ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT & COMMUNICATIONS
ENEV 415
Nutrient Loading into the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed
Elena Diebel (200320025)
Parker Trimp (200326372)
Faculty Supervisors: Kevin McCullum & Stephanie Young (University of Regina)
External Supervisors: Etienne Shupena-Soulodre, Alice Davis, Ryan Evans, Don Turner, and Dave
Vandergucht (Water Security Agency)
Table of Contents List of Figures ...... i List of Tables ...... i Abstract ...... ii 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Background Information and Project Motivation ...... 2 2.1 State of the Watershed Report, 2010 ...... 2 2.2 The 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan ...... 5 2.3 Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed Plan ...... 6 2.4 Project Motivation ...... 7 3.0 Objectives and Scope ...... 7 3.1 Objectives ...... 7 3.2 Scope ...... 8 5.0 Methodology ...... 10 5.1 Selecting Communities ...... 10 5.2 Volume of Effluent Discharged ...... 10 5.2.1 Depth Determination using Freeboard Heights ...... 13 5.3 Water Quality Test Results ...... 13 5.4 Per Capita Calculation ...... 14 6.0 Results and Discussion ...... 15 6.1 Total Nutrient Mass Loading into the Qu’Appelle Watershed ...... 15 6.2 Nutrient Management Strategy ...... 20 6.2.1 Indian Head Lagoon ...... 20 6.2.2 Options to Reduce Nutrient Loading from Indian Head Lagoon ...... 25 7.0 Conclusion ...... 38 8.0 Recommendations ...... 40 Acknowledgements ...... 43
Appendix A: Mass Nutrient Loading Results Appendix B: Mass Nutrient Loading Per Capita Appendix C: Condition-Stress-Response Model Indicators Appendix D: Watershed Report Card Appendix E: Indian Head Lagoon Design Plan Appendix F: Loading Results from The Qu’Appelle Mass Balance Project Appendix G: Percent Contribution of Phosphorous and Nitrogen from each Municipality
List of Figures
Figure 1: Generalized Condition-Stress-Response Model for a Watershed
Figure 2: Indian Head Lagoon System
Figure 3: Facultative Lagoon
Figure 4: Lemna Minor
Figure 5: Lemna Gibba
List of Tables
Table 1: Communities contributing to each Tributary
Table 2: Contribution of Nutrient Loading into Tributaries
Table 3: Contribution of Nutrient Loading from Municipal Sources to Pasqua Lake
Table 4: Indian Head Wastewater Nitrogen Concentration
Table 5: Compiled Results on Duckweed Nutrient Uptake
Table 6: Removal of Heavy Metals via Duckweed
Table 8: Recommendations
i Abstract
This study determined the mass nutrient loading from municipal wastewater treatment systems that discharge effluent to the entire Qu’Appelle basin. The mass loading into the watershed from 53 communities over a three-year period (March 2013-March 2016) was
93,119 kg phosphorous and 3,189,514 kg nitrogen. Eleven tributaries in the Lower Qu’Appelle
Watershed were further examined to determine what percent of the total nutrient loading potentially attributed to municipal sources. This examination showed that the tributaries with the highest percent contributions from municipal sources had major cities, specifically Regina,
Moose Jaw and Humboldt, discharging into them.
Nutrient reduction strategies were designed for the Town of Indian Head to determine ways of reducing nutrient loading into the watershed. The proposed design strategies included the chemical precipitation of lagoon phosphorous, and the implementation of aquatic plants to naturally remove nutrients. The effectiveness of the chemicals ferric chloride and aluminum sulfate were investigated and found to be able to reduce effluent phosphorus concentrations to less than 1mg/L. Research was done on how the aquatic plant, Duckweed, performs in wastewater. It was determined that duckweed can remove 0.426g N/m2•day and
0.142gP/m2•day. The benefits of nutrient trading by mitigating runoff from livestock confinement facilities was also determined. It was found that for every upgraded confinement facility of 300 animal units in size, 46.42 kg N/yr and 18.69 kg P/yr was prevented from entering the watershed.
ii 1.0 Introduction
In 2010, the Water Security agency published a State of the Watershed Report for the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed which determined the surface water quality, ground water quality, riparian areas and overall health grade of the watershed to be stressed. High nutrient loading into the Qu’Appelle Lakes have resulted in eutrophication causing excessive algal blooms.
This report will help to develop a better understanding of the significance municipal sewage effluent has on the water quality of the Qu’Appelle watershed compared to other nutrient sources by determining relative contributions from point and non-point sources. This will be done by comparing the magnitude of nutrient loading from municipal effluent in the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed to the total nutrient loading from March 2013-March 2016.
This report will also discuss nutrient reduction strategies, designed with the goal of reducing nutrient loading into the watershed. Reduction strategies were designed for the Town of Indian
Head lagoon, taking into consideration the financial constraints of small communities. Some cost effective options for enhancing lagoon wastewater treatment include the application of the aquatic plant duckweed, and the chemical precipitation of phosphorus. Nutrient trading through upgrades to confined cattle feeding sites to reduce nutrient loading into the watershed will also be discussed.
1 2.0 Background Information and Project Motivation
2.1 State of the Watershed Report, 2010
In 2006, the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority developed a framework for reporting the state of the watershed called ‘State of The Watershed Reporting Framework’. This Framework was developed for the consistent reporting of a standardized set of indicators combined with a rating system to assess and communicate the condition of Saskatchewan's watersheds (Watershed
Authority, 2006). “The State of the Watershed Report 2010”, released March 29th, 2010 includes a number of changes to the methods that had previously been used to assess the state of the watershed. This new report uses a modified Stress-Condition-Response Model to better reflect how water provides multiple services to society and our natural environment (Watershed
Authority, 2010) The new model was created to more accurately reflecting the ways in which human activity and watershed health are related and the impacts the former may have on the latter (Watershed Authority, 2010). Figure 1 depicts a generalized Stress-Condition-Response model
2
Figure 1: Generalized Condition-Stress-Response Model for a Watershed
Based on previous findings, the Water Security Agency (preveiously Saskatchewan Watershed
Authority) determined that there are 5 major categories under which the stressor based indicators could be grouped. Including:
• Water Uses, i.g. Surface Water and Groundwater;
• Human Influences, i.g. Urban Development;
• Agricultural Influences i.g. Crops and Livestock;
• Natural Resource Extractions, and;
• Industrial Influences.
(Watershed Authority, 2010)
3 The full tables detailing the model and it’s criteria for assigning watershed health grades to stressor, condition and response indicators, may be found in Appendix C: Condition-Stress-
Response Model Indicators.
The indicators were chosen based on seven main criteria, as stated by the Water Security
Agency:
.1 Assess Watershed Health - The indicators must be able to characterize some aspect important to watershed health, whether it is a stressor/vulnerability, condition or the capability of a government agency to respond with remediation.
.2 Educational: The indicators must be able to be presented in an understandable way that will inspire the public to learn more about watershed health.
.3 Measure Progress: Indicators must provide some measure of progress between the present and past conditions and the final goal of safe drinking water and reliable water supplies.
.4 Guide more effective resource management: Indicators should provide some general direction to water resource management agencies on priorities and mechanisms for achieving healthier watersheds.
.5 Cost Effective: Indicators must make use of existing information and maximize data sharing, while still offering an effective assessment of watershed health.
.6 Watershed Scale: The scale at which the indicator is presented must match the scale of the phenomenon being measured.
4 .7 Comparable: Indicators must allow for comparison with historic conditions and standards within a watershed, while also allowing for comparison among watersheds.
(Watershed Authority, 2010)
It should be noted that the presence of a stressor does not directly indicate that the health of a watershed has already been impacted, it implies that there is potential for the watershed to become impacted. It should also be noted that measure of the stressors were classified relative to the other watersheds in the study.
The study found that the surface water quality, groundwater quality, riparian health and overall health grade of the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed were all stressed, with ten of the twenty-two stress based indicators being measured as ‘high intensity.’ Considering this result, the overall stress grade for the watershed was ‘high intensity’. The watershed report card from the study may be found in Appendix D: Watershed Report Card.
2.2 The 25 Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan
In October 2012, the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority published a document titled the “25
Year Saskatchewan Water Security Plan.” This forward-thinking document mandated that the quality of Saskatchewan’s surface water and groundwater should be protected through sustainable practice (Watershed Authority, 2012). This document focuses on the concept of source water protection, which is an essential component to minimize contamination risks in a drinking water system (CCME, 2002). This document also recognized the creation of the Water
5 Security Agency (Herein, WSA). The Water Security Agency was a consolidation of governmental water management entities. Having all these management entities under one roof allowed a one-window approach to water regulation in the province (Watershed Authority,
2012).
2.3 Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed Plan
Published in March 2013, the WSA in conjunction with Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed Stewards
Inc. published their plan for the protection of water quality in the Qu’Appelle River Watershed.
The plan centered around eight main goals, all relating to providing high quality drinking water to residents within the watershed without compromising the water quantity in the system. The target goal for the “Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed Plan” was a concentration of 0.34 mg/L of phosphorus and 2.31 mg/L of nitrogen in Pasqua and Echo Lake. The plan outlines strategies and plans to improve water quality from agriculture, industry and municipal effluent. The 8 goals are subdivided into 25 basic objectives which are further broken up into 65 ‘key actions.’
Key actions can be described as explicitly defined tasks which can be undertaken to gradually improve water quality.
This report will focus on is Goal #6: “Wastewater will be managed over time to incrementally move toward the water quality goal contained within the watershed plan, while considering the financial viability of watershed communities” (WSA, 2013). The key action we will be performing is “Key Action 39: The Stewards will support the WSA assessing the impact of total loading wastewater effluent into the Qu’Appelle River Watershed” (WSA, 2013).
6 2.4 Project Motivation
This project will assist WSA and other government bodies in understanding the total mass loading of nutrients from municipal effluent that enters the lower Qu’Appelle Watershed. Our motivation is to assist with the long-term goal of developing a healthy ecosystem with a high quality water supply for people and the environment. Economically viable nutrient reduction strategies for a lagoon system in the watershed will be determined, with the goal of reducing nutrient loading into the watershed.
3.0 Objectives and Scope
3.1 Objectives
The main goal of this project is to determine mass loading from municipal point sources using discharge data and water chemistry results from various municipalities’ lagoons in the
Qu’Appelle Basin. The results will be examined to better understand the significance nutrient loading from municipal sewage effluent has on the watershed compared to other nutrient sources. This new understanding will assist in developing nutrient reduction strategies for the
Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed. This project also aims to identify the benefits of nutrient reduction from non-point sources relative to reduction of nutrients in point sources.
To summarize, the objectives of the project are:
.1 To gain a better understanding of the magnitude of nutrient loading from municipal
effluent that flows into the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed.
7 .2 Determine and implement a localized nutrient management strategy in order to
reduce the nutrient loading into the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed.
.3 Determine the relative contributions of phosphorous and nitrogen between point and
non point sources.
3.2 Scope
The scope of our project summarizes as follows:
.1 Estimate volumes of municipal effluent discharged into the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed from
March 2013 – March 2016.
a. WSA compiled a list of communities which discharge into the Qu’Appelle system.
There are 53 municipalities whose lagoons discharge ends up in the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed that will be analyzed for this study.
b. Work with the WSA to get data on all lagoon discharges from March 2013-2016
(This includes changes in freeboard heights from each discharge event).
c. The area of the lagoon in each municipality will be determined using Google
Earth, and 3:1 side slopes will be assumed for all lagoons.
d. Where information is missing, work with the Environmental Project Officers
(EPO’s) to reach out to the communities to get the information.
e. Assumptions were made and documented for any data that is still missing after
reaching out to the communities. (For example some discharges from flooding
will not have freeboard start heights as the discharge was not planned).
