Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for the Rideau River Watershed

CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES

(CURB) PLAN

For the Rideau River

Watershed

Produced By:

The Rideau Valley

Conservation Authority

For:

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy

ISBN 0-7778-4414-1

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the local Technical Steering Committee and approved

for publication. Approval does not necessarily signify that the contents reflect the

position and/or policies of individual agencies.

FOREWORD

This report is one of a series produced under the Provincial Rural Beaches Program. The

objective of the 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.

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. These include:

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, and6) Faulty septic systems.

The impact upon beaches of these sources, either singly or in combination, can range from

a few days of elevated concentrations to 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 and

Energy's (MOEE) Water Resources Branch formulated the Provincial Rural Beaches Strategy

Program. Directed by the Provincial Rural Beaches Planning and Advisory Committee, it

included representatives from Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

With financial and technical assistance from the MOEE, local Conservation Authorities carried

out studies under the direction of a local technical steering committee. Chaired by an MOEE

regional staff, the committees typically included representation from OMAFRA, 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.

CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES

CURB PLAN - RIDEAU RIVER

Prepared By:

Terry K. Davidson, P. Eng.

Prepared For:

Rideau Valley

Conservation Authority

And The

Ontario Ministry

Of The Environment

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 include both measures for specific beaches and broader scale

Provincial measures based on cumulative results of component studies.

The following related research projects were also MOEE 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 movements through the

soil column and exiting field tile drains.

4) A target sub-basin study evaluated the effectiveness of comprehensive

remedial measure upon a watershed.

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.

Comments and/or questions on this report are welcome. Please send written comments to:

ChairProvincial Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Review Committee c/o Ministry of Environment and EnergyEcosystem Science Section2 St. Clair Ave., W., 14th FloorToronto, Ontario M4V 1L5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the members of the Rideau Valley Rural Beaches TechnicalCommittee for their time and effort throughout the second year of the program.

Committee Members:

Bruce Reid, Rideau Valley Conservation AuthorityPatrick Larson, Rideau Valley Conservation AuthorityGlen Owen, Ministry of the Environment, KingstonMichel Beland, Ministry of the Environment, OttawaSteve Clark, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and FoodJim Craig, Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health UnitTerry Mulligan, Health Department, Regional Municipality of Ottawa-CarletonJean marc Lafrance, Environmental Services, Regional Municipality of Ottawa-CarletonDale Lynch, Environment Services, Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton

i

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iTABLE OF CONTENTS ii-iiiLIST OF FIGURES ivLIST OF GRAPHS ivLIST OF TABLES ivEXECUTIVE SUMMARY vRECOMMENDATION viCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA 1

CHAPTER 2. WATER QUALITY PROGRAM 2.1 Objectives 22.2 Bacteria Indicators 22.3 Nutrient/Physical Parameters 22.4 Data Analysis 32.5 Sample Locations 42.6 Sources of Pollution 4

CHAPTER 3. WATER SAMPLING RESULTS 3.1 Introduction 103.2 Bacteria Analysis (Rideau River) 103.3 Bacteria Analysis (Tributaries) 143.4 Bacteria Analysis (Tay River) 143.5 Bacteria Analysis (Jock River) 143.6 Nutrient Analysis (Rideau) 183.7 Nutrient Analysis (Tributaries) 183.8 Nutrient Analysis (Jock River) 193.9 Beach Bacteria Results 253.10 Tributary Ranking 26

CHAPTER 4. LIVESTOCK OPERATION SURVEY 4.1 Introduction 284.2 Farm Pollution Scoring Methodology 28

CHAPTER 5. FARM POLLUTION SEVERITY SCORES 5.1 Livestock Bacteria Production Per Day 295.2 Assessment of Transport Factors 315.3 Pollution Source Component Ratings 325.4 Total Pollution Severity Score 34

CHAPTER 6. FARM SURVEY AND RANKING SUMMARY 6.1 Introduction 356.2 Dairy Farms 356.3 Other Livestock Operations 35

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

CHAPTER 7. POSSIBLE REMEDIAL MEASURES AND ASSOCIATED COSTS

7.1 Introduction 377.2 Manure Storages 377.3 Milkhouse/Parlour Washwater 397.4 Manure Spreading 417.5 Livestock Access 41

