the contractor shall use a method of sloping the lake bank that
does not allow any appreciable sediments to enter the lake.
(2) rock riprap shall be stockpiled on the lake bank beforehand so
that it can be placed as soon as the sloping work is completed, and
(3) the area above the riprap shall be mulched and seeded as soon
as the riprap has been completed and inspected. Careless construc-
tion methods can allow appreciable bank sediments to spill into the
lake, heavy rains could cause considerable sheet erosion on recently
exposed slope banks, and the toe of the new slope could easily be
washed into the lake if the lake was at a high level and/or a wind-
storm occurred before the riprap was placed.
4
-------
SECTION 3
DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE RESTORATION PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT CONCEPT AND GRANT PROPOSAL
During 1971 the Watertown Parks and Recreation Department and
the Codington County Conservation District, with technical assis-
tance from the Soil Conservation Service, developed preliminary
plans for protecting eroding banks at Jackson Park, a park devel-
oped and maintained by the City of Watertown.
Funds could not be secured at that time so the proposal be-
came inactive. When local interests learned about the new federal
Clean Lakes Program in 1975, interest was rekindled and the project
was broadened to include shoreline erosion problems on the entire
lake. The East Dakota Conservancy Sub—District, working with other
local interests, developed and submitted a proposal to EPA for a
$67,000, 50% cost—sharing grant on April 15, 1976.
OBJECTIVES OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The objectives of the project were to prolong the life of Lake
Kampeska through control of bank erosion sediment deposited in the
lake, to help restore damaged shoreline, and, if possible, to im-
prove the lake water quality.
WILT I-ENTITY PARTIC IPATION IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The Lake Kampeska Development Association, a private organiza-
tion, assisted by raising $15,000 toward project construction. The
Association assisted further by preparing and securing easements
from private landowners, holding meetings to inform the public dur-
ing project construction, and providing a pontoon boat for the
multi—agency selection of sites for shoreline protection.
Nearly all levels of government participated in the project
development, At the local level, the City of Watertown provided
$16,000 toward project construction, while the City’s Park and Rec-
reation Department managed the construction contracts for the pro-
ject. Codington County contributed $16,000 toward project construc-
tion. The Codington County Conservation District, as previously
noted, was involved in early project planning.
5
-------
At the multi—county level, the East Dakota Conservancy Sub-
District, an 11½ county water resource planning and development
agency, provided a $10,000 project grant, applied for and admin-
istered the EPA Clean Lakes program grant, collected water quality
samples, and served as overall project coordinator. The First Plan—
fling and Development District assisted in preparing the EPA grant
application and in setting up project meetings.
At the state level, the Department of Game, Fish and Parks
provided a $10,000 grant, developed final engineering plans and
specifications and supervised project construction. The Depart-
ment also secured needed Section “404” permits from the Corps of
Engineers and provided transportation for multi—agency inspection
of completed project works.
At the federal level, the Soil Conservation Service developed
some preliminary project plans and participated in the selection of
project site areas. The Environmental Protection Agency provided
$74,310 cost—sharing funds for project construction.
Prior to project construction the five non—federal entities
involved with project funding and/or administration developed and
signed a Memorandum of Agreement to reduce misunderstandings during
installation of project works.
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT FEATURES
The project involved shaping existing slough banks to a flatter,
stable slope by cut and/or fill, placing riprap on the new slope,
and establishing grass on the exposed soil areas above the riprap.
Where possible for stability, the bank was sloped shoreward from the
toe of the existing slope. Since this practice would have eliminated
much of the backyard of some shoreline residences, fill had to be
used to bring the bank to the flatter slope.
General specifications for the project bank shoreline protec-
tion works are contained in Table 1. Figure 2 illustrates a typi-
cal cross section of project bank shoreline protection.
6
-------
Normal Lake
Elevation 1720 ft. insi.