8 .2 Estimate the total nutrient mass loading in the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed from municipal
effluent discharge (March 2013-2016).
a. Water quality data will be obtained for each discharge event
b. Some discharge events have multiple water samples; in this case we will reach
out to the EPOs to find out where each test was taken to determine which one
to base our calculations on.
c. Where information is missing, we will notify the EPO who will reach out to the
community to obtain the data. Where information is not available assumptions
will be made and well documented.
d. This information will be used to calculate the mass of total nitrogen and
phosphorous released during each discharge event.
e. The total nutrient loading can then be determined by combining the total
nitrogen and phosphorous released from each discharge event.
.3 Compare the magnitude of nutrient loading from municipal effluent in the Lower Qu’Appelle
Watershed to the total nutrient loading in the system from March 2013-March 2016.
a. WSA will provide the total nutrient loading values monitored for the Qu’Appelle
system from 2013-2016.
b. Comparing the total loading with loading from municipal effluent will reveal the
relative contributions of point and non-point sources.
.4 Design nutrient reduction strategies
a. Identify a community that discharges high nutrient loads.
b. Determine what proportion of the total current nutrient load can be reduced
9 c. Determine ways to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorous loading in municipal
wastewater effluent entering the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed.
5.0 Methodology
5.1 Selecting Communities
While there are approximately 90 communities with wastewater treatment in the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed not all will be included in this study. Criteria for selection is as follows:
.1 Community must discharge into the effective drainage area, where effluent will
eventually flow intoa tributary that reaches the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed
.2 Effluent discharged must eventually flow into a tributary that reaches the Qu’Appelle
Lake system
.3 Due to the unavailability of data, First Nations communities were not included in this
study
5.2 Volume of Effluent Discharged
In order to calculate the volume of effluent discharged the following formula from Alberta
Agriculture and Forestry, 2012, was used:
V= (d/6)*(At*Ab*4Am)
Where:
V is the Volume of the lagoon cell d is the depth of the lagoon cell
At is the area of the top of the lagoon cell at full supply level
10 Ab is the area of the bottom of the lagoon cell
Am is the area of the midsection of the lagoon cell
SS is the side slope
(Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2012)
In order to calculate the area of the top of the lagoon the following formula was used:
At = L*W
Where:
L is the length of the lagoon cell
W is the width of the lagoon cell
The length and width of each municipalities lagoon system was determined using satellite imaging from Google Earth.
In order to calculate the area of the midsection of the lagoon the following formula was used:
Am= [L-(SS*d)]*[W-(SS*d)] (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2012)
Where:
SS is the side slope
For the purpose of this study a side slope of 3:1 will be assumed for all lagoons.
In order to calculate the area of the bottom of the lagoon the following formula was used:
Ab = [L-(2*SS*d)]*[W-2*SS*d)] (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2012)
11 For some municipalities the Environmental Project Officer (EPO) was able to provide the exact volume released for each discharge during the study period. Municipalities where the volume was provided by an EPO have been indicated in Appendix A: Mass Nutrient Loading Results.
When municipalities were unable to provide enough information to calculate the discharge volume it was assumed the discharge volume during the study period was equal to the water use of that town during the study period. This information was obtained from the ‘Community
Water Use Records’ on the WSA website.
Since the nutrient management plan was designed for Indian Head, the volume calculations for this town were based off of the design criteria for the lagoon expansion, seen in Appendix E.
The Indian Head lagoon design plans states approximately how much effluent was discharged in
2015. This number was compared to the water use records in 2015 to determine an approximation of how much of the water used ends up as effluent. Based on the year 2015, the lagoon treats approximately 106% of the town's water use (higher than 100% likely due to infiltration and inflow into the collection system due to high rainfall that year). This percentage was then applied to the 2014, last 9 months of 2013 and the first 3 months of 2016 water use to determine approximately how much effluent was treated during that period of the study.
12 5.2.1 Depth Determination using Freeboard Heights
The volume of the discharge was calculated using the freeboard height at the start and end of a discharge. These freeboard heights were provided by the Water Security Agency for all discharges between March 2013-March 2016. When communities were non-compliant and failed to record start and end freeboard heights for a discharge a depth of 1.5m was assumed.
However, if the municipality had 1 or more recorded discharges, then an average of the recorded changes in freeboard height was assumed for the discharges where the freeboard height was not recorded. Releases where the freeboard height was unavailable and assumptions were made are highlighted in blue in Appendix A: Mass Nutrient Loading Results, in the ‘Change in Freeboard’ column.
5.3 Water Quality Test Results
All lagoons in Saskatchewan are required to sample the treated effluent that is discharged into fish bearing water for phosphorous and nitrogen midway through the discharge. Water test results for all discharges between March 2013-March 2016 were provided by the Water
Security Agency. Water samples were obtained via a grab sample, which is a single sample that is representative of conditions of the sampling location at a fixed point in time. Since only one sample was taken for each discharge event the results may not be representative of the nutrient concentrations for the entire discharge. The date of the wastewater sample was matched to the freeboard start and end dates of effluent discharges in order to determine which sample went with each discharge for each community.
13 For communities where water use records determined the volume discharged the average of all water samples for that community for that year were used and applied to the discharge volume. When effluent quality samples were unavailable, an average of all water samples
(excluding those for Regina and Moose Jaw) was used. If a municipality had one or more test results for other discharges the average of those tests were used. Test results where the average of all samples were assumed are highlighted in green in Appendix A: Mass Nutrient
Loading Results, in the ‘Total Phosphorous’ and ‘Total Nitrogen’ columns. Test results where the average of the other tests from that specific municipality were used are highlighted in blue in
Appendix A: Mass Nutrient Loading Results, in the ‘Total Phosphorous’ and ‘Total Nitrogen’ columns.
5.4 Per Capita Calculation
Regina and Moose Jaw produce vastly larger amount of phosphorous and nitrogen due to their large populations. In order to account for the population differences the mass of nitrogen and phosphorous was calculated per capita for each municipality to get a better understanding of how well the water was being treated. Population numbers for the calculations were taken from the 2016 Saskatchewan Census.
14 6.0 Results and Discussion
6.1 Total Nutrient Mass Loading into the Qu’Appelle Watershed
Fifty-three communities’ municipal effluent ends up in the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed.
After analyzing wastewater quality results and the volume of effluent discharged by each of these communities, the total mass of phosphorous and nitrogen entering the watershed from these municipal point sources were determined. The total mass nutrient loading in the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed from municipal effluent discharge (March 2013-2016) was 93,119 kg total phosphorous and 3,189,514 kg total nitrogen. A breakdown of each community's contribution can be seen in Appendix A: Mass Nutrient Loading Results.
The WSA completed a Mass Balance Project for the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed. The loading results from the study, which include total loading of nitrogen and phosphorous to the watershed at various locations from March 2013-March 2015, can be found in Appendix F. By comparing the total loading into each tributary to loading from municipal sources that discharge into those tributaries, the relative contributions of point and non-point sources can be determined. For this study, eleven of the larger tributaries in the Lower Qu’Appelle
Watershed will be examined to determine the percent contribution from municipal sources.
The eleven tributaries are as follows: Iskwao Creek, Moose Jaw River at TWP RD 184, Wascana
Creek, Last Mountain Creek, Loon Creek, Jumping Deer Creek, Red Fox Creek, Pheasant Creek,
15 Pearl Creek, and Ekapo Creek. Municipalities contributing to each tributary can be seen in
Table 1.
Tributary Contributing Communities Iskwao Creek Strongfeild Brownlee, Caronport, Milestone, Moose Jaw, Mortlach, Pangman, Moose Jaw River Rouleau, and Wilcox Emerald Park, Fancis, Pense, Pilot Butte, Regina, Sedley, Vibank, Wascana Creek and White City Allan, Chamberlain, Craik, Humboldt, Imperial, Liberty, Meunster, Last Mountain Creek Nokomis, Semans, Raymore, Simpson, St. Gregor, and Watrous Loon Creek Cupar, Earl Grey, and Markinch Jumping Deer Lipton Indian Head Creek Indian Head Red Fox Creek Sintaluta Pheasant Creek Abernathy, Balcarres, Ituna, and Lemberg Pearl Creek Bredenbury, Grayson, and Yarbo Ekapo Creek Broadview and Grenfell Table 1: Communities contributing to each Tributary
The total loading at Pearl Creek has not yet been determined by WSA, therefore, the percent contribution from municipal sources at Pearl Creek could not yet be determined. The percent contribution of phosphorus and nitrogen from municipal sources to the remaining ten tributaries can be seen below in Table 2.
16 Tributary Total Loading into Contribution from % Contribution from Tributary (Tonnes) Municipal Sources (kg) Municipal Sources Phosphorous Nitrogen Phosphorous Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Iskwao Creek 27.5 90.0 23 110 0.08 0.12 Moose Jaw 364.1 1,409.8 7,104 149425 1.95 10.60 River (At TWP RD 184) Wascana 278.1 3,290.1 71,278 2962315 25.63 90.04 Creek Last 16.4 329.1 4,989 30329 30.42 9.22 Mountain Creek Loon Creek 19.3 120.2 318 1745 1.65 1.45 Jumping Deer 12.3 109.6 92 791 0.75 0.72 Indian Head 48.6 198.0 2,267 8622 4.66 4.35 Creek Red Fox 19.9 88.3 50 350 0.25 0.40 Creek Pheasant 68.5 407.7 1,121 8560 1.64 2.10 Creek Pearl Creek ? ? 120 377 N/A N/A Ekapo Creek 94.3 392.0 1,384 6873 2.44 2.70 Table 2: Contribution of Nutrient Loading into Tributaries
Looking at the results, seven out of the ten tributaries have a percent contribution of nutrient loading from municipal sources of less than 5% for phosphorus and nitrogen which shows that nutrient reduction in municipal effluent from these tributaries will likely have minimal impacts on the water quality. The three tributaries most affected by municipal effluent include
Wascana Creek, Moose Jaw River and Last Mountain Creek, which receive effluent from
Regina, Moose Jaw and Humboldt, respectively. Cities have the largest impact on the watershed due to their large volume of discharge, as a result of their higher populations.
Therefore, in order to reduce the stresses on the watershed better results will be seen by improving effluent quality in Regina, Moose Jaw and Humboldt. These three communities
17 account for 81.6% of the phosphorous and 97.46% of the nitrogen being released into the watershed from municipal sources.
Wascana Creek has the highest percent of nutrient contribution from municipal effluent, with
26% of the phosphorous and 90% of the nitrogen loading coming from municipal effluent. This is not surprising since the City of Regina wastewater effluent contributed approximately
92.63% of the total nitrogen mass loading and 73.89% of the phosphorous mass loading into the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed from municipal effluent sources. This large contribution is due to the high population; approximately 76% of the population in this study is located in
Regina. The City of Regina has recently upgraded its facility to reduce phosphorous in the effluent to less than 0.75mg/L and nitrogen to less than 10-14 mg/L based on the season. Had these upgrades been in place during the time of this study, assuming the treatment plant was able to produce effluent with concentrations of 0.75 mg/L phosphorous and 12mg/L nitrogen
(on average), the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed mass nutrient load from municipal sources would have been approximately 8% lower in mass phosphorus loading and 62% lower in mass nitrogen loading. The nutrient loading from municipal sources into Wascana Creek would also drop from 90% to 30% of the total nitrogen loading and from 26% to 23% of the total phosphorous loading.