CHAPTER 8. COST OF REMEDIATION FOR RIDEAU RIVER 42

CHAPTER 9. COST EFFECTIVENESS 9.1 Introduction 439.2 Dairy Farms 439.3 Other Livestock Operations 45

CHAPTER 10. COST OF REMEDIATION FOR RIDEAU RIVER TRIBUTARIES 45

CHAPTER 11. COST OF AGRICULTURAL REMEDIATION SUMMARY 47

CHAPTER 12. NON-AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION SOURCE 48

CHAPTER 13. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 49

CONCLUSIONS 50

REFERENCES 52

APPENDICES

iii

LIST OF FIGURESFIGURES PAGE

1. Rideau River & Tributary Sampling Locations 72. Tay River Sampling Locations 83. Jock River Sampling Locations 9

LIST OF GRAPHSGRAPHS PAGE Graph #1 - Rideau River Profile (Fecal Coliform) 11Graph #2 - Rideau River (FC) (Mooneys Bay to Manotick) 12Graph #3 - Rideau River (FC) (Manotick to Baxter) 12Graph #4 - Rideau River (FC) (Hwy #16 to Andrewsville) 13Graph #5 - Rideau River (FC) (Merrickville to Smiths Falls) 13Graph #6 - Rideau River Tributaries (FC) 15Graph #7 - Rideau River Tributaries (FC) 15Graph #8 - Rideau River Tributaries (FC) 16Graph #9 - Tay River (FC) 16Graph #10 - Jock River (FC) 17Graph #11 - Rideau River Profile (Total Phosphorus) 20Graph #12 - Rideau River Profile (TP) (Mooneys Bay to Manotick) 21Graph #13 - Rideau River (TP) (Manotick to. Baxter) 21Graph #14 - Rideau River (TP) (Hwy #16 to Andrewsville) 22Graph #15 - Rideau River (TP) (Merrickville to Smiths Falls) 22Graph #16 - Rideau River Tributaries (TP) 23Graph #17 - Rideau River Tributaries (TP) 23Graph #18 - Rideau River Tributaries (TP) 24Graph #19 - Jock River (TP) 24Graph #20 - Farm Pollution Severity Ranking (Dairy) 36Graph #21 - Farm Pollution Severity Ranking (Other) 36Graph #22 - After Remedial Action (Dairy) 44Graph #23 - After Remedial Action (Other) 44

LEGEND FC - Fecal Coliform Bacteria TP - Total Phosphorus

LIST OF TABLESTABLES PAGE Table #1 - Beach Bacteria Results 25Table #2 - Tributary Ranking System 26Table #3 - 1990 and 1992 Tributary Rank 27Table #4 - Cost/Score Ratio (Dairy Farms) 43Table #5 - Cost/Score Ratio (Other Livestock Operations) 45Table #6 - Number of Tributary Projects 46Table #7 - Request Grants 47

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Reportis the product of the RVCA's participation in the Rural Beaches Program which is part of theOntario Ministry of the Environment Provincial Beaches Management Strategy.

A water quality monitoring program operated in 1990 and 1991 revealed agricultureas a major contributor of bacteria and nutrients within the Rideau River watershed.

The sampling program concluded that the Rideau from Kilmarnock to Ottawa, in thecentre channel only, had fecal coliform bacteria concentrations below the MOE guideline of100 fecal coliforms per 100 millilitres. However, the majority of tributaries within the studyarea had fecal coliform concentrations above the MOE guidelines of 100 organisms per 100ml, which accounts for numerous tributary mixing zones which can have fecal coliformconcentrations exceeding the MOE guidelines.

The purpose of the CURB Report is to provide a strategy addressing bacterialcontamination of surface waters from agricultural operations. Therefore, to improve waterquality, the CURB plan recommends remedial action which address the following:

Manure Storage FacilitiesManure Spreading and Handling PracticesMilkhouse Washwater DisposalLivestock Access to WatercoursesPrivate Septic System

Based on detailed surveys of representative agricultural operations in the RideauValley, the total estimated cost of some 930 potential remedial measures addressingagricultural pollution is $13,430,000. Based on the eligibility criteria and grant rates of theCURB Implementation Program as announced in September, 1991, these 930 plus projectswould be eligible for $7,739,000 in assistance.

There are an estimated 100 faulty private septic systems which could account for apotential request of $200,000 in grant assistance.