Existing Grade
of
Cut Area
6 ft. of Black
Dirt P
to Crass
(Slope [ nay be greater to
blend with narut al coiiroiirs)
Riprap
18” Deep Dirt Fill
Area
Figure 2. Typical cross section of bank shoreline protection work
-------
TABLE 1. SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT BANK SHORELINE PROTECTION WORKS
(1) Maxinn.im Project Slope — 3:1 or as shown in the plans to
blend into existing shoreline
contours.
(2) Riprap Type — Fieldstone of the type that will not dis-
integrate upon contact with the element.
(3) Material Size — 60% in the 150 lb. class (15” diameter)
20% larger than 150 lb.
20% smaller than 150 lb.
(4) Depth of Rock — A minimum of 18”.
(5) Placement of Rock — The rock to be placed by dumping or
other mechanical means to keep the surface
fairly level and to allow the rock to inter-
lock. Riprap was placed three foot verti-
cally both above and below normal pool ele-
vation. On a 3:1 slope, the rock would thus
be placed on about 18 feet of slope.
(6) Protection of Exposed Bank Areas Above Riprap — Six inches
of black dirt placed, grass planted and
guaranteed for one year.
These plans and specifications were checked by the EPA Project
Officer with assistance from other federal technical experts in
Denver and approved prior to bid letting.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES AFIER SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATION
Selection of a project engineer and project areas was the chief
activity until the grant was approved. The April 1976 grant pro-
posal stated that the Soil Conservation Service would design and in-
spect the project works. On Nay 4, the Soil Conservation Service
Area Conservationist provided notice that due to transfer of their
area engineer, they could not provide further planning, design or
supervisory assistance. John Brink, EPA—Denver Clean Lakes Coord-
inator, met with local interests on June 23 and noted that a grant
award was imminent. Representatives of all the participating
agencies toured the lake by boat and marked about 5,200 feet of
severe, moderate—severe and moderate bank erosion areas on a large
aerialphoto, The Department of Game, Fish and Parks’ Engineer
agreed to seek approval to do the engineering. The Lake Kampeska
Development Association agreed to work on needed easements. By
August 24, the lake association had determined the land ownership
of all severely eroding private lands identified on the boat tour
and had secured signed statements of each landowner’s willingness
to grant project easements if their area was selected.
8
-------
Action was taken to begin project Construction as soon as the
grant was approved. The Sub-District, on August 25, received
notice of a $67,000 EPA grant award with the grant contract offer
received September 14. Jerry Siegel, East Dakota Conservancy Sub-
District Manager, was named Grantee Project Manager and Bruce Perry
of Denver—EPA Project Officer. Watertown Parks and Recreation
Department opened bids for work on the Jackson Park Area August 25.
Plans and specifications were transmitted to John Brink for review.
After touring the lake shoreline September 21, Mr. Brink concurred
with selected project areas and the Jackson Park plans. Three days
later a $18,400 contract was awarded to Brownlee Construction of
Watertown, South Dakota for the Jackson Park area.
The requirement for a Corps of Engineers’ permit for installa-
tion of riprap on a lake shoreline under Section “404” of PL92—500,
which became effective October 1, and the Department of Game, Fish
and Parks’ loss of their chief engineering assistant delayed initia-
tion of construction of the rest of the project.
Bids were opened for the remainder of the project on April 26,
1977. The low bid totalled $96,731.15. Shortly thereafter, the
following documents were transmitted to the EPA to comply with
grant conditions: (1) certification that the bids were properly ad-
vertised, (2) bid sununary, (3) an explanation of why the particular
bid was accepted, (4) copy of final plans and specifications, and
(5) EPA Form 5700—41, a breakdown of bid prices by the contractor.
After these documents received proper EPA review, a contract was
awarded to Brownlee Construction for the work.
The first partial payment for completed project work was pro-
cessed in July with nine EPA payments made over the course of the
project.