A breakdown of the percent contribution of nitrogen and phosphorous to the watershed can be found in Appendix G, which shows that of the 53 municipalities included in the study, only two had a contribution of nitrogen greater than 1%, (Regina and Moose Jaw), and only seven
18 communities had a contribution of phosphorous greater than 1% (Regina, Moose Jaw,
Humboldt, Lumsden, Indian Head, Grenfell and Caronport).
The contribution of nutrient loading from municipal effluent was also determined at a point upstream of Pasqua Lake which the following tributaries flow into: Iskwao Creek, Moose Jaw
River, Wascana Creek, Last Mountain Creek and Loon Creek. The municipalities of Craven,
Edenwold and Lumsden also flow through this point and were included in the calculation to determine the percent contribution from municipal sources above Pasqua lake. Table 3 shows approximately 11% of the phosphorous and 55% of the nitrogen that reaches Pasqua Lake is due to municipal effluent.
Total Loading Above Contribution from % Contribution from Pasqua Lake (Tonnes) Municipal Sources Municipal Sources (Tonnes) Phosphorous Nitrogen Phosphorous Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Above Pasqua Lake 783.8 5779.4 86 3,154.37 10.98 54.58 Table 3: Contribution of Nutrient Loading from Municipal Sources at Pasqua Lake
Lastly, the total nutrient loading from municipal sources that reaches Round Lake was determined to be 93, 119 kg of phosphorous and 3,189, 514 kg of Nitrogen. This includes the municipalities that flow into all 10 tributaries as well as Craven, Edenwold, Lebret, Lumsden
Qu’Appelle, Stockholm, Wolseley and Whitewood; for a total of 53 municipalities. The percent contribution from municipal sources at Round Lake could not be determined at this time as the
Water Security Agency has not yet determined the Total Loading for Round Lake from March
2013-March 2016.
19 6.2 Nutrient Management Strategy
In Saskatchewan 92% of wastewater treatment facilities are lagoons. Facultative lagoons are very common in Saskatchewan as they are cost effective for small communities where land widely is available and inexpensive. Lagoon systems themselves are relatively inexpensive to build, simple to operate and when properly designed/maintained, produce a treated effluent that can be discharged with little impact. However, when lagoons are unable to meet the stringent requirements set by the Government, additional treatment methods may need to be considered and implemented to ensure water quality isn’t compromised upon effluent release.
6.2.1 Indian Head Lagoon
Nutrient reduction strategies were designed for the Town of Indian Head. Indian Head was selected for closer analysis due to its close proximity to the Qu’Appelle Lakes, effluent with high phosphorus concentrations, relatively high population (compared to other options), and steadily increasing concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous over the course of the study period. Additionally, most municipalities in the watershed use a similar facultative lagoon system so nutrient reduction strategies designed for Indian Head could be applied to other lagoon systems and experience similar results.
Overall Indian Head was the fourth highest municipal contributor of phosphorous to the watershed, behind Regina, Moose Jaw and Lumsden, and fifth highest contributor of nitrogen, behind, Regina, Moose Jaw, Humboldt, and Lumsden. Over the course of the three-year study
20 period Indian Head released 2,267 kg of phosphorous and 8,622 kg of nitrogen into the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed. Since Indian Head has a population of approximately 1,910 people
(Government of Saskatchewan, 2017), the community generates 1.5 kg of nitrogen per capita and 0.4 kg of phosphorus per capita annually.
Indian Head treats its water using a basic facultative lagoon, seen in Figure 2. The lagoon is comprised of one primary cell and three secondary, or storage, cells. A fourth storage cell is currently being added to accommodate a greater capacity. The primary cell is required to have a surface area large enough to ensure a BOD5 loading less than 30 kg/ha/day. The storage cells must be large enough to hold wastewater for extended periods of time, so solids have time to settle out and disease causing bacteria, parasites and viruses either die or settle out. The cells must be also be large enough so no releases need to take place during the winter months. New regulations require wastewater stored in secondary cells to be stored for at least 220 days.
21
Figure 2: Indian Head Lagoon System
A facultative lagoon facilitates physical, biological and chemical processes that results in wastewater treatment. A typical facultative lagoon generally settles into three layers, which can be seen in Figure 3. The top layer is the aerobic zone and its depth depends on climate, algae present in the water and the amount of sunlight and wind it receives. The top layer also acts as a barrier from odors produced from gases in lower layers. The bottom layer of the lagoon is anaerobic and includes a layer of sludge that forms from the solids that have settled out.
Certain bacteria, protozoa and sludge worms that thrive in anoxic conditions treat the wastewater in the bottom layer. The middle layer is the facultative layer and facilitates both aerobic and anaerobic conditions to varying degrees. Different types of organisms and bacteria
22 are present, depending on the specific condition of each zone, that contribute to wastewater treatment.
Figure 3: Facultative Lagoon
During the study period, the Indian Head lagoon treated approximately 298,000m3 of wastewater annually. The average nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations per year can be seen in Table 4. This data shows that in the last 4 years the discharge from Indian Heads lagoon had an average nitrogen concentration of 10.15mg/L and an average phosphorus concentration of 2.56 mg/L. While there are no recommended limits for total nitrogen or total phosphorous in wastewater effluent, the WSA will set limits for specific facilities on a case-by-case basis. For discharges into fish-bearing water, a typical recommendation for phosphorous concentration is less than 1 mg/L.
23 Phosphorous Nitrogen Concentration Concentration (mg/L) (mg/L)
2013 1.34 2.2 2014 1.79 4.56 2015 3.88 18.4 2016 3.3 15.43 Table 4: Indian Head Wastewater Nitrogen and Phosphorous Concentrations
According to the Indian Head lagoon design, the influent characteristics of the wastewater, seen in Appendix E, are approximately 2.5mg/L of phosphorous and 9.5 mg/L of nitrogen. This means the lagoon was operating effectively in 2013 and 2014 to reduce phosphorous and nitrogen, however, some issues may have occurred to prevent proper treatment in 2015 and
2016 as there was an increase in both phosphorous and nitrogen compared to what is typically seen in the influent. Unrepresentative grab samples taken in areas of high nutrient concentrations in 2015 and 2016 could also explain the elevated levels. The lagoon may also be over capacity and therefore the detention period may not be long enough to effectively remove the nitrogen and phosphorus, however, a lagoon expansion is currently being built in Indian
Head that would address this issue. High amounts of sludge could also explain these high nutrient levels if the solids settling to the bottom of the lagoon are being re-suspended into the system.
24 6.2.2 Options to Reduce Nutrient Loading from Indian Head Lagoon
Lagoon systems are economical to build and operate for small communities, however conversion to a mechanical treatment plant requires substantial capital expenditure and a significant increase in operational and maintenance costs. Therefore, it is more practical to find cost effective approaches to improve lagoon performance.
Phosphorus is removed through a lagoons natural biological treatment, however, even with a properly functioning lagoon, it can be difficult to meet the recommended standard of less than
1 mg/L. The current system removes most of the phosphorous through the uptake by phosphorous accumulating organisms, such as bacteria and algae, and through primary sedimentation as inorganic phosphorus complexes that settle at the bottom of the lagoon.
Phosphorus that hasn’t been removed by organisms or settled to the bottom of the lagoon will leave in the effluent. Rockne and Brezonik’s (2006) study shows that in regions experiencing cold weather approximately 50% of influent phosphorous is removed during the summer-fall treatment period, but only 35% is removed during the winter-spring period. In order to meet phosphorous levels of less than 1 mg/L addition treatment should be considered since 35-50% removal will typically not reduce the phosphorous concentration to less than 1 mg/L. (Rockne,
K.J., & Brezonik, P.L., 2006)
Nitrogen removal in lagoon systems is primarily due to ammonia volatilization and sedimentation. Rocke and Brezonik’s (2006), study shows that Nitrogen removal during the
25 summer-fall period can be as high as 86% and up to 70% during the winter-spring period.
(Rockne, K.J., & Brezonik, P.L., 2006)
The Rockne, Brezonkin study (2006) on ‘Nutrient Removal in a Cold-Region Wastewater
Stabilization Pond’ was done in Minnesota, USA. Minnesota has similar weather patterns as
Saskatchewan, mild to hot summers and frigid winters. Therefore, similar results can be expected for lagoons preforming effectively in Saskatchewan.
6.2.2.1 Duckweed
Nitrogen and phosphorus rich lagoons harbor all the necessary nutrients for the growth of plant life. This suggests that it is possible to lower nitrogen and phosphorus through the application of aquatic plants. The ideal plant candidate would grow quickly and increase its biomass rapidly, it should be able to operate at a wide range of temperatures to accommodate the
Saskatchewan spring-summer-fall conditions, and it should uptake nutrients at a relatively fast rate while being able to survive in wastewater conditions.
Research showed the ideal candidate for this application to be Duckweed. Duckweed is one of the most common free-floating plants in the world. It comes in several genotypes, but this report will focus only on the two major genotypes: Lemna minor and Lemna gibba, pictured in figure 4 and 5, respectively. Lemna minor is composed of one, two, or three leaves measuring up to 8mm and a single root. (Cross, 2015) Lemna gibba, referred to as ‘swollen duckweed’ has slightly larger leaves and a number of roots.
26
Figure 4: Lemna Minor Figure 5: Lemna Gibba
Under ideal conditions, duckweeds are one of the most rapidly reproducing plants globally.
They are able to double their biomass in a span of sixteen hours to two days, (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1999) making them a good low input – high result solution. Duckweed can survive in pH ranges from approximately 5 to 9 (FAO, 1999) so it’s not likely that acidity or alkalinity will be an issue in lagoons since they have a typical pH range of approximately 6.5 to 9 (Hill, 2015). Duckweed is also capable of growing at a temperature range of 6°C to 33°C, while still being able to survive at temperatures as low as
0.5°C (FAO, 1999)
In one experiment, Duckweed was tested in removing phosphorus in small and large batch tests. The influent streams in the small batch had a phosphorus concentration of 5.6mg/L. Over
3 days, the duckweed was able to reduce phosphorus in the effluent to 0.86mg/L. In the large batch test, 100L reactors were able to reduce phosphorus concentrations from 3.16mg/L to
0.32 mg/L, with “continual harvesting and a liquid retention time of 46 days.” (Farrell, 2012)
27 The uptake the nitrogen by the two strains of duckweed was tested to see its viability in wastewater treatment scenarios. Zimmo (2003) compiled data on tests done in lagoons around the world, shown in table 5. The average value of daily removal of nitrogen from the studies was 0.426 g/m2•d. Averaging these values with the previously obtained phosphorus uptake rate gives a new value of 0.142 g/m2•d. The data under “USA” was done in a lab experiment, whereas the others were done in lagoons, so it was excluded from the average. (Zimmo, 2003)
Region Species Daily Removal of Daily Removal of
Nitrogen (g/m2•d) Phosphorous (g/m2•d)
Louisana Duckweed 0.47 0.16
Italy L.gibba/L.minor 0.42 0.01
USA Lemna 1.67 0.22
India Lemna 0.5-0.59 0.14-0.30
Minnesota Lemna 0.27 0.04
Table 5: Compiled Results on Duckweed Nutrient Uptake
- It was found that uptake is better when the duckweed grows in water present when the NH4
+ ion is present. Duckweed grows best an optimum range between 10-14 mg NH4 /L, but still
+ shows promising results at lower concentrations (Zhang et al., 2013). This reduction in NH4 will effectively reduce the total nitrogen in the system.
