CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES
PROGRAM (C.U.R.B.)

1.0  BACKGROUND

Significant enrichment and bacterial contamination in southern Ontario rivers and lakes originates from rural sources. The discharge of waste material to streams can result in elevated bacterial concentrations, nuisance algae blooms, fish kills, and present a potential health hazard to humans and livestock using the water.

Watershed studies have found that a multitude of pollution sources and pathways may affect beaches in Ontario, which include the following.

1. Urban sanitary and stormwater runoff,
2. Direct livestock manure access to watercourses,
3. Inadequate manure management practices,
4. Direct discharge of milkhouse wastes,
5. Contaminated field tile systems, and
6. Faulty septic systems

The impact upon beaches from any of these sources, either singly or in combination, can range from a few days of elevated concentrations to resulting in complete seasonal closures. Numerous beach closings in 1983 and 1984, drew public and government attention to the severity of this water quality problem.

In 1985, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) Water Resources Branch formulated the Provincial Rural Beaches Strategy Program. Directed by the Provincial Rural Beaches Planning and Advisory Committee, it included representatives from MOE, Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), the Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Studies were carried out and reports produced which identified and quantified agricultural bacterial and phosphorus sources upstream of recreational water bodies.

In 1991, Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program Program was announced as a ten-year program. The overall objective of the CURB Program was to identify the relative impact of pollution sources, and develop a course of action leading to the restoration and long term maintenance of acceptable water quality at provincial rural beaches.

CURB was to be a technical assistance and financial incentive program to encourage improved rural land management practices to reduce the impact from upstream pollution sources on rural swimming beaches.

The CURB Program addressed water quality problems in 150 subwatersheds in Southern Ontario. Approximately $20.0 million was distributed as grants for 3,512 projects. Watershed-wide baseline monitoring data previously did not indicate substantial improvements in water quality; however the data indicated that significant local improvements were achieved through implementation of CURB projects. Based on previous experience, about one half of the total number of problems would have to be remediated before downstream beaches could be re-opened.

Through on-site research and full scale demonstrations of new and innovative technologies CURB provided effective education, extension, and technology transfer to the client group.

However, as a result of the Ontario Government's Economic Statement in November 1995, the CURB Program was terminated prematurely, effective March 31, 1996.

1.1  Program History

In 1983, pollution of public swimming beaches became a significant issue. The Grand Bend beach on Lake Huron was posted as being unsafe for swimming for the first time. In addition, approximately 10% of the 1,300 provincially monitored beaches failed the 100 Faecal Coliform/100mL guideline for body contact recreation. The government of the day expressed concern about the rapid increase in the number of closures, particularly in areas where urban pollution sources were not identified as the origin. and resolved to remedy the situation.

In the Fall of 1985, the Provincial Cabinet provided a budget to establish a Provincial Beaches Strategy to assess the problem and to provide solutions for rural and urban beaches. The strategy was implemented through the Beaches Improvement Program which dealt with both urban and rural problems. The CURB Program focused on rural issues and was directed and co-ordinated by the Science and Technology Branch. The other component - Urban Beaches Improvement - was managed by the Program Development Branch.

Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Development Program 1986 to 1990.

 The CURB Development Program carried out studies to identify the sources of pollution contributing to the degraded water quality observed at the beaches and to develop plans of action to eliminate or significantly reduce beach closures: This was to be completed within a 10 year time frame. Participating conservation authorities were contracted to undertake studies at the watershed level. By March of 1995, a total of 28 conservation authorities satisfactorily developed and completed watershed specific remedial action plans known as Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plans.

The CURB Plans identified two general categories of contamination that affect rural beaches.

1. The first category included contamination from continuous sources such as livestock access to streams, inappropriate handling and disposal of milkhouse waste and failed private on-site sewage systems.
    
2. The second category included periodic contamination from runoff generated by rainfall and snowmelt from inadequate manure storage facilities, barnyards and feedlots, manure spills and spreading practices.

Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program 1991 to March 31. 1996

The Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program was initiated to implement the recommendations of the CURB plans. The initial objective of the program was to eliminate or substantially to reduce the number of beach closures in eight Ontario watersheds which had plans prepared by the local CA.