The Project Manager contacted the EPA Project Officer on
September 7 concerning the following: (1) a time extension request
for the grant contract to 6/30/78, (2) advisement of an August 17
change order bringing the second construction contract total to
$107,938.79, and (3) a request that the Department of Game, Fish
and Parks’ $4000 direct cost in preparing final plans and specifi-
cations and supervising construction be incorporated into the
grant.
By April of 1978, the construction work had been essentially
completed. On April 26, Debbie Patterson, new Denver—EPA Clean
Lakes Coordinator (officially designated EPA Project Officer on
May 19), along with the contractor and representatives of the non—
federal project entities, made a joint inspection of the completed
riprap work. Minor dress—up work was recommended on a few areas
where the fill bank above the rock had eroded when waves from strong
winds and a high lake level pounded and overtopped the recently
completed works. Although minor problems were noted at a well—
attended public meeting on the project that evening, the public
9
-------
expressed strong approval of the completed work. The contractor
agreed to correct all noted problems. A subseqeunt May 26 telephone
call from a lake association member concerned over the design sta-
bility of the riprap work was resolved with a May 21 boat tour of
project areas.
The EPA Project Officer and local Project Manager jointly ex-
amined project works again June 21. The need to make repairs on a
project stabilized area at Inspiration Point in Codington County’s
Memorial Park became apparent, however, after the lake level had
receded to normal elevation.
During late 1978, the Project Manager developed tentative
plans for adding rock to the Inspiration Point area, secured cost
estimates, and attempted to put together enough funding and locate
a contractor to do the needed repair work. Although the original
contractor verbally indicated a willingness to undertake the repair
work, heavy snows covered the area early in the winter and the work
was delayed. Abnormally high lake levels occurred again in the
spring of 1979 and caused further erosion damage at the Inspiration
Point site. The need to secure supplemental EPA grant funds for
the repair work and unavailability of Project Engineer’s staff to
supervise the work delayed a project completion to April, 1981. A
supplemental EPA 50% cost—sharing grant of $7,310 was received on
7/31/80 and used to successfully complete the project.
10
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SELECTION AND DESIGN OF PROJECT AREAS TO MAXIMIZE BENEFIT TO LAKE
AND MINIMIZE BENEFIT TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS
Lake Kanipeska is a highly developed lake with about 600 dwell-
ings. Residental land use occupies 75% of the shoreline area.
There are two problems inherent in developing shoreline protec-
tion on a highly developed lake. First, the work provides a direct
benefit to certain private lakeshore property owners as s].oughing
banks are an eyesore and threaten the existence of portions of the
property. This problem is compounded when other landowners have al-
ready expended several thousand dollars to do similar work. Second,
it is very difficult to obtain inexpensive access through private
property to selected sites on the lake because earth—moving equip-
ment and trucks loaded with heavy rock materials can do extensive
damage in moving across landscaped yards.
Areas to be stabilized were selected by a technically oriented
multi—agency task force which ranked the severity of bank erosion
problem areas during a boat inspection tour of the lake shoreline.
Selected areas were the most severe vertical sloughing banks 10 to
20 feet in height. Rock was placed only high enough to protect the
bank from erosive wave action. For most private riprap work, the
entire height of the bank is riprapped for aesthetic purposes. In
addition, landowners from selected site areas were required to grant
free access to the lake prior to preparation of final project plans.
Fortunately, the lake was at extremely low levels during the main
1977 construction period. This allowed the contractor to gain access
to the lake at undeveloped locations and travel along the lakeshore
to gain access to project sites with his heavy equipment.
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF THE TECHNIQUE
The cost of developing shoreline protection on Lake Kampeska
was affected by the uncertainties faced by the contractor in work-
ing in highly developed areas. This is apparent when comparing the
cost per unit length of shoreline protection for Lake Kampeska to
the unit cost for a similarly designed project on the Oakwood Lakes
which are relatively undeveloped and located about thirty miles
away. For Lake Kampeska, the final total cost for 1152 m. (3780 ft.)