28 The approximate removal of nitrogen and phosphorus in a lagoon can be estimated using removal rates of 0.426 g/m2•d for nitrogen and0.142 g/m2•d for phosphorus. Assuming that half of the year is within the optimal range for duckweed growth, and on average the surface area of secondary cell #2 would be 75 percent full during that time, the nutrient removal may be determined using the equation:
!"#$%&#' = 0.75- • / • 0
Where:
mremoved = mass of nutrients removed (g)
R = rate of nutrient uptake by duckweed (g/m2•d)
A = Area of lagoon cell (m2) t = growing season (days)
Using Storage Cell #2 in Indian Head:
7 ' <7 ! = 0.75(0.426 )• 0.5(365 )•(17,300 m2)( )= 1,008.74 kg Nitrogen/yr 1,"#$%&#' $8•' :" =>>>7
7 ' <7 ! = 0.75(0.142 )• 0.5(365 )•(17,300 m2)( )= 335.46kg Phosphorus/yr ?,"#$%&#' $8•' :" =>>>7
Over the 3-year study period, this would amount to 3026.22kg N, and 1006.38 kg P removed from the municipal effluent, equaling 35% removal and 44% removal for nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively. Therefore, if Duckweed was implemented during the course of the 3- year period only 5595 kg of Nitrogen would have been released instead of 8621kg and 1260kg of phosphorous would have been released instead of 2267 kg, assuming the nitrogen and phosphorus would be removed from the released nitrogen and phosphorus. This would reduce the total nutrient loading from municipal sources into the Indian Head Creek from 4.66% to
2.59% for phosphorus and from 4.35% to 2.83% for nitrogen.
29
Duckweed is also extremely effective for removing heavy metals from wastewater. A study performed in 2015 found that duckweed had an ability to remove between 60.1% to 98.1% of lead the in water at 2mg/L at 9 pH and 10mg/L at 7 pH, respectively (Verma & Suthar, 2015).
Another Study tested the removal of iron, copper, cadmium, chromium, and zinc, the results of which are shown in Table 6 (Mishra, 2008).
Removal of heavy metals through Duckweed Heavy Concentratio % Removal metals ns (mg/L) Fe 1 83.5 2 81 5 77.5 Cu 1 91 2 83 5 76 Cd 1 63 2 71 5 65 Cr 1 83 2 75 5 62 Zn 1 90 2 92 5 82 Table 6: Removal of Heavy Metals via Duckweed
The practice of using duckweed in wastewater treatment systems has already begun in a select few places. The town of Sparta, Georgia has already begun using duckweed as part of its wastewater treatment system and is converting the large amount of biomass into biofuel
(Advanced Biofuel USA, 2016). Other uses for the plants have been to use them as feed since duckweed had a very high protein content (38 to 45% by weight) and contains a number of essential fatty acids. The remaining dry matter is highly digestible by fish, chicken, cattle, and
30 pigs. (Leng et al., October 1995). Another possible application for duckweed would be to compost the biomass and use it as a fertilizer input to get use from the nitrogen and phosphorus removed from the lagoon.
One of the drawbacks to using duckweed is that it requires regular removal due to its high rate of reproduction. For use in Saskatchewan, we recommend growing the duckweed on a floating screen, for the sake of making collection easier. A second option for removal could be to use a surface skimmer. This could be either manually or mechanically operated. The final method of removal could be to construct a collection system on the end of the lagoon that the prevailing winds blow towards. It would be best if the duckweed was grown in a lagoon which wasn’t at the end of the process train so that this collection unit could be placed between two storage cells. Duckweed can be invasive if not treated properly, but since lagoons discharge to moving water in creeks, this is not likely to be a problem since duckweed mostly grows in still water.
Using duckweed leaves opportunities for cost saving in water treatment because of its ability to uptake nutrients and heavy metals. It can lead to profit because it generates a very significant amount of biomass, making it a viable input for a biofuel. Finally, the option to use duckweed as a feed could see profit from selling it to the livestock industry. It should be noted that if the duckweed is being used to remove heavy metals, it will not be suitable for animal feed.
31 6.2.2.2 Chemical Precipitation of Lagoon Phosphorous
Phosphorous removal in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 from the Indian Head lagoon was approximately 46%, 28%, 0% and 0% respectively based on the design influent wastewater characteristics of phosphorous of approximately 2.5mg/L. A typical percentage of removal for properly operated lagoon system is 35-50%, this suggests that even at optimal performance,
Indian Head is unable to achieve a concentration of phosphorous in the effluent of less than 1 mg/L. The addition of a post treatment process is likely the only way to achieve this level of phosphorous. Since phosphorous does not have a gaseous form like nitrogen, the only way to remove it is through sedimentation or precipitation. The addition of a chemical precipitate, such as aluminum sulfate or ferric chloride is recommended as it will convert the phosphorous to a solid which will settle out into the sludge blanket. (Hill, 2015b)
Ontario’s Ministry of Environment initiated a series of research projects on nutrient control in sewage lagoons to reduce concentrations to less than 1 mg/L. Continuous and seasonal discharge lagoons were tested that were all five acres or larger. The study looked at three coagulants - ferric chloride, aluminum sulfate, and lime. The chemicals were distributed throughout the lagoon via a 16 foot boat equipped with a 100-150 gallon tank, chemical feed pump, and outboard motors. A gridwork pattern of boat travel was used and boat speed was adjusted to maximize turbulence. The floc was then formed through chemical precipitation and required a minimum of 15 hours to settle out before discharge began. This discharge period was typically 1-15 days. (Lopez, Ernesto & Pycha Charles, 2003)
32 Five main conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1.) Batch chemical treatment of seasonal lagoons will achieve a phosphorous concentration
of less than 1 mg/L
2.) Effluent quality is comparable to or better than what is achieved by conventional
secondary treatment
3.) Aluminum Sulfate and ferric chloride produced consistently high quality effluent while
lime applications were less effective
4.) The outboard motorboat method of application achieved adequate mixing and dispersal
of the chemical with the lagoon wastewater
5.) Batch chemical treatment is feasible for existing lagoon treatment systems with
adequate retention time for winter storage and is also effective in removing algae
(Lopez, Ernesto & Pycha Charles, 2003)
Table 7 shows that if chemical precipitation had been implemented during the three-year study period, Indian Head would have produced 912 kg of phosphorous, instead of 2267 kg. This is assuming a reduction in phosphorous concentration to 1mg/L; this concentration will likely be even lower during real life applications. The result is at least a 40% reduction of phosphorous in the effluent and mass loading reductions of 451 kg/ year. If this post treatment process had been implemented during the time of this study the percent contribution of phosphorous mass nutrient loading from municipal sources to the Indian Creek tributary would have dropped from
4.66% to 1.88%. Furthermore, the total phosphorous load from municipal sources into the
Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed would have been 1.46% lower.
33
Volume Volume (L) Total Phosphorous Phosphorous Discharged (mg/L) Released (kg) (m3) 237812.25 237812250 1 237.81225 295645 295645000 1 295.645 298935 298935000 1 298.935 79270.75 79270750 1 79.27075 Total 911.663 Table 7: Effects of Chemical Precipitation on Phosphorus
Lagoon operations are generally managed with minimal staff. This option is ideal for Indian
Head since it requires low operational costs and little to no maintenance. Costs to be considered with chemical precipitation include the cost of the chemical, cost of additional sludge removal, application costs, and the cost to calculate the amount of chemical required.
A typical dosage is approximately 150mg/L aluminum sulfate. Since Indian Head treats 298,000 m3 of water annually, 44,700 kg of aluminum sulfate would be required to reduce the effluent concentration of phosphorous to less than 1 mg/L. The cost of aluminum sulfate is approximately $0.18-0.6/kg therefore the annual cost incurred due to chemical costs would be between $8,000-27,000. Since reductions in the phosphorous in the effluent from Indian Head’s lagoon from the addition of aluminum sulfate would be about 451kg, the cost per kg removed is between $18-60.
In order to minimize the cost of this treatment process a long term management plan should be implemented at the Indian Head lagoon to monitor sludge growth and ensure an optimized
34 chemical dosage. Allowing the lagoon to treat the wastewater and remove as much phosphorus as possible prior to adding the coagulant is ideal since less product will be required. Therefore, the water should be treated a few days prior to being discharged, as a post treatment. This will still allow for enough time for the phosphorus to precipitate and settle out for at least the minimum 15 hours recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Jar testing the water prior to the chemical addition is recommended to determine the optimum dosage required so extra isn’t being wasted. Sludge production is increased due to the settling of phosphorous and must be monitored since it will need to be removed more frequently.
6.2.3 Implementation of Nutrient Trading
Nutrient trading is the concept of reducing pollution from one easily manageable source in order to compensate for pollution reduction not being done from a less manageable source.
Since upgrades to municipal effluent systems are costly, it would be wise to examine other sources of pollution that are measurable and controllable in order to determine a more cost effective way to reduce the amount of nutrients entering the Qu’Appelle system.
Wintering cattle sites in Saskatchewan have traditionally been located near rivers and streams.
This poses an issue in the spring when melt occurs. The runoff from the sites carry heavy nutrient concentrations as it flows over the manure in the cattle pens.
35 There are a number of methods ranchers could employ to reduce the impact that cattle have on nearby water sources:
.1 Concentration reduction: One of the easiest ways is to reduce the density of animals
in pens. This could be done by using winter grazing pastures, or bail grazing away from
the wintering site. (Watershed Authority, 2003)
.2 Water Development: If the livestock gets their water source directly from the nearby
body of water, the area around the watering location will become highly impacted. To
mitigate this, it is recommended to develop a winter watering system to eliminate the
need for bringing cattle directly to the water source (Watershed Authority, 2003).
.3 Runoff Control: The most effective method of reducing the impact wintering cattle
have on nutrient loading into streams is by creating dikes and berms to manage the
runoff and divert it into evaporative holding ponds. Care should be taken to ensure this
runoff does not flow toward wells or other water sources (Watershed Authority, 2003).
.4 Manure Management: Management of the manure (removal and spreading) will also
result in reduced nutrient loads.
.5 Relocation: In cases where wintering sites are extremely close to bodies of water, the
wintering sites will need to be relocated.
(Watershed Authority, 2003)
Research done by the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority has shown that on average, the aforementioned improvements cost $33,000 dollars, with a range of $13,000 to $67,000
(Watershed Authority, 2003). However, improvements have been achieved at lower cost
36 inputs. Considering there are 10,000 cattle wintering sites along riparian areas (Watershed
Authority, 2003), the total cost for improvements would be approximately $670 million. It is important to remember that this figure represents all of Saskatchewan, not just the Lower
Qu’Appelle Watershed.
Water tests done by the ministry of agriculture on holding ponds for a cow/calf operation at the base of the wintering site housing 1200 AU (animal units) have shown average concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus of 96.1mg/L and 38.69mg/L, respectively. This holding pond had a volume of 1933m3, meaning that it intercepted a total of 185.76 kg of nitrogen and 74.87 kg of phosphorus at the time of sampling. This works out to 46.42 kg nitrogen and 18.69 kg phosphorous per 300 AU. The figure is expressed in terms of mass per 300 animal units because
300 AU is representative of the size of most operations near the watershed.
Using the high end cost of $67,000 over a 25-year period results in costs $58 per kilogram of nitrogen removed and $143 per kg of phosphorous removed for every 300AU. The cost is a one- time expenditure, so if the life of the upgrades lasts longer than 25 years, the removal rate would be more efficient. It is important to consider that since this calculation uses the low-end size for cattle operations, and the high-end cost for upgrades, the upgrades are likely going to be more economical.