The CURB Implementation Program will be delivered by the RVCA under the directionof a multi-agency steering committee. The program will offer financial, technical andeducational assistance to the rural community.

v

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is recommended that the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority participate in theClean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program to improve water quality within thewatershed.

2. The RVCA, OMAF and MOE should conduct an education program for farmers dealingwith all aspects of manure storage, handling and application. The education programshould address all other potential pollution sources associated with agriculture.

3. The CURB Facilitator should encourage farmers to develop a Integrated ResourceManagement Plan for their operations as well as a Water Quality Improvement Plan.A Integrated Resource Management Plan would consider soil conservation, waterquality improvements and reforestation.

4. The RVCA should strive to make the urban population aware of what steps theagricultural community is taking to improve water quality.

5. The RVCA should continue a water quality monitoring program to measure the resultsof the CURB Implementation Program.

6. The CURB Program must target priority farms adjacent to watercourses with degradedwater quality.

7. To improve water quality within the study watersheds an estimated 930 agriculturalwater quality improvement projects should be completed.

vi

INTRODUCTION

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's CURB PLAN, is phase II of the RURALBEACHES PROGRAM.

The Rideau Valley Rural Beaches Program is part of the Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment Provincial Beaches Management Strategy. The mandate of the program wastwo fold: investigate surface water quality in the Rideau River from Ottawa to Smiths Falls(Phase I) and develop and deliver a clean up rural beaches plan (CURB) to achieve improvedwater quality (PHASE II).

First, this report contains a review of the 1990 and 1991 Water Sampling Programwhich includes the objectives, the procedure, the results and it identifies the potentialsources of pollution.

Secondly, this report examines the identified agricultural sources of pollution anddevelops a CURB plan. To prepare the CURB plan which recommends cost effective remedialactions for improving the impact of agricultural operations on surface water quality, thefollowing procedures were required:

- examine agricultural sources of fecal pollution which were identified in theWater Quality Report from Phase I.

- conduct and outline the results of a livestock operation inventory.- design a rating system to rank potential sources of agricultural pollution.

examine remedial measures designed to reduce bacteria loading to surfacewater and the costs associate with them.

- prioritize remedial measures based on their cost effectiveness to reducebacteria loading to surface waters.

This report provides the framework to prioritize remedial measures for the CURBimplementation program. It also identifies where grant money should be spent to be costeffective at reducing fecal pollution to surface waters.

STUDY AREA

The 77 kilometres (48 miles)of the Rideau River from Smiths Falls to Mooneys Bay(Ottawa) was selected for this study, not only because of the number of public beaches but,the whole reach supports water based recreation.

In 1991, the Tay River watershed was added as a separate study area due to recentbeach closures in the Town of Perth. The Tay also has the potential to affect the originalstudy area, as it discharges into the Rideau above Smiths Falls.

1

WATER MONITORING PROGRAM

2.1 SAMPLING OBJECTIVES

The water quality monitoring program was designed to identify river reaches andtributaries whose waters consistently failed to meet MOE guidelines for fecal coliformbacteria and the objective for total phosphorus concentrations.

The water quality sampling program was divided into two parts; bacteriologicalsamples and nutrient/physical samples. The bacteriological analysis was performed by theWater Pollution Control Division of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton at R.O.Pickard Environmental Centre. The nutrient/physical analysis was performed at the OntarioMinistry of the Environment's lab in Kingston.

2.2 BACTERIAL INDICATORS

Bacteria are micro-organisms and certain types are used to determine the safety ofwater for recreational use in terms of disease prevention.

Indicator bacteria that are pathogenic, and are commonly found in the presence ofother disease-causing bacteria found in animal and human feces, are measured to determinetheir presence and concentration. Fecal Coliform, and Escherichia Coli are all examples ofindicator bacteria.

The Provincial Water Quality Guideline for bacterial concentration is 100 fecalcoliforms per 100 ml, for water-based recreation. Public swimming areas are monitored byCounty Health Units or the RMOC Health Department and are deemed unsafe for swimmingwhen bacterial counts are found to exceed this concentration.

The bacteriological analysis provided the following:

Fecal Coliform (FC) (1 sample/week)Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) (1 sample/week)

Appendix A contains a description of these indicator bacteria.

2.3 NUTRIENT/PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

The quality of water can also be measured by testing for the presence andconcentrations of various nutrients and physical parameters.