11
-------
of shoreline stabilization was S].47,208.80 or a unit cost of $218
per m. ($39 per ft.) of shoreline while for the Oakwood Lakes the
final total cost for 631 m. (2070 ft.) of shoreline was $69,310 or
a unit cost of $100 per m. ($33.50 per linear ft.) of shoreline.
The other main factor affecting the cost of shoreline stabili-
zation is the location and cost of suitable rock materials.
TECHNICAL EFFECTIVENESS
Concurrent Impact of Other Activities
Due to limited sampling it is very difficult to assess the im-
pact of the shoreline protection works on water quality. As noted
earlier, construction of and hookup to a centralized waste collec-
tion system was completed in 1976. The impact of this improvement
would occur over the next several years. Also, 1976—1978 were very
unusual hydrologic years. Due to a prolonged drought, the lake was
about 163 cm. (64 in.) below full in January, 1977 and 91 cm. (36 in.)
below full in January, 1978. Heavy Big Sioux River spring runoff in
1978 brought the level to 48 cm. (19 in.) above full (1720.0 ft. mean
sea level) in April, 1978. Thus, 1978 spring inflow with its load
of sediments and nutrients raised the lake 139 cm. (55 in.). The
following intensive earth disturbing construction activities on or
immediately adjacent to the lake shoreline also impacted the lake
during the same period: (1) construction of the waste collection
system and hookup to individual residences, (2) installation of both
project and privately financed shoreline protection, and (3) con-
struction of numerous shoreline residences.
Water Quality Evaluation
Although there were no project funds allocated for water qual-
ity monitoring, samples were generally collected and analyzed bi-
monthly during 1976—1978 through a cooperative East Dakota Conser-
vancy Sub—District/South Dakota Department of Environmental Protec-
tion lake monitoring program. A composite of three grab samples
collected at 0.5 m. depth was analyzed for each sampling date at the
S.D. Health Lab in Pierre, South Dakota. Also, although none of the
main water quality labs in the state were equipped to analyze chloro-
phyll a, the Sub—District financed the collection and analysis of
some chlorophyll a samples by Randall Brich, a Department of Biology
graduate student at South Dakota State University.
Some water quality data was collected during 1974—1977 to
attempt to evaluate the impact of the centralized sewer system
being installed. A tabulation and review of that data by Hansen
(1978) is contained in Appendix A. He verifies the difficulty in
detecting with any confidence changes in the lake due to any improve-
ment works when limited data is available.
An evaluation by the South Dakota Department of Water & Natural
Resources—Division of Water Quality of the water quality data col-
lected during and since this project is contained in Appendix B.
12
-------
Visual Observation of Project Effectiveness in Reducing Lake Sedi-
mentation .
It is somewhat difficult to determine the volume of sediments
that did not enter the lake due to the project works during the
high lake levels and strong winds that prevailed during the spring
of 1978. Visual observation, however, made by the EPA Project Of-
ficer, Project Manager and others indicated that two to eight feet
of bank thickness were eroded into the lake from less severe erod-
ing banks which did not receive erosion protection through the
project.
By multiplying the observed average bank erosion of 1.5 m
(5 ft.) in unprotected areas times the average bank height in pro-
ject areas of approximately 3.6 m (12 ft.) times the 1152 m (3780
ft.) of shoreline stabilized through the project, it an be roughly
estimated that the project prevented 6220 m 3 (8400 yd ) of sediment
entering the lake in 1978 alone. Assuming that the bank material
volume would swell by 20% when it became lake bottom sediment and
assuming a dredge removal cost of $1.95 per cubic meter ($1.80 per
cubic yard) it would have cost a roughly estimated $18,144 to remove
this bank material if it had been allowed to enter the lake.
13
-------
REFERENCES
1. State Lakes Preservation Committee, 1977. A plan for the
classification—preservation—restoration of the lakes in north-
eastern South Dakota. State of South Dakota and the Old West
Regional Commission.
2. South Dakota Department of Environmental Protection. 1978.
Unpublished lake significance ranking list.