On a provincial scale, if every cattle wintering site in Saskatchewan held 300 AU and received the upgrades mentioned above, then approximately 464.2 tonnes of nitrogen and 186.9 tonnes
37 of phosphorus would be prevented from entering the water systems of Saskatchewan. Since this figure represents the minimum removal for intensive livestock operations (300AU), further studies should be done to fully investigate the positive impact of improvements to wintering sites. The data available was very limited, so the approximated values are based off of a small sample size. The study done was also based on a cow-calf operation, thus research should be done to investigate how improvements to beef cattle farms differs from improvements to cow- calf operations.
7.0 Conclusion
The total mass nutrient loading in the Qu’Appelle Watershed from municipal effluent discharge (March 2013-2016) was 93,119 kg total phosphorous and 3,189,514 kg total nitrogen. While it is important to address poor effluent quality from lagoons in small communities, it will likely have very little impact on the overall health of the Lower Qu’Appelle
Watershed. Cities have the largest impact on the watershed, therefore, in order to reduce the stresses on the watershed better results will be seen by improving effluent quality in Regina,
Moose Jaw and Humboldt. These three communities alone account for 81.6% of the phosphorous and 97.46% of the nitrogen being released into the watershed from municipal sources.
38 Three options have been considered to reduce nutrient loading into the Qu’Appelle Lakes:
.1 Chemical Precipitation of Lagoon Phosphorous
• The addition of a chemical precipitate, such as aluminum sulfate or ferric chloride as a
post treatment is recommended as it will convert the remaining phosphorous to a solid
which will settle out into the sludge blanket
• Relatively low capital cost, and will operate well with existing lagoon configurations
• Potential to reduce Phosphorous concentrations in the Indian Head lagoon effluent by
40%
.2 Duckweed
• Growing duckweed on floating screens in lagoons to increase nutrient uptake by the
rapidly-reproducing aquatic plant life.
• Extremely low input costs, with little to no modifications done to the lagoon structure.
• Nitrogen and Phosphorus uptake rates ~ 0.426g/m2•d and 0.142g/m2•d.
• Applying duckweed to the Indian Head Storage Lagoon #2 could remove an additional
3000 kg nitrogen, and 1000 kg phosphorous over the 3-year study period, reducing the
effluent load by 35% and 44% for nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively.
.3 Implementation of Nutrient Trading via Livestock Operations
• Spending capital on improvements to cattle wintering sites will improve water quality by
stopping nutrient loading in runoff from livestock pens.
39 • Removal rates in 1 year per 300 animal units are 46.42 kg nitrogen and 18.71 kg
phosphorus
• The low-end estimate for Saskatchewan, using a uniform amount of 300AU for every
wintering site, is a reduction of 464.2 tonnes of nitrogen and 186.9 tonnes of
phosphorus.
• Using the high-end cost and a 25 year lifespan the cost of nutrient reduction is $58 per
kilogram of nitrogen removed and $143 per kg of phosphorous removed for every
300AU.
8.0 Recommendations
In order to reduce the stresses on the watershed via municipal effluent point sources, the best results will be seen by improving the effluent quality if the Regina, Moose Jaw and Humboldt
Wastewater Treatment Systems. These three communities alone account for 81.6% of the phosphorous and 97.46% of the nitrogen being released into the watershed from municipal sources.
After investigating possible methods to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in municipal lagoon effluent, recommendations can be made with the goal of reducing nutrient loading into the watershed. The recommendations, seen in table 8, can be implemented in lagoon systems in order to improve water quality of the effluent being discharged.
40 Recommendation Benefits Constraints
Chemical -Low capital cost and operates will with -Lagoon must be larger than
Precipitation of existing lagoon configurations 5 ha (20,230m2) in order to
Lagoon -Reduce phosphorous concentration in accommodate the mixing
Phosphorous effluent to less than 1mg/L method discussed
-Cost of alum: $0.18-
0.60/kg (Typical
dosage:150mg/L)
Duckweed - Low capital cost - Regular harvesting of
- Nutrient uptake rates of approximately biomass required to prevent
0.426gN/m2•d and 0.142gP/m2•d decomposition of plant life
- Reduction in heavy metal concentrations - Minor changes to lagoon
- Biomass has potential for other uses in for harvesting system
biofuel and livestock feed
Table 8: Recommendations
Nutrient Trading to reduce nutrient loading from non-point sources into the watershed is also recommended to help reduce stresses on the watershed.
41 Recommendations for further research and studies include:
.1 Burst loading study
Determine the impact of multiple municipal discharges along the same tributary within a short period of time.
.2 Examine the effects of more frequent sludge removal from facultative lagoons
Determine the impact it has on nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations.
.3 Perform a full study on the potential benefits of nutrient trading, and the differences between cow-calf and beef cattle operations. Additional data is needed on corral sizes in
Saskatchewan in order to obtain a more representative value of nutrient reduction.
42 Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the help and guidance of many individuals and organizations. Apart from our efforts, the success of this project depended largely on the support and guidance of others. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the people that made this project a success.
We would like to thank Etienne Soulodre, Ryan Evans, Dave Vandergucht and Don Turner of the
Water Security Agency (WSA) for their guidance, as well as providing the necessary information regarding this project. We felt extremely motivated and encouraged after every meeting, without your support we could not have made this project happen. We would also like to thank the Environmental Project Officers at WSA; Roger Miller, Gary Papic , Greg Holovach, Rod
Broadfoot, Derrick Hoehn and Jenna Furseth from WSA, for helping us track down missing information that was vital to this project. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated.
We would like to thank Alice Davis from the Lower Qu’Appelle Watershed Stewards for giving us the opportunity to work with the WSA and providing encouragement and guidance throughout the project.
We would like to thank Kevin McCullum and Stephanie Young for agreeing to act as out project supervisors. Your support and expertise on wastewater treatment has been extremely valuable to us.
43 References
Advanced Biofuel USA. (February 22, 2016) Duckweed to Biofuel Plant to set up in Sparta, Ga.
Retrieved March 17th, 2017 from: http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/duckweed-to-
biofuel-plant-to-set-up-in-sparta-ga/
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. (Feb. 23, 2012). Dugout/Lagoon Volume Calculator. Retrieved
on October 12th, 2017 from:
https://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/app19/calc/volume/dugout.jsp
Bell, Michael (Febuary 27, 2017) New $21.9M wastewater facility will service White City and
Emerald Park. Leader Post. Retrieved March 16th, 2017 from
http://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/new-21-9m-wastewater-facility-will-
service-white-city-and-emerald-park
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (May 16, 2002). Volume 132. Issue 4
Nutrient Removal in a Cold-Region Wastewater Stabilization Pond: Important of
Ammonia Volatilization. From Source To Tap: The multi-barrier approach to safe
drinking water. Retrieved on Feb 28th, 2017 from:
http://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/water/source_tap/mba_eng.pdf
Cross, J.W. Ph.D. (March 2015) The Charms of Duckweed: An introduction to the smallest
flowering plants. Missouri Botanical Garden. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from
http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/duckweed.htm
Farrell, J.B. (2012) Duckweed Uptake of Phosphorus and Five Pharmaceuticals. Utah State
University Digital Commons. Retrieved March 17th 2017, from
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=etd
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1999) Duckweed: A tiny aquatic plant
with enormous potential for agriculture and environment. Retrieved on March 16th,
2017 from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/DW/Dw2.htm
Government of Saskatchewan. (February 7, 2017). Census and Population. Retrieved February
28th, 2017 from: http://www.stats.gov.sk.ca/pop/
Hill, Patrick (March 20th, 2015a) Using Lagoon pH as a Diagnostic Tool. Triplepoint Water
Technologies. Retrieved March 17, 2017 from
http://www.triplepointwater.com/wastewater-lagoon-ph/#.WMxuKxLytdg
Hill, Patrick (November, 2015b). Wastewater Lagoons Phosphorous Removal Methods.
Triplepoint Water Technologies. Retrieved March 10th, 2017 from:
http://www.triplepointwater.com/lagoon-phosphorus-removal/#.WMxxmhIrJsM
Lang, R.A., Stambolie, J.H., & Bell, R. Duckweed – a high protein feed resource for domestic
animals and fish. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 7(1). Retrieved March 17,
2017, from http://www.fao.org/Ag/aga/AGAP/FRG/FEEDback/lrrd/lrrd7/1/3.htm
Lopez, Ernesto & Pycha Charles. (2003). An Informational Resource for Operations of Lagoon
Systems. Municipal Wastewater Lagoon Removal. Retreived March 3rd, 2017 from:
http://www.lagoonsonline.com/phosphorous.htm
Marketwired (July 31, 2015) Twenty Six Infrastructure Projects in Saskatchewan Get Federal
and Provincial Funding. Retrieved March 16th, 2017 from