2

Four different forms of nitrogen and two forms of phosphorus were analyzed in thestudy. Some forms of nitrogen are toxic to fish and excessive amounts of phosphoruscontributes to excessive weed growth and algae blooms, and eutrophication of thewaterbody which affects the aquatic ecosystem and the public's enjoyment in terms ofaesthetics and odour.

The Provincial Water Quality Objective suggests that total phosphorus should be 0.03mg/L or less in order to avoid excessive aquatic weed and algae growth.

The nutrient/physical analysis provided the following:

Total Phosphorus (1 sample/week)Soluble Phosphorus (1 sample/week)Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (1 sample/week)Ammonium Nitrogen (1 sample/week)Nitrite (1 sample/week)Nitrate (1 sample/week)pH (1 sample/week)Conductivity (1 sample/week)Turbidity (1 sample/week)

Appendix B contains a description of each nutrient and physical parameter with thesuggest desirable concentration.

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS

The geometric mean was used to present the fecal coliform data because of theuneven distribution of bacteria in space and over time. The geometric mean provides a morerepresentative estimate of the number of bacteria by reducing the distorting effects ofextreme values. For example, if two samples had a count of 10 and 1000 respectively, thearithmetic mean would be 505, where as the geometric mean would be 100.

In the analysis of Fecal Coliform at the lab, a 1 ml dilution was used which posed aproblem when the count exceeded 10000 fecal coliforms per 100 ml. When this occurred,the fecal coliform count was recorded as 10000+, and therefore the results under estimatesthe actual geometric mean of the raw sample data when the raw data had counts over10000 fecal coliforms. In 1990, the lab used a 10 ml dilution which only allowed a readingup to 1000 fecal coliform/ 100 ml.

A simple arithmetic mean was used to present total phosphorus data because therange of data is very narrow. Total phosphorus is examined in detail because an excessiveconcentration can cause prolific plant growth.

The nutrient/physical parameters that are not discussed in the report are availableon request.

3

2.5 SAMPLING LOCATIONS

The water sampling locations were based on the proximity to outlets such as creeks,municipal drains and rivers, plus the main river itself. Most Rideau River sampling locationshad 3 sample points to generate a cross-section of the river.

The breakdown of the sampling program is as follows:

Number Of Samples Taken At Each Sample Location

MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST TOTAL

River Locations

- Bacteriological Samples 4 4 5 4 17

- Nutrient/Physical Samples 4 4 5 4 17

Tributaries

- Bacteriological Samples 4 4 5 4 17

- Nutrient/Physical Samples 4 4 5 4 17

In total, approximately 1700 bacteriological samples along with 850 nutrient/physicalsamples were collected and analyzed.

The location of the sampling points can be found on Figure #1 to #3 denoted by acode number. A description of the sampling location number can be found in Appendix C.

During the summer, other sampling sites were monitored in response to concerns orcomplaints reported by watershed residents and RVCA staff, during the study.

2.6 SOURCES OF POLLUTION

There are numerous potential sources of bacterial pollution and nutrient loading, mostof which exist within the study area. A brief description of sources is provided to aid in theinterpretation of the results.

4

Urban Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff from urban/residential areas transport bacteria from domestic petsand urban wildlife, along with nutrients from lawn fertilizers as well as a variety of otherpollutants.

Sewer Overflows

Older towns and residential development used one system to transport raw sewageand stormwater runoff to treatment plants. Intense rainfall events can exceed the systemcapacity allowing raw sewage to overflow into the watercourses. Combined systems existin Ottawa and Smiths Falls.

Sewage Treatment Plants

Inadequate treatment for nutrients in sewage permits the release of unacceptablequantities of those nutrients into the watercourse; this is especially true in under-designedsewage treatment plants that cannot handle the excess flow from an intense rainfall event.

Livestock Access

When livestock defecate into the watercourse, bacteria and nutrients have directinput.

Manure Storage Facilities

Inadequate livestock manure storages allow runoff to transport bacteria and nutrientsto the watercourse.

Manure Management

Spreading manure at the wrong time of the year, along with excessive applicationrates allows runoff to transport bacteria and nutrients to the watercourses.

Milkhouse Washwater Disposal

The detergents used for cleaning pipeline milking systems contain largeconcentrations of phosphorus, that, if not properly disposed of, enter the watercourse.