3. Barari, Assad. June, 1971. Hydrology of Lake Kampeska.
South Dakota Geological Survey for South Dakota Department
of Game, Fish and Parks. Dengell—Johnson F—19—R completion
report.
4. Schmulbach, James C. Final Report 1967—68. Study of the
turbidity—production factors in Lake Kampeska, Codington County,
South Dakota for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and
Parks. Dengell—Johnson Project No. F—20—R—2, Job 1.
5. Hansen, D. R. March 1, 1978. Personal correspondence to
Watertown City Engineer John Babcock.
14
-------
APPENDIX A. EVALUATION OF CENTRALIZED SEWER SYSTEM PROJECT
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH AND PARKS
Box 637
Webster, South Dakota 57274
March 1, 1978
John Babcock
City Engineer
Municipal Building
Watertown, South Dakota 57201
Dear John:
I’ve tabulated and reviewed the data for Lake Kainpeska (see Tables 1
and 2). Using the nutrient concentrations as indicators of water
quality, I could not detect any significant changes. As you can see
from the graphs I’ve included, the concentrations of nutrients do
not follow any distinct patterns that could be attributable to the
sewer system around the lake. The nitrogen parameters would be
most likely affected by the system and if you’ll notice, concentra-
tions of the three parameters vary considerably (except N03) and
tended to be higher in July during 1976 and 1977. This is just
opposite of what you would hope to see.
In my opinion, the data indicated that the baseline study as we are
conducting it will not detect, with any degree of confidence,
changes in the lake due to the sewer system. It appears that the
uncontrollable variables affecting water quality of the lake have a
much greater influence than probable or actual reductions of nutri-
ent input to the lake by installing the sewer system. This is
especially true in a dynamic, productive lake such as Kampeska.
Some of these variables include the input of water and nutrients
from the Big Sioux River, from other runoff sources, and from pre-
cipitation; changes in phytoplankton (algae), higher aquatic plant,
and fish populations; and variations in weather conditions from one
year to another. To account for all of these factors in relation
to expected water quality benefits from the sewer system, would re-
quire a study of much greater detail, cost, and length of time than
you are presently conducting or are probably willing to embark upon.
I don’t think that what you’ve done so far has been a waste of time
or money. It has provided some baseline data which could be used
for comparisons some time in the future.
15
-------
John Babcock
March 1, 1978
Page 2
Therefore, I recommend that, if possible, you terminate the baseline
nutrient study that you are now conducting. I fully recognize the
importance and value of documenting the results of projects that
are designed for the benefit of our lakes. However, I also think
that we have to be realistic about our capabilities to evaluate
these projects.
There is a possibility of continuing to monitor water clarity by
using a secchi disc. This is a simple method that could be done
inexpensively with volunteer help, but would have to be done regu-
larly. This parameter may be more relevant and useful to you than
the chemical data. If you would like to talk about this some time
and possibly get a program like this going, I would be happy to
meet with you. It often helps to get the local people involved in
something like this, too.
Give me a call if you have any questions or would like further
information.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Hansen Is!
Douglas R. Hansen
Research Biologist
DRH/d
cc: Jack Opitz
Enclosure
16
-------
Table 1. Mean concentrations (mg/i) of nutrients at three Lake
Kampeska in—lake stations.
1974 1976 1977
NO 3 March 0.23 0.03 0.15
April 0 0 0
July 0.03 0 0.08
N1 3 March 0.06 0 0.70
April 0 0 0.47
July 0 0.72 0.42
Org N March 0.68 1.60 0.31
April 0.72 0.65 1.56
July 0.52 0.93 0.61
0—P0 4 March 0.69 0.67 0.58
April 0.64 0.64 0.56
July 0.36 0.17 0.68
T—P0 4 March 0.80 0.70 0.81
April 0.73 1.28 1.48
July 0.63 0.42 1.10
Table 2. Nutrient concentrations (mg/l) at inlet—outlet (Station 1)
of Lake Kampeska.