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/twenty-six-infrastructure-projects-
saskatchewan-get-federal-provincial-funding-2044228.htm
Rockne, K.J., & Brezonik, P.L. (2006). Nutrient Removal in a Cold-Region Wastewater
Stabilization Pond: Importance of Ammonia Volatilization. Journal of Engineering,
132(4), 451-459. Retrieved March 5th, 2017 from:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-
9372%282006%29132%3A4%28451%29
Water Security Agency. (October, 2016). Water Use Records. Retrieved on January 5th, 2017
from: https://www.wsask.ca/About-WSA/Publications/Community-Water-Use-
Records/
Watershed Authority (2003). Stewardship and economics of cattle wintering sites. Regina
Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food & Rural Revitalization: Saskatchewan Wetland
Conservation Corporation
Zhang, K., Chen, Y.P., Zhang, T.T., Zhao, Y. Shen, Y., Huang, L., Gao, X., & Guo, J.S. The logistic
growth of duckweed (Lemna minor) and kinetics of ammonium uptake. Retrieved March
17, 2017 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09593330.2013.837937
Appendix A: Mass Nutrient Loading Results
Abernathy
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 6,111.8 23,518.1 5,651.7 0.5 2940.1 2940134 0.32 2.8 0.94 8.23 2 6,111.8 21,713.6 4,785.5 1.5 8152.7 8152737 2.11 10.5 17.20 85.60 3 6,111.8 22,606.9 5,209.6 1 5654.7 5654713 0.95 3.5 5.37 19.79 4 6,111.8 22,606.9 5,209.6 1 5654.7 5654713 0.41 1.9 2.32 10.74 5 6,111.8 22,068.8 4,953.0 1.3 7178.9 7178938 1.58 10.1 11.34 72.51
Total 37.18 196.88
Allan
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 30,864 117,607 27,975 1.4 41171 41170584 2.1 9.9 86.46 407.59 2 30,864 119,263 28,786 1 29819 29818800 0.71 2.5 21.17 74.55 3 30,864 117,607 27,975 1.4 41171 41170584 2.9 11 119.39 452.88 4 30,864 116,372 27,374 1.7 49473 49472805 3.2 11 158.31 544.20 5 30,864 117,607 27,975 1.4 41171 41170584 2.9 11 119.39 452.88 6 30,864 120,096 29,196 0.8 24021 24020688 1.8 1.1 43.24 26.42
Total 547.97 1958.51
Balcarres
Volume Volume (L) Total Total Nitrogen Phosphorous Released Nitrogen Released Released** Phosphorous (mg/L) (kg) (kg) (m3) (mg/L)
2013 Spring 32133 32133000 3.48 25.1 111.82 806.53 2013 Fall 48874 48874000 0.98 25.6 47.89 1251.17 2014 Spring 68062 68062000 4.53 20.4 308.32 1388.46 2014 Fall 50346 50346000 1.82 14.2 91.62 714.91 2015 Spring 58164 58164000 2.83 20.7 164.60 1203.99 2015 Fall 49747 49747000 1.34 12.5 66.66 621.83 2016 Spring 51877 51877000 1.9 22.9 98.56 1187.98
Total 889.50 7174.91
**Volume Released was based on the towns water use records
Bredenbury
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharge Phosphorou Nitrogen s Released Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 21,305 81,379 19,403 1 20348 20347758 0.13 0.8 2.65 16.28 2 21,305 81,379 19,403 1 20348 20347758 2.19 10.2 44.56 207.55 3 21,305 81,379 19,403 1 20348 20347758 1.03 1.1 20.96 22.38 4 21,305 81,379 19,403 1 20348 20347758 0.49 1.2 9.97 24.42 5 21,305 81,379 19,403 1 20348 20347758 1.34 1.4 27.27 28.49
Total 105.40 299.11
Broadview
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge Phosphorou Nitroge Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) n (kg) (mg/L) 1 29,662 112,526 26,642 1.5 42207 42207294 0.12 2.3 5.06 97.08 2 29,662 112,526 26,642 1.5 42207 42207294 1.63 8.2 68.80 346.10 3 29,662 112,124 26,446 1.6 44862 44861696 0.2 3.4 8.97 152.53 4 29,662 113,332 27,035 1.3 36840 36839644.4 0.67 5.02 24.68 184.94 5 29,662 113,332 27,035 1.3 36840 36839644.4 1.04 6.1 38.31 224.72 6 29,662 112,526 26,642 1.5 42207 42207294 0.35 5.1 14.77 215.26
Total 160.60 1220.62
Brownlee
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen s Released Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 4,676.0 18698.6 4673.3 2 9349.29 9349293 2.03 9.67 18.98 90.41 2 4,676.0 18696.7 4672.4 2.7 12620.29 1262028 2.03 9.67 25.62 122.04 6 3 4,676.0 18699.9 4674.0 1.5 7012.47 7012470 2.03 9.67 14.24 67.81 4 4,676.0 18699.9 4674.0 1.5 7012.47 7012470 2.03 9.67 14.24 67.81
Total 73.07 348.07
Caronport
Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen Discharged* (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 62560 62560000 5.19 31.3 324.6864 1958.128 62560 62560000 0.4 13.5 25.024 844.56 62500 62500000 4.35 27.2 271.875 1700 76500 76500000 2.37 14 181.305 1071 69533 69533000 4.93 27 342.79769 1877.391 69533 69533000 0.76 13.3 52.84508 924.7889
Total 873.85 6,417.74
*Actual volume discharged was provided by the EPO
Chamberlain
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 3,107 10,459 2,163 1.5 3932 3932170 2.39 16.5 9.40 64.88 2 3,107 10,459 2,163 1.5 3932 3932170 0.16 3.1 0.63 12.19 3 3,107 10,459 2,163 1.5 3932 3932170 0.08 1.3 0.31 5.11
Total 10.34 82.18
Craik
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 25,638 98,685 23,723 1 24674 24674240 2.59 16.5 63.91 407.12 2 25,638 97,920 23,348 1.2 29381 29381258 1.03 2.4 30.26 70.52 3 25,638 97,920 23,348 1.2 29381 29381258 0.2 4.35 5.88 127.81 4 25,638 97,920 23,348 1.2 29381 29381258 1.07 5.9 31.44 173.35 5 25,638 97,920 23,348 1.2 29381 29381258 0.7 3.4 20.57 99.90
Total 152.05 878.69
Craven
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitroge s Released Released d (m3) (mg/L) n (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 7,291 26,490 5,984 1.3 8616 8615763 3.56 20.3 30.67 174.90
Total 30.67 174.90
Cupar
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen s Released Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 21,239 82,992 20,262 0.55 11412 11411868 4.12 20.3 47.02 231.66 2 21,239 80,942 19,255 1.13 22871 22870518 1.32 6.9 30.19 157.81 3 21,239 77,913 17,789 2 38981 38980706 3.13 15.4 122.01 600.30 4 21,239 81,400 19,478 1 20353 20352883 0.47 2.8 9.57 56.99 5 21,239 81,576 19,565 0.95 19377 19376808 0.95 4.8 18.41 93.01
Total 227.19 1139.77
Earl Grey
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 6287 23,269 5,365 1 5820 5820125 2.47 21.6 14.38 125.71 2 6287 22,355 4,931 1.5 8393 8393250 1.7 8.4 14.27 70.50 3 6287 21,460 4,514 2 10754 10753750 2.1 15 22.58 161.31 4 6287 23,269 5,365 1 5820 5820125 2.1 15 12.22 87.30 5 6287 23,269 5,365 1 5820 5820125 2.1 15 12.22 87.30
Total 75.67 532.13
Edenwold
Release At 4Am Ab Chang Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen e in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitroge Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) n (kg) (mg/L) 1 9802 37,060 8,742 0.9 8341 8340588 1.5 19.3 12.51 160.97 2 9802 37,060 8,742 0.9 8341 8340588 0.12 6.3 1.00 52.55 3 9802 37,060 8,742 0.9 8341 8340588 3.38 14.9 28.19 124.27 4 9802 37,060 8,742 0.9 8341 8340588 1.7 13.5 14.18 112.60
Total 55.88 450.39
Emerald Park
Release Water Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen Discharged* Phosphorous Nitrogen Released Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 63645 63645000 3.08 6.7 196.03 426.42 2 145474 145474000 1.83 7.9 266.22 1149.24 3 90921 90921000 1.64 7.9 149.11 718.28
Total 611.35 2,293.94
*Actual volume discharged was provided by the EPO
Francis
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitroge Released (kg) Released (m3) (mg/L) n (kg) (mg/L) 1 5400 19,966 4,598 0.9 4495 4494528 0.54 1.6 2.43 7.19 2 5400 19,966 4,598 0.9 4495 4494528 4.06 26.4 18.25 118.66 3 5400 19,966 4,598 0.9 4495 4494528 3.77 17 16.94 76.41
Total 37.62 202.25
Grenfell
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitroge Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) n (kg) (mg/L) 1 60000 231,081 55,581 1.5 86666 86665500 7.85 34.4 680.32 2981.29 2 60000 231,081 55,581 1.5 86666 86665500 0.59 2.2 51.13 190.66 3 60000 228,144 54,144 2 114096 114096000 1.17 7.8 133.49 889.95 4 60000 228,144 54,144 2 114096 114096000 1.32 6.8 150.61 775.85 5 60000 234,036 57,036 1 58512 58512000 1.9 2.5 111.17 146.28 6 60000 234,036 57,036 1 58512 58512000 1.23 7.72 71.97 451.71 7 60000 231,081 55,581 1.5 86666 86665500 0.29 2.5 25.13 216.66
Total 1223.83 5652.42
Grayson
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released Released (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 4,734 16,484 3,549 1.5 6192 6191757 2.22 11.6 13.75 71.82
Total 13.75 71.82
Humboldt
Release Cel At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen l # in FB Discharge (L) Phosph- Nitrogen s Released Released d (m3) orous (mg/L) (kg) (kg) (mg/L) 1 5 125476 494,679 121,875 0.8 98937 98937344 3.5 20 346.28 1978.75 1 6 85360 327,862 78,629 1.8 147556 147555504 3.5 20 516.44 2951.11 2 5 125476 496,481 122,771 0.6 74473 74472792 0.27 2.1 20.11 156.39 2 6 85360 328,236 78,813 1.75 143619 143619438 0.27 2.1 38.78 301.60 3 5 125476 487,947 118,541 1.55 189091 189090824 2 20 378.18 3781.82 3 6 85360 328,236 78,813 1.75 143619 143619438 2 20 287.24 2872.39 4 5 125476 489,291 119,205 1.4 171260 171259928 0.89 5.4 152.42 924.80 4 6 85360 332,362 80,847 1.2 99714 99713856 0.89 5.4 88.75 538.45 5 5 125476 495,129 122,099 0.75 92838 92838000 1.2 15 111.41 1392.57 5 6 85360 335,754 82,527 0.75 62955 62955188 1.2 15 75.55 944.33 6 5 125476 488,395 118,762 1.5 183158 183158250 1 4.9 183.16 897.48 6 6 85360 326,816 78,116 1.94 158528 158527649 1 4.9 158.53 776.79
Total 2356.83 17516. 5
Imperial
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen s Released Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 21635 79,043 17,959 2 39546 39545520 0.83 2.3 32.82 90.95 2 21635 82,755 19,761 1 20692 20691780 1.15 3.9 23.80 80.70 3 21635 80,890 18,851 1.5 30344 30343905 0.65 1.4 19.72 42.48 4 21635 81,820 19,304 1.25 25575 25574719 0.7 1.6 17.90 40.92
Total 94.24 255.05
Indian head
Discharge Water Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen Period Discharged* (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (kg) (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L)
2013 (9 mo.) 237812.25 237812250 1.34 2.2 318.67 523.17 2014 295645 295645000 1.785 4.65 527.73 1374.75 2015 298935 298935000 3.8775 18.4 1159.12 5500.40 2016 (3 mo.) 79270.75 79270750 3.3 15.43 261.59 1223.15
Total 2,267.11 8,621.49