Private Septic Systems

Improperly designed or outdated septic systems can allow leaching of bacteria andnutrients into the watercourses.

5

Agricultural Runoff

Agricultural runoff carries nutrients, bacteria, pesticides and soil particles fromagricultural operations.

Wildlife

Wildlife in urban areas such as seagulls and pigeons can cause bacteria problems atlocal beaches.

6

FIGURE 1: Rideau River And Tributaries Water Sampling Locations

7

FIGURE 2: Tay River Water Sampling Locations

8

FIGURE 3: Jock River Water Sampling Locations

9

WATER SAMPLING RESULTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The following discussion is based on the results of the past 2 years of water sampling(i.e. 1990 and 1991). The discussion deals first with fecal coliform bacteria and then with totalphosphorus concentrations.

NOTE: Two years of water sampling does not generally provide enough data upon whichto draw conclusions regarding increasing or decreasing trends because of thenumerous variables at play.

A summary of bacteriological data and total phosphorus concentrations can be foundin Appendix D and E, also the raw data are available on request from the Rideau ValleyConservation Authority.

3.2 BACTERIA ANALYSIS - RIDEAU RIVER

The geometric mean fecal coliform densities for the month of June, July and Augustwere calculated for each sampling location. The geometric mean for May 1991 was alsocalculated but will not be used in a comparison with 1990 data because May 1990 samplingis not available.

To examine the results, a graphical presentation was used to compare the results withthe MOE guideline of 100 fecal coliforms per 100 ml.

Graph #1 was developed to show a profile of fecal coliform levels from Smiths Falls toMooneys Bay. It can been seen that the MOE guideline is only exceeded in the Smiths Fallsarea in both 1991 and 1990. To explore the results in more detail Graph #2 to #5 wereproduced which examines each site individually. An analysis of each graph is as follows:

GRAPH #2 - The 1991 densities are higher than 1990.GRAPH #3 - Most 1991 densities are higher than 1990 except at W. A. Taylor

downstream location. This exception may be caused by a nearby dairyoperation which allowed all the milking cows and heifers to have accessto the river in 1990. In 199I, only the heifers had access to the river.

GRAPH #4 - The 1991 densities are higher than 1990.GRAPH #5 - The 1991 densities are higher for 3 out of 5 locations. The exceptions are

the Edmunds Lock and Old Slys Lock sampling locations. Since theselocations are affected by urban stormwater runoff and combined seweroverflows in the town of Smiths Falls, the lack of rainfall in the summerof 1991 may be responsible.

In summary, of the 20 sample stations between Smiths Falls and Mooneys Bay, thegeometric mean fecal coliform density only exceed the MOE recreational guideline of 100 fecalcoliform per 100 ml at two locations over the last 2 years. This does not mean that the RideauRiver is safe for water-based recreation along the whole study area except at two locations,because fecal coliform concentrations towards either or both banks and near the confluenceof it tributaries may be greater than the MOE guideline.

10

GRAPH #1: Rideau River Profile: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Densities

11

GRAPH #2: Rideau River: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Densities


12



13

3.3 BACTERIA ANALYSIS - RIDEAU RIVER TRIBUTARIES

In 1991, there were 16 tributaries within the study area that were part of the watersampling program. Three of these tributaries were also examined in detail for backgroundreference once remedial action takes place.

To illustrate the results, GRAPH #6 to #8 were developed showing geometric meanfecal coliform densities. An analysis of each graph is as follows:

GRAPH #6 - In 1991, the only noticeable results are the large increase in fecalcoliform concentration in the JOCK RIVER at it's confluence withthe Rideau, and the decrease in DOYLE CREEK.

GRAPH #7 - No real trends or outstanding features can be interpreted.GRAPH #8 - No real trends or outstanding features can be interpreted.

In summary, the majority of tributaries within the study area have exceeded the MOErecreation guideline of 100 fecal coliforms per 100 ml, in both years for which data areavailable.

3.4 BACTERIA ANALYSIS - TAY RIVER

In 1991, the TAY RIVER was added to the water sampling program. Beach closures hadbeen enforced at the Town of Perth swimming beaches in previous years (REFERENCE #11).Our sampling was done concurrently with sampling near storm sewer outfalls in the Town byPerth and MOE. To examine the Tay, GRAPH #10 was developed which indicates that the TAYexceeds the MOE recreation guideline in most locations.