CURB sufficiently resolved the environmental problems to be able to re-open the Binbrook Reservoir (Niagara Peninsula), Kelso (Halton Region), and Testa Heights (Lake Simcoe) beaches.

1.2  CURB Program Description

The Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program was announced as a $57 million capital grant assistance program, to run from September 1, 1991 to August 31, 2001, to clean up rural beaches in Ontario. Approximately $50 million was to be made available to the farmers with the remaining funds addressed to implementing the Program through education, extension, and local awareness programs, and on-site research and demonstration of new and innovative technologies. Participating Conservation Authorities (CAs) operated within a 5-year window of eligibility to deliver the voluntary Program locally to rural landowners.

The CURB program was targeted only to watersheds upstream of rural beaches. Funds were allocated to very specific areas of rural Ontario and directed to projects to achieve water quality improvement in local watercourses and to re-open downstream rural beaches.

2.0    STATEMENT OF PROGRAM GOALS

In 1991, the goal of the CURB Program was to eliminate or substantially reduce the number of public beach closures by encouraging improved rural land management practices in order to reduce the impact of upstream pollution sources.

3.0    PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

The six major CURB Program objectives to be achieved on a voluntary basis were:

1. To provide financial, operational and technical support and assistance to clients in watersheds with an MOEE approved CURB Plan;
2. To improve local surface water quality through improved rural land management practices;
3. To provide extension, education and technology transfer services;
4. To provide capital assistance grants to qualifying rural landowners who identify water pollution problems and propose acceptable solutions;
5. To provide guidelines for and technical support to local CURB review committees to receive, review, and recommend approval of project proposals from local participants; and,
6. To provide funds to participating conservation authorities for program delivery, promotion, on-farm research, demonstrations, evaluation, and water quality monitoring.

Participating Conservation Authorities (1994) [pdf version 51 KB pdf]

With financial and technical assistance from the MOE, local Conservation Authorities carried out studies under the direction of a local technical steering committee. Chaired by an MOE regional staff, the committees typically included representation from OMAF, MNR, the Medical Officer of Health, Conservation Authority, the local Federation of Agriculture, and a local farmer. The chairs of the local committees assured communication between all the projects by participating on the Provincial Committee.

The primary objective of each local study was to identify the relative impact of pollution sources, their pathways to beaches, and to develop a Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) plan specific to the watershed upstream of each beach. The CURB plan develops remedial strategy options and respective cost estimates for each beach through:

1. Field inspections,
2. Farmer consultations,
3. Water quality monitoring, and
4. Basic mathematical modelling techniques.

Recommended actions included both measures for specific beaches and broader scale Provincial measures based on cumulative results of component studies. The following related research projects were also MOE funded and undertaken by various Conservation Authorities to improve our understanding of bacterial and nutrient dynamics:

1. In-situ bacterial survival studies determined longevity in watercourses, offshore of beaches, in sediments, and in milkhouse washwater tiles.
2. Biotracer studies determined the speed and nature of travel for bacteria introduced into a watercourse.
3. A liquid manure spreading study examined bacterial movement through the soil column and exiting field tile drains.
4. A target sub-basin study evaluated the effectiveness of a watershed with comprehensive remedial measures.

Numerous demonstration farms have been established with the cooperation of local farmers to display innovative management practices. Research continues on their effectiveness at improving water quality.

Related Links

Conservation Ontario
International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes Basin  (IJC)
Drinking Water Source Protection (Lake Erie Region)
Other M.O.E. Funded Reports

1. Stratford-Avon River Environmental Management Project (SAREMP) (1980 - 1984),

2. PLUARG - Pollution from Land Use Activities  Reference Group (1972 - 1979)

3. Proceedings of a Workshop on Water Quality & Land Use Activities, Sept. 11-12, 1973, U. of Guelph, Ontario [3419 KB] 

4. Great Lakes Water Quality Program (Agriculture) (1989 - 1994) Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada; 14 Research Reports.