*Volume discharge data based on design data for Indian Head Lagoons and towns water use data
Ituna
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB* Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 49600 195,589 48,199 0.5 24449 24449000 0.67 1.6 16.38 39.12 2 49600 195,589 48,199 0.5 24449 24449000 0.78 1.7 19.07 41.56
Total 35.45 80.68
*Since Ituna uses an evaporation cell a depth of 0.5m was used
Lemburg
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 2.19 13 33.93 201.39 2 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 0.72 1.6 11.15 24.79 3 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 0.58 3.8 8.99 58.87 4 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 2.01 9.5 31.14 147.17 5 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 0.78 9.9 12.08 153.37 6 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 0.61 10.4 9.45 161.11 7 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 1.76 13.5 27.27 209.14 8 11257 41,284 9,426 1.5 15492 15491676 1.61 9.8 24.94 151.82
Total 158.94 1107.65
Lebret
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 13,718 50,738 11,691 1.5 19037 19036840 0.38 1.8 7.23 34.27 2 13,718 50,738 11,691 1.5 19037 19036840 0.5 1.8 9.52 34.27
Total 16.75 68.53
Lipton
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 1.61 12.9 20.14 161.40 2 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.44 10.2 5.51 127.62 3 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.53 3.4 6.63 42.54 4 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.49 2.7 6.13 33.78 5 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.43 3.7 5.38 46.29 6 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.3 3.3 3.75 41.29 7 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 1.41 8.7 17.64 108.85 8 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.78 4 9.76 50.05 9 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.4 2.9 5.00 36.28 10 9177 33,337 7,532 1.5 12512 12511620 0.99 11.4 12.39 142.63
Total 92.34 790.73
Liberty
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 4512 15,696 3,377 1.5 5896 5896216 3.22 23.2 18.99 136.79 2 4512 15,696 3,377 1.5 5896 5896216 0.23 1.9 1.36 11.20
Total 20.34 148.00
Lumsden
Water Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen Discharged* Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (kg) (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) 2013 233841 233841000 3.04 13 710.87664 3039.933 2014 258306 258306000 3.04 13 785.25024 3357.978 2015 262900 262900000 3.04 13 799.216 3417.7
Total 2,295 9,816
*Water discharged based on water use of town
Markinch
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 1428 4,425 825 1.5 1669.5 1669500 2.6 15.9 4.34 26.55 2 1428 4,628 914 1.25 1452 1452188 2.6 15.9 3.78 23.09 3 1428 4,836 1,008 1 1212 1212000 2.8 6.4 3.39 7.76 4 1428 4,425 825 1.5 1669.5 1669500 2.4 9.5 4.01 15.86
Total 15.52 73.25
Milestone
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitroge s Released Released (m3) (mg/L) n (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 34960 138,012 34,049 0.4 13801 13801408 1.6 7 22.08 96.61 2 34960 133,045 31,603 1.5 49902 49902000 1.6 7 79.84 349.31 3 34960 133,045 31,603 1.5 49902 49902000 1.6 7 79.84 349.31
Total 181.77 795.24
Moose Jaw
Date Effluent Total Flow Volume (L) Total P Total N (mg/L) Phosphorous Released Nitrogen (m3) (mg/L) (kg) Released (kg) Jan-13 343493 343493000 0.44 8.26 151 2,837 Feb-13 346179 346179000 0.56 7.26 194 2,513 Mar-13 331906 331906000 0.41 6.2 136 2,058 Apr-13 0 0 0 0 - - May-13 0 0 0 0 - - Jun-13 0 0 0 0 - - Jul-13 486769 486769000 0.48 10.2 234 4,965 Aug-13 474397 474397000 0.43 6.5 204 3,084 Sep-13 402835 402835000 0.33 10.8 133 4,351 Oct-13 404104 404104000 0.37 12.2 150 4,930 Nov-13 386066 386066000 0.35 10 135 3,861 Dec-13 384328 384328000 0.23 13.7 88 5,265 Jan-14 391810 391810000 0.38 14 149 5,485 Feb-14 188066 188066000 0.44 13.5 83 2,539 Mar-14 303932 303932000 0.54 12.7 164 3,860 Apr-14 449319 449319000 0.56 10.8 252 4,853 May-14 355104 355104000 0.5 14.3 178 5,078 Jun-14 0 0 0 0 - - Jul-14 506881 506881000 0.49 12.8 248 6,488 Aug-14 471988 471988000 0.52 10.7 245 5,050 Sep-14 515842 515842000 0.38 13.6 196 7,015 Oct-14 478525 478525000 0.37 14 177 6,699 Nov-14 388009 388009000 0.3 12.7 116 4,928 Dec-14 389676 389676000 0.34 13.5 132 5,261 Jan-15 377171 377171000 0.35 14.4 132 5,431 Feb-15 332036 332036000 0.36 12.8 120 4,250
Mar-15 288749 288749000 0.42 12.9 121 3,725 Apr-15 380626 380626000 0.39 13.3 148 5,062 May-15 272741 272741000 0.37 9.8 101 2,673 Jun-15 0 0 0 0 - - Jul-15 0 0 0 0 - - Aug-15 0 0 0 0 - - Sep-15 0 0 0 0 - - Oct-15 226361 226361000 0.43 13.5 97 3,056 Nov-15 380266 380266000 0.41 17.5 156 6,655 Dec-15 366946 366946000 0.41 10.3 150 3,780 Jan-16 355579 355579000 0.34 9.7 121 3,449 Feb-16 326866 326866000 0.42 10 137 3,269 Mar-16 349240 349240000 0.38 10.9 133 3,807
Total 4,782 136,276
Mortlach
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen s Released Released (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 10500 40,055 9,539 0.8 8013 8012544 2.11 11.75 16.91 94.15 2 10500 38,156 8,624 1.6 15275 15274752 2.11 11.75 32.23 179.48 3 10500 37,922 8,513 1.7 16132 16131606 2.43 15.4 39.20 248.43 4 10500 38,391 8,736 1.5 14407 14406750 1.8 8.1 25.93 116.69 5 10500 38,391 8,736 1.5 14407 14406750 2.11 11.75 30.40 169.28 6 10500 38,391 8,736 1.5 14407 14406750 2.11 11.75 30.40 169.28
T otal 175.06 977.31
Muenster
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 16330 60,775 14,098 1.5 22801 22800750 1.52 5.3 34.66 120.84 2 16330 61,073 14,242 1.4 21384 21383768 8.32 44.4 177.91 949.44 3 16330 60,775 14,098 1.5 22801 22800750 4.03 24.6 91.89 560.90 4 16330 61,671 14,531 1.2 18506 18506496 0.96 1.5 17.77 27.76 5 16330 60,181 13,813 1.7 25592 25591766 0.23 1.9 5.89 48.62 6 16330 60,775 14,098 1.5 22801 22800750 10.78 52.8 245.79 1203.88
Total 573.90 2911.45
Nokomis
Release At 4Am Ab Chang Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen e in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen s Released Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 10164 37,285 8,509 1.3 12124 12124164 3.13 19.3 37.95 234.00 2 10164 37,031 8,387 1.4 12969 12968928 0.8 1.65 10.38 21.40 3 10164 37,031 8,387 1.4 12969 12968928 1.97 10.48 25.55 135.91 4 10164 37,031 8,387 1.4 12969 12968928 1.97 10.48 25.55 135.91 5 10164 37,031 8,387 1.4 12969 12968928 1.97 10.48 25.55 135.91 6 10164 37,285 8,509 1.3 12124 12124164 1.97 10.48 23.88 127.06
T otal 148.85 790.20
Pangman
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitroge Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) n (kg) (mg/L) 1 3637 12,456 2,632 1.5 4681 4681077 2.5 15.3 11.70 71.62 2 3637 12,456 2,632 1.5 4681 4681077 1.03 11.7 4.82 54.77 3 3637 12,456 2,632 1.5 4681 4681077 3.48 21.2 16.29 99.24 4 3637 12,456 2,632 1.5 4681 4681077 2 6.9 9.36 32.30 5 3637 12,456 2,632 1.5 4681 4681077 1.72 13.14 8.05 61.51 6 3637 12,456 2,632 1.5 4681 4681077 1.59 10.6 7.44 49.62
Total 57.67 369.06
Pense
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (m3) (kg) 1 20000 76,436 18,236 1 19112 19112000 0.4 1.7 7.65 32.49 2 20000 76,436 18,236 1 19112 19112000 0.32 2 6.12 38.22 3 20000 76,436 18,236 1 19112 19112000 8.04 3.6 153.66 68.80
Total 167.42 139.52
Pilot Butte
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitroge in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitroge Released (kg) n d (m3) s n Release d (kg) 1 93810 371,387 91,889 0.52 48280 48280754 1.02 2 49.25 96.56 2 93810 370,648 91,521 0.62 57451 57451229 3.49 3.8 200.50 218.31 3 93810 372,127 92,257 0.42 39073 39073514 2.53 6.2 98.86 242.26 4 93810 366,085 89,260 1.24 113491 113491956 1.89 2.2 214.50 249.68 5 93810 370,796 91,595 0.6 55620 55620072 2.21 6.3 122.92 350.41
Total 686.03 1157.22
Qu’Appelle
Release At 4Am Ab Chang Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen e in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitroge Released (kg) Released d (m3) n (kg) 1 22890 86,831 20,554 1.25 27141 27140625 2.43 8.4 65.95 227.98 2 22890 86,271 20,281 1.4 30203 30203208 1.3 6.1 39.26 184.24 3 22890 86,085 20,190 1.45 31215 31214991 0.56 1.4 17.48 43.70 4 22890 86,085 20,190 1.45 31215 31214991 1.57 9.3 49.01 290.30
Total 171.70 746.22
Regina
Date Effluent Total Flow Volume (L) Total P Total N Phosphorous Released Nitrogen Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) Jan-14 1,928,492 1,928,492,300 1 41 1,967 79,454 Feb-14 2,155,214 2,155,213,800 1 42 2,155 91,381 Mar-14 2,600,826 2,600,825,700 1 38 2,393 98,311 Apr-14 2,649,483 2,649,483,100 1 36 2,146 95,911 May-14 2,709,569 2,709,568,900 1 33 2,113 88,874 Jun-14 2,563,590 2,563,590,000 1 38 2,564 97,929 Jul-14 2,563,113 2,563,113,000 1 27 2,230 69,460 Aug-14 2,813,968 2,813,968,400 1 24 1,857 67,817 Sep-14 2,261,736 2,261,735,600 1 28 1,470 63,555 Oct-14 1,885,552 1,885,552,400 1 32 1,358 60,338 Nov-14 2,093,313 2,093,313,300 1 39 2,638 81,430 Dec-14 2,061,762 2,061,761,600 1 44 2,082 89,687 Jan-15 2,106,666 2,106,666,200 1 44 1,812 92,061 Feb-15 2,067,739 2,067,738,800 1 43 1,902 89,326 Mar-15 2,329,654 2,329,653,800 1 42 1,980 97,380 Apr-15 2,479,550 2,479,549,900 1 37 2,405 90,752 May-15 2,383,927 2,383,927,200 1 41 2,837 98,456 Jun-15 1,827,339 1,827,338,800 1 48 1,791 86,799 Jul-15 2,259,334 2,259,334,000 1 39 1,672 86,984 Aug-15 2,511,183 2,511,183,400 1 30 1,657 74,080 Sep-15 2,243,055 2,243,055,400 1 35 1,458 78,283 Oct-15 2,353,687 2,353,686,800 1 33 1,459 76,966 Nov-15 2,049,611 2,049,611,100 1 37 1,681 76,041 Dec-15 2,059,260 2,059,260,300 1 43 1,895 87,519 Jan-13 2,157,600 2,157,600,000 1 39 2,287 84,794 Feb-13 2,167,200 2,167,200,000 1 38 1,647 82,137
Mar-13 2,287,800 2,287,800,000 1 35 1,876 80,531 Apr-13 2,529,000 2,529,000,000 1 34 1,973 85,733 May-13 2,678,400 2,678,400,000 1 32 1,687 85,977 Jun-13 2,310,000 2,310,000,000 1 36 1,455 83,622 Jul-13 2,303,300 2,303,300,000 1 32 1,382 72,554 Aug-13 2,442,800 2,442,800,000 1 33 1,930 80,612 Sep-13 2,313,000 2,313,000,000 1 30 2,105 68,696 Oct-13 1,435,300 1,435,300,000 1 33 1,435 47,939 Nov-13 2,130,000 2,130,000,000 1 36 1,598 76,041 Dec-13 2,244,400 2,244,400,000 1 39 1,908 87,307