It can be seen that MOE guideline is exceeded at the outlet of Christie Lake which maybe the result of private septic systems.

The large increase in bacteria concentration from Rathwell Road to Port Elmsley, maybe the result of a dairy farm, where the milking cows cross the river everyday to pasture onthe other side.

3.5 BACTERIA ANALYSIS - JOCK RIVER

In 1991, the Jock River was sampled at numerous locations from its confluence to itshead waters in conjunction with the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

GRAPH #9 was developed to show a profile of fecal coliform levels from its head watersnear Cemetery Road to its mouth at Highway #16. Graph #9 represents the geometric meanfor June, July and August.

It can be seen that the fecal coliform level is below the MOE guideline of 100 fecalcoliforms per 100 ml only near its headwaters (i.e. Cemetery Road). For the rest of the reach,the MOE recreation guideline is exceeded which can be explained by the numerous livestockoperations and storm water runoff from the town of Richmond. The noticeable feature is thelarge increase in bacteria concentration from Moodie Drive to Highway #16 which may be theresult of stormwater ponds from the community of Barrhaven and livestock access.

14

GRAPH #6: Rideau River Tributaries: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Densities


15


GRAPH #9: Tay River: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Densities

16

GRAPH #10: Jock River: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Densities

17

3.6 NUTRIENT ANALYSIS - RIDEAU RIVER

Total phosphorus concentration was the focus of the nutrient analysis, since excessivephosphorus causes prolific aquatic plant and algae growth with the attendant aestheticproblems and depleted oxygen concentrations as vegetation dies and decomposes as part ofits natural cycle. The MOE has set an objective of 0.03 mg/L total phosphorus for flowingrivers and streams to avoid excessive weed growth and algae blooms.

GRAPH #11 - Was developed to provide a profile of the Rideau River from SmithsFalls to Mooneys Bay showing total phosphorus. (NOTE: 1990 totalphosphorus for Black Rapids to Mooneys Bay is not available).From this graph, total phosphorus exceeds the objective for alllocations downstream of Smiths Falls and slowly increases inconcentration.

To examine total phosphorus levels in more detail, GRAPH #12 to #15 were developedusing the arithmetic mean for June, July and August. An analysis of each graph is as follows:

GRAPH #12 - All sample locations have total phosphorus levels greater than 0.03mg/L.

GRAPH #13 - All sample locations exceed 0.03 mg/L and the 1991 results aregreater than 1990.

GRAPH #14 - All sample locations exceed 0.03 mg/L and the majority of 1991results are greater than 1990.

GRAPH #15 - It is very obvious that water flowing into the study area at HydroPark Bridge has total phosphorus levels below 0.03 mg/L, but asit flows through the Town of Smiths Falls and passes the sewagetreatment plant it dramatically increases in phosphorusconcentration.

In summary, total phosphorus levels in the Rideau River area such that the River maybe classified as eutrophic due to excessive nutrient loading.

3.7 NUTRIENT ANALYSIS - RIDEAU RIVER TRIBUTARIES

In 1991, there were 16 tributaries within the study area that were part of the watersampling program. Also, in 1991, the Tay River was added to the water sampling programbecause of concerns by MOE Ottawa (REFERENCE #11).

Analysis, of total phosphorus levels in these tributaries, GRAPH #16 to #18 shows:

GRAPH #I6 - All sample stations exceed the MOE objective of 0.03 mg/L totalphosphorus.

GRAPH #17 - It can be seen that 4 out of 5 tributaries exceed 0.03 mg/L totalphosphorus.

GRAPH #18 - It can be seen that 3 out of 5 tributaries exceed the 0.03 mg/Ltotal phosphorus.

In summary, total phosphorus levels in the majority of the tributaries exceed the MOEobjective of 0.03 mg/L. These tributaries are also responsible for nutrient loading of theRideau River.

18

3.8 NUTRIENT ANALYSIS - JOCK RIVER

In 1991, the Jock River was sampled at numerous locations for total phosphorusconcentrations.

GRAPH #19 was developed to show a profile of the river from its headwaters nearCemetery Road to its mouth at Highway #16. The graph represents an arithmetic mean forthe month of June, July and August.