1974 1976 1977
N03 March 0.50 0 0.41
April 0.08 0 0
July 0.02 0 0.05
NH3 March 0.30 0.42 1.00
April 0 0 0.50
July 0 1.10 0.45
Org N March 1.03 2.40 0.59
April 0.98 0.65 1.27
July 0.70 1.68 0.11
0—P0 4 March 0.16 0.51 0.89
April 0 0.04 0.07
July 0.17 0.60 0.27
T—P0 4 March 0.21 0.90 1.10
April 0.27 0.28 0.50
July 0.54 1.56 0.58
17
-------
APPENDIX . WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Sampling was initiated in the fall of 1976 and continued through
spring of 1978 to determine the effects of shoreline riprapping on in—
lake water quality. Samples were collected near the Jackson Park area
and near South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks access areas in the northwest
and southwest quadrants. These three grab samples were collected and
composited for analysis. Samples were collected with a Van Dorn bottle
at approximately 0.5 m depth. Since samples were composited no valid
statistical analysis could be performed on the results so the following
analysis is based on observation of general trends within the data.
Seasonal trends as influenced by natural factors within the Lake
Kampeska ecosystem were evident (Table 1) but trends or water quality
changes affected by the project work were limited at best (Tables 2—4).
Total solids, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and con-
ductivity showed no definite trends through the sampling period. Fre-
quency and intensity of sampling were probably inadequate to assess the
subtle changes that would be expected from riprapping only a portion of
a large windswept lake. Visual assessment of the benefits to a particu—
lar zone of the lake adjacent to, or in the prevailing wind pattern of
the riprapped area would probably more accurately describe water qual-
ity improvements than the sampling regime that was conducted. During
1978 there was a slight decrease in TS, and conductivity perhaps indi-
cating some measurable improvement related to project works. Samples
collected during sunmier 1979 in conjunction with compilation of the
South Dakota Lakes Classification Survey also show a reduction in TS
values. These water quality changes could be expected as a result of
shoreline erosion control but since construction activities did not end
until late 1977 the changes observed may only reflect t? e cessation of
heavy equipment operating on the project areas. Determinations of the
impact of riprapping activities on water quality of Lake Kampeska are
also limited by sheer size of the riprapped area in comparison to the
entire shoreline. Only a small percentage of the shoreline was treated
for erosion control so even if total control was achieved on those
areas, windblown sediments from untreated areas would easily interfere
with water quality monitoring of project areas (Figure 1).
Future projects of this type should perhaps have a somewhat modi-
fied monitoring and evaluation program. Monitoring of water quality
in proposed riprap areas should commence at least one seasonal cycle
before construction begins and continue through one seasonal cycle
following completion of construction so to include the “control” sea-
sonal time period in post construction monitoring. If this approach
18
-------
is followed a small sample of baseline data can be compared to post
treatment data that has been collected in a similar manner from identi-
cal sites. Emphasis should be placed on physical parameter measurements
such as secci depth, wind direction, speed, and prior duration (i.e.
several days from the same direction prior to sampling), precipitation,
TSS, TDS, TS, and conductivity. These parameters should more directly
reflect the effects of sediment reduction structures or procedures.
Further information regarding Lake Kampeska can be found in the South
Dakota Lakes Classification Survey 1981 and in the South Dakota Depart-
ment of Water & Natural Resources water quality study area report on
Lake Kampeska currently being prepared.
19
-------
Table 1. Lake Kampeska 1976—1978 — Selected Parameters Mean Seasonal
Results.