Total 68,804 2,954,734
Rouleau
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 12,325 46,576 10,981 1 11647 11647000 4.46 22.8 51.95 265.55 2 12,325 45,241 10,336 1.5 16976 16975500 6.23 5.7 105.76 96.76 3 12,325 45,906 10,656 1.25 14352 14351563 5.07 28.3 72.76 406.15 4 12,325 45,906 10,656 1.25 14352 14351563 1.76 11 25.26 157.87 5 12,325 45,906 10,656 1.25 14352 14351563 5.18 27.1 74.34 388.93
Total 330.07 1315.26
Sedley
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorou Nitroge Released Released (m3) s (mg/L) n (kg) (kg) (mg/L) 1 11952 43,803 9,990 1.5 16436 16436250 1.36 6.7 22.35 110.12 2 11952 43,803 9,990 1.5 16436 16436250 2.29 9.5 37.64 156.14 3 11952 43,803 9,990 1.5 16436 16436250 0.92 3.4 15.12 55.88 4 11952 43,803 9,990 1.5 16436 16436250 8.54 29.5 140.37 484.87 5 11952 43,803 9,990 1.5 16436 16436250 1.92 1.3 31.56 21.37
Total 247.04 828.39
Semans
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen s Released Released d (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 5986 22,120 5,092 1 5533 5533000 0.26 1.4 1.44 7.75
Total 1.44 7.75
Simpson
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitroge s Released Released d (m3) (mg/L) n (kg) (kg) (mg/L) 1 13205 50,048 11,837 1 12515 12515000 2.63 7.06 32.91 88.36 2 13205 50,048 11,837 1 12515 12515000 2.63 7.06 32.91 88.36 3 13205 50,048 11,837 1 12515 12515000 2.26 8.6 28.28 107.63 4 13205 49,502 11,572 1.2 14856 14855856 1.21 2.8 17.98 41.60 5 13205 51,148 12,376 0.6 7673 7672872 4.43 9.8 33.99 75.19
T otal 146.08 401.13
Sintaluta
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 8100 29,241 6,561 1.5 10976 10975500 0.82 5.11 9.00 56.08 2 8100 29,241 6,561 1.5 10976 10975500 0.59 2.7 6.48 29.63 3 8100 29,241 6,561 1.5 10976 10975500 1.02 4.9 11.20 53.78 4 8100 29,241 6,561 1.5 10976 10975500 1.8 17.7 19.76 194.27 5 8100 29,241 6,561 1.5 10976 10975500 0.35 1.5 3.84 16.46
T otal 50.27 350.23
St. Gregor
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 3300 10,215 1,869 1.85 4744 4743530 1 9.4 4.74 44.59 2 3300 10,604 2,048 1.6 4254 4253952 1.18 8.1 5.02 34.46 3 3300 10,604 2,048 1.6 4254 4253952 1.16 10.6 4.93 45.09
Total 14.70 124.14
Stockholm
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen s Released Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 8448 30,561 6,873 1.5 11471 11470500 1.33 10.53 15.26 120.78 2 8448 30,561 6,873 1.5 11471 11470500 1.19 8 13.65 91.76 3 8448 30,561 6,873 1.5 11471 11470500 1.33 10.53 15.26 120.78 4 8448 30,982 7,074 1.3 10076 10075884 0.58 4 5.84 40.30 5 8448 30,982 7,074 1.3 10076 10075884 2.22 19.6 22.37 197.49
TOTAL 72.37 571.12
Strongfield
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 5082 18,648 4,260 1 4665 4665000 2.03 9.67 9.47 45.11 2 5082 17,835 3,876 1.5 6698 6698250 2.03 9.67 13.60 64.77
Total 23.07 109.88
Vibank
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 19451 77801 19449 1.5 29176 29175510 4.95 31.6 144.42 921.95 2 19451 77801 19449 1.5 29176 29175510 0.43 2.2 12.55 64.19 3 19451 77801 19449 1.5 29176 29175510 4.35 33.8 126.91 986.13 4 19451 77801 19449 1.5 29176 29175510 0.37 2 10.79 58.35 5 19451 77801 19449 1.5 29176 29175510 0.56 2 16.34 58.35 6 19451 77801 19449 1.5 29176 29175510 7.9 7.9 230.49 230.49
TOTAL 541.50 2319.45
Watrous
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorou Nitroge Released (kg) Released (m3) s (mg/L) n (kg) (mg/L) 1 43142 172566 43141 1.3 56084 56084019 3.64 20.5 204.15 1149.72 2 43142 172566 43141 1.2 51770 51769944 1.08 4.1 55.91 212.26 3 43142 172566 43141 1.2 51770 51769944 1.49 10.9 77.14 564.29 4 43142 172566 43141 1.3 56084 56084019 0.93 6.9 52.16 386.98 5 43142 172567 43141 1 43142 43141753 3.3 21.7 142.37 936.18 6 43142 172567 43141 1.15 49613 49612901 0.97 8.1 48.12 401.86
TOTAL 579.85 3651.29
White City
Release Volume Volume (L) Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen Discharged* Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 86375 86375000 2.02 6.5 174.48 561.44 2 173000 173000000 0.27 1.4 46.71 242.20
TOTAL 221.19 803.64
*Actual volume discharged was provided by the EPO
Whitewood
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen( Released (kg) Released d (m3) s (mg/L) mg/L) (kg) 1 81,132 324,524 81,130 1.5 121697 121696500 2.74 14.2 333.45 1728.09 2 81,132 324,524 81,130 1.5 121697 121696500 0.81 1.5 98.57 182.54 3 18,046 72,180 18,044 1.5 27068 27067500 1.46 7.1 39.52 192.18 4 81,132 324,524 81,130 1.5 121697 121696500 0.67 1.1 81.54 133.87 5 81,132 324,524 81,130 1.5 121697 121696500 1.09 3.5 132.65 425.94 6 81,132 324,524 81,130 1.5 121697 121696500 1.03 4.3 125.35 523.29
TOTAL 811.07 3185.91
Wilcox
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 17195 68774 17192 1.67 28713 28713256 6.03 19.6 173.14 562.78 2 17195 68778 17194 0.2 3439 3438909 3.43 5.4 11.80 18.57 3 17195 68778 17194 0.4 6878 6877765 7.05 24.3 48.49 167.13 4 17195 68778 17194 0.4 6878 6877765 6.69 14.9 46.01 102.48 5 17195 68778 17194 0.4 6878 6877765 6.97 32.1 47.94 220.78
TOTAL 327.37 1071.73
Wolseley
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorous Nitrogen in FB Discharge (L) Phosphorous Nitrogen Released (kg) Released d (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) 1 40805 163215 40803 1.5 61205 61205475 2.94 19 179.94 1162.90 2 40805 163215 40803 1.5 61205 61205475 0.88 2.3 53.86 140.77 3 40805 163215 40803 1.5 61205 61205475 4.27 29.2 261.35 1787.20 4 40805 163215 40803 1.4 57125 57125203 0.35 3.3 19.99 188.51 5 40805 163215 40803 1.5 61205 61205475 4.41 21.9 269.92 1340.40 6 40805 163216 40803 1 40804 40803983 1.96 3.3 79.98 134.65
TOTAL 865.04 4754.44
Yarbo
Release At 4Am Ab Change Volume Volume Total Total Phosphorou Nitrogen in FB Discharged (L) Phosphorou Nitrogen s Released Released (m3) s (mg/L) (mg/L) (kg) (kg) 1 5,146 20,582 5,144 1.5 7718.1 7718100 0.15 1 1.16 7.72
TOTAL 1.16 7.72
Appendix B Mass Nutrient Loading Per Capita
Key:
Cities Towns Villages
Municipality Total Total Nitrogen Phosphorous Per Per Capita Capita Abernathy 0.965 0.182 Allan 3.041 0.850 Balcarres 12.223 1.515 Bredenbury 0.804 0.283 Broadview 2.211 0.291 Brownlee 4.524 0.950 Caronport 8.426 1.206 Chaimberlain 0.913 0.115 Craik 2.242 0.388 Craven 0.817 0.143 Cupar 2.021 0.403 Earl Grey 2.163 0.308 Edenwold 1.933 0.240 Emerald Park 1.207 0.322 Francis 0.932 0.173 Grenfell 5.143 1.114 Grayson 0.340 0.065 Humboldt 2.985 0.402 Imperial 0.708 0.262 Indian Head 4.514 1.187 Ituna 0.115 0.051 Lemberg 3.539 0.508 Lebret 0.317 0.078 Lipton 2.292 0.268 Liberty 1.897 0.261 Lumsden 5.382 1.258 Markinch 1.263 0.268 Milestone 1.138 0.260
Moose Jaw 4.021 0.141 Mortlach 3.744 0.671 Meunster 6.771 1.335 Nokomis 1.956 0.368 Pangman 1.591 0.249 Pense 0.238 0.285 Pilot Butte 0.542 0.321 Qu'Appelle 1.168 0.269 Raymore 3.018 0.634 Regina 13.736 0.320 Rouleau 2.436 0.611 Sedley 2.314 0.690 Semans 0.040 0.007 Simpson 3.159 1.150 Sintaluta 2.943 0.422 St. Gregor 1.280 0.152 Stockholm 1.623 0.206 Strongfeild 2.747 0.577 Vibank 5.599 1.307 Watrous 1.853 0.294 White City 0.259 0.071 Whitewood 4.310 1.060 Wilcox 4.047 1.236 Wolseley 5.241 0.954 Yarbo 0.113 0.017
Appendix C Condition-Stress-Response Model Indicators
Appendix D Watershed Report Card
Appendix E Indian Head Lagoon Design Plan
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT LOCATION
Appendix F Loading Results from the Qu’Appelle Mass Balance Project
Total P Lake Diefenbaker
Highway 19: 2.8 Ridge Creek: 15.7 Tugaske: ? Iskwao Creek: 27.5 Marquis: ?
Buffalo Pound Lake Buffalo Pound Outlet: ? Moose Jaw River
Above Wascana Creek: 341.3 Wascana Creek: 278.1 Lumsden: 591.6 Above Last Mountain Creek: 560.5 Last Mountain Creek Last Mountain 16.4 Lake Craven: 612.9
Highway 6: ? Loon Creek: 19.3 Above PasquaLake: 783.8
Jumping Deer Calling Lakes Creek: 12.3 Katepwa Outlet: ? Indian Head Creek: 48.6
Red Fox Creek: 19.9
Pheasant Creek: 68.5
Pearl Creek: ? Highway 47: ?
Crooked Lake
Crooked Outlet: ? Ekapo Creek: 94.3
Highway 201: ?
Round Lake Round Outlet: ?
Total N Lake Diefenbaker
Highway 19: 92.8 Ridge Creek: 79.8 Tugaske: ? Iskwao Creek: 90 Marquis: ?
Buffalo Pound Lake Buffalo Pound Outlet: ? Moose Jaw River
Above Wascana Creek: 1553.3 Wascana Creek: 3290.1 Lumsden: 4747.8 Above Last Mountain Creek: 4711 Last Mountain Creek Last Mountain 329.1 Lake Craven: 5188.7
Highway 6: ? Loon Creek: 120.2 Above PasquaLake: 5779.4
Jumping Deer Calling Lakes Creek: 109.6 Katepwa Outlet: ? Indian Head Creek: 198
Red Fox Creek: 88.3
Pheasant Creek: 407.7
Pearl Creek: ? Highway 47: ?
Crooked Lake
Crooked Outlet: ? Ekapo Creek: 392
Highway 201: ?
Round Lake Round Outlet: ?
Appendix G Percent Contribution of Phosphorous and Nitrogen from Each Municipality
Municipality % Contribution of % Contribution of Total Phosphorous Total Nitrogen Abernathy 0.04 0.01 Allan 0.59 0.06 Balcarres 0.96 0.22 Bredenbury 0.11 0.01 Broadview 0.17 0.04 Brownlee 0.06 0.01 Caronport 1.29 0.26 Chaimberlain 0.01 0.00 Craik 0.16 0.03 Craven 0.03 0.01 Cupar 0.24 0.04 Earl Grey 0.08 0.02 Edenwold 0.06 0.01 Emerald Park 0.66 0.07 Francis 0.04 0.01 Grenfell 1.31 0.18 Grayson 0.01 0.00 Humboldt 2.53 0.55 Imperial 0.10 0.01 Indian Head 2.43 0.27 Ituna 0.04 0.00 Lemberg 0.17 0.03 Lebret 0.02 0.00 Lipton 0.10 0.02 Liberty 0.02 0.00 Lumsden 2.46 0.31 Markinch 0.02 0.00 Milestone 0.20 0.02 Moose Jaw 5.14 4.27 Mortlach 0.19 0.03 Meunster 0.62 0.09 Nokomis 0.16 0.02 Pangman 0.06 0.01
Pense 0.18 0.00 Pilot Butte 0.74 0.04 Qu'Appelle 0.18 0.02 Raymore 0.39 0.05 Regina 73.89 92.64 Rouleau 0.35 0.04 Sedley 0.27 0.03 Semans 0.00 0.00 Simpson 0.16 0.01 Sintaluta 0.05 0.01 St. Gregor 0.02 0.00 Stockholm 0.08 0.02 Strongfeild 0.02 0.00 Vibank 0.54 0.07 Watrous 0.60 0.11 White City 0.24 0.03 Whitewood 0.98 0.12 Wilcox 0.35 0.03 Wolseley 0.88 0.14 Yarbo 0.00 0.00