5. Targeting Rural Best Management Practices in the Thames River Watershed: Are We Doing Enough? Karen Maaskant, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority;  Managing Watersheds for Great Lakes Benefits: Technical Workshop on Nutrients in the Nearshore, Black Creek Pioneer Village, March 3-4, 2009. [pdf]

6. Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement in the Great Lakes Basin: An Overview of Post-PLUARG Developments. (August, 1983).  A Report Submitted by the Nonpoint Source Control Task Force of the Water Quality Board of the International Joint Commission.[726 KB]

7. Agriculture in the Great Lakes Basin: Farmers Target Non-Point Source Pollution [pdf]. Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Ecosystem.

8. H2Ontario - Integrated Watershed Management: Navigating Ontario's Future. Symposium Report, May 21-22, 2009. Symposium examined global advances in the field of Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) & explored the evolution of a ‘made-in-Ontario’ approach to ensure that we have a safe, sustainable supply of water today and into the future.

9. Lake Huron Southeast Shore Newsletter (Summer 2008). Point Clark Beach Association.

10. A Valuation Of Ecological Services In The  Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem to Sustain Healthy Communities and a Dynamic Economy. (July 2006)  [pdf]. Gail Krantzberg & Cheryl de Boer, McMaster University

11. “BEYOND THE PIPE”: The Importance of Wetlands and Upland Conservation Practices In Watershed Management: Functions and Values for Water Quality and Quantity (2001) T.S.Gabor et al. [pdf].

12. Sources and Mechanisms of Delivery of E.coli (bacteria) Pollution to the Lake Huron Shoreline of Huron County. [8400 KB] Interim Report: Science Committee to Investigate Sources of Bacterial Pollution of the Lake Huron shoreline of Huron County. April 8, 2005

13. An Evaluation of Water Resource Monitoring Efforts in Support of Agricultural Stewardship in Watersheds of the Great Lakes Basin [ KB] (Feb. 2009). Conservation Ontario. Karen Maaskant, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and Jo-Anne Rzadki, Conservation Ontario. This report highlights outcomes from the May 2008 workshop and recommendations for water resource monitoring, data sharing, information transfer and communication, as well as funding.

14. Monitoring of Trends in Rural Water Quality in Southern Ontario.  Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. In the 1997 ECO annual report, ECO found significant weaknesses in several of the province’s monitoring programs and, as a result, shortcomings in the provincial ability to track and report on the state of our ecosystems. Since then, there have been some gains, but also some losses.

15. Watershed Characterization: Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region (Mar. 2008) [814 KB]. Draft version. It is the aim of this document to compile information on the physical, sociological and economic characteristics of the Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley watersheds.

16. Effective Policy Regimes for the Management of Non-point Source Water Pollution: Ontario and the US in Comparative Perspective (Feb. 2001).by Dr. Carolyn M. Johns, McMaster Univ. ...Background document for the Walkerton Inquiry, intended to generate and inform discussion about the safety of drinking water among parties with standing, relevant experts, and the public.

17. Phosphorus Loading to Lake Simcoe, 1990-1998: Highlights and Preliminary Interpretation in Historical and Ecosystem Contexts (May 2001) [pdf] .K.H. Nicholls. LSEMS Implementation Tech. Report No. Imp.A.5.

18. A Decade in the Canadian Heritage Rivers System: A Review of The Grand Strategy 1994-2004. [3501 KB] Barbara Veale, Grand River C.A.

19. The Economics Of Voluntary Cost-Share Programs: An Analysis Of The Rural Water Quality Program. [pdf] M. Nailor, U. of Guelph thesis, 1999. One of the most common instruments to induce farmers to adopt alternative, more environmentally friendly production practices are voluntary cost-share programs that involve taxpayers sharing in the cost of adopting such practices.

20. White Paper on Watershed-based Source Protection Planning. (Feb. 2004). Ont. Min. of Environment [pdf]

21. An Evaluation Of Watershed Management In Ontario: Final Report (1997). Watershed Planning Implementation Project Management Committee (PMC) [pdf].

22. Watershed Management in Ontario: Lessons Learned and Best Practices [pdf]. The Conservation Authorities of Ontario.