1976* 1977 1978
NH3—N Spring .09 .035
Summer — .075 .045
Fall .03 .11 —
Winter .19 .80
NO 3 Spring <.10 .38
Summer — ..10
Fall ‘ l .30 —
Winter <1 .42
NO 2 Spring — .01 <‘.01
Summer — .01 .01
Fall NA .01 —
Winter NA .01
T—P0 4 Spring .169 .254
Summer — .229 .288
Fall .332 .380 —
Winter .257 .382 —
O—P0 4 Spring .149 .256
Summer — .187 .249
Fall .191 .316 —
Winter .220 .333
TSS Spring 7.0 16
Summer 23.5 11.5
Fall 20 25 —
Winter 3 6
TDS Spring 443 328
Summer 414 324
Fall 410 408
Winter 451 533
TS Spring 450 344
Summer 438 336
Fall 430 433
Winter 454 539
FECAL COL. Spring 43 4
Summer 13 6.5
Fall . 3 16.5 —
Winter 3 .3 —
COND.4MHO Spring 645/24° —
Summer — — 438/23°
Fall 540/23° —
Winter 680/24°
*One Sample Only
20
-------
Sample Site *
Riprapping
County Memorial
Park & Inspiration
Point
City of
Watertown
Figure 1. Map of Lake Kampeska showing location of project areas
and three water quality monitoring sampe sites.
-------
Table 2. Lake Kampeska 1976 — Selected Parameters.
Date 9—15—76 11—18—76
No. Samples 3 3
NH 3 —N .03 .19
NO 3 l
NO 2 NA NA
T—P0 4 .332 .257
0—Pa 4 .191 .220
TSS 20 3
TDS 410 451
TS 430 454
FECAL COL. 3
COND. NHO 540/23° 680/24°
22
-------
Table 3. Lake Kampeska 1977 — Selected Parameters.
Date 1—19—77 3—8—77 5—4—77 8—9—77
No. Samples 3 1 3 3
1.45 .08 .10 .06
NO 3 .34 (.10 <.10
NO 2 0.00 .01 .01 .01
T—P0 4 .303 .198 .139 .318
O—P0 4 .294 .179 .119 .254
TSS 2.0 13.0 1.0 39.0
TDS - 615 548 337 368
TS 617 561 338 407
FECAL COL. 3 3 3 NA
COND MH0 860/23° 770/24° 520/24° 560/24°
Date 8—31—77 9—27—77 10—28—77 12—4—77
No. Samples 3 3 3 3
N11 3 —N .09 .08 .13 .14
NO 3 .10 .10 .5 .5
NO 2 .01 .01 .01 .01
T—P0 4 .285 NA .380 .461
0—P0 4 .223 .282 .349 .379
TSS 8.0 33.0 17 10
TDS 460 396 420 450
TS 468 429 437 460
FECAL COL. 13 30 4 3
COND. 4 ’MHO 610/22° 550/33° 580/24° 650/24°
23
-------
Table 4. Lake Kampeska 1978 — Selected Parameters.
Date 3—7—78 4—25—78 5—17—78 5—23—78 8—3—78 8—31—78
No. Samples 3 3 2 3 3 3
N11 3 —N .03 .07 <.02 .02 .07 .02
NO 3 .6 .7 . .l <.1 <.1
NO 2 .01 .01 <.01 .01 .01 .01
T—P0 4 — .345 .206 .210 .319 .256
0—P0 4 .478 — .142 .148 .242 .256
TSS 23 6 11 24 4 19
TDS 494 282 286 251 347 301
TS 517 288 297 275 351 320
FECAL COL. <.3 7 3 <3 <3 10
COND. 4 HHO 750/24° 385/22° 385/22° 400/24° 425/23° 450/23°
24
-------
Table 5. Lake Kampeska Chlorophyll a Data secured by East Dakota
Conservancy Sub—District for EPA Lake Restoration Project.
Game, Fish & Parks
Date Jackson Park Area — Access Area
Chl. a (mgIlY Chi. a (mg/i)
7/25/77 11.6 20.9
8/30/77 28.4 34.8
9/26/77 51.1 27.8
10/27/77 6.5 6.2
4/24/78 12.7 14.4
5/22/78 5.4 3.6
7/24/78 9.1 13.2
25
------- |