It can be seen from the graph that the total phosphorus concentration exceeds the MOEobjection of 0.03 mg/L at most locations.

Phosphorus loading is most likely due to the numerous farms within the watershed; twogolf courses, of which one golf course may be responsible for the large increase from MunsterSide Road to upstream of Richmond, stormwater runoff from the Town of Richmond, andagricultural runoff from a vegetable farm/nursery.

19

GRAPH #11: Rideau River Profile: Total Phosphorus

20

GRAPH #12: Rideau River: Seasonal Mean - Total Phosphorus


21



22

GRAPH. #16: Rideau River Tributaries: Seasonal Mean - Total Phosphorus

GRAPH #17: Rideau River Tributaries: Seasonal Mean - Total Phosphorus

23

GRAPH #18: Rideau River Tributaries: Seasonal Mean - Total Phosphorus

GRAPH #19: Jock River: Seasonal Mean - Total Phosphorus

24

3.9 BEACH BACTERIA RESULTS

The Rideau River within the study area has 9 significant public beaches with Mooney'sBay Beach ranked number 1 (REFERENCE #7).

The Tay River has 2 public beaches, 1 in the community of Glen Tay and the other inthe Town of Perth.

Fecal coliform bacteria results for 1989, 1990 and 1991 were obtained for the RegionalMunicipality of Ottawa-Carleton's Health Unit and the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark DistrictHealth Unit. The geometric mean fecal coliform densities were calculated for June, July andAugust as illustrated in the following table:

TABLE #1: Beach Bacteria Results

1989 1990 1991

Min MaxGeo-

metricMean

Min MaxGeo-MetricMean

Min MaxGeo-MetricMean

Hydro Park Beach 40 900 179 <10 500 109 <10 180 24Merrickville Beach 10 270 31 <10 230 12 <10 90 17Rideau Provincial Park Beach #4

4 >600 10 < 4 >600 8 4 40 6

Rideau Provincial Park Beach #3

4 >600 8 < 4 690 8 4 60 5


4 400 6 < 4 860 7 4 10 4


4 100 6 < 4 100 9 4 50 5

Baxter Conservation Area

4 380 9 <10 >600 7 4 40 7

W. A. Taylor Conservation Area

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 330 22

Mooney's Bay Beach 7 2800 36 < 4 1460 34 4 650 13Tay River - Glen Tay Beach

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 340 128

Tay River - Last Duel Park Beach

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 8000 300

From TABLE #1, it can be seen that the geometric mean fluctuates considerably fromyear to year. In some cases this may be explained by the amount of rainfall for that particularyear.

25

3.10 TRIBUTARY RANKING

In an attempt to rank the tributaries in terms of their potential to contribute bacteriato the Rideau, the geometric mean for June, July and August was multiplied by the watershedarea for each tributary. The results provided a score for each tributary. This score, while notbased on tributary flow rates is considered to reflect the tributary's relative contribution tothe Rideau River's pollution concentration because runoff volume and watershed area aredirectly related. This score was then used to rank the tributaries has shown in the followingTable.

TABLE #2: 1991 Tributary Ranking Based On Fecal Coliform Contribution

TRIBUTARYNAME

Geometric Mean FecalColiforms Per 100 ml

WatershedArea (sq. km)

Score Ranking

Tay River 513 456 233928 1Kemptville Creek 417 450 187650 2Jock River 310 572 177320 3Brassils Creek 290 86 23940 4Barbers Creek 336 41 13776 5Rosedale Creek 231 58 13398 6Steven Creek 84 157 13188 7Irish Creek 66 168 11088 8Mud Creek 174 51 8874 9Rideau Creek 107 51 5457 10Mosquito Creek 128 39 4992 11Cranberry Creek 106 45 4770 12Murphy Drain 83 44 3652 13Doyle Creek 206 16 3296 14Arcand Drain 130 8 1040 15Hudson Drain 441 2 882 16Dales Creek 101 4 404 17NOTE: The Kemptville Creek sampling location was upstream from the Town of Kemptville,

so that results would not be influenced by stormwater runoff or sewage treatmentplant effluent in the Town.

The ranking is important when determining where funds should be spent in the eventthat the program becomes over-subscribed in any given year. It was decided to compare theresults of the 1990 and 1991 Tributary Ranking System to assist in the process of allocatinglimited funding. (TABLE #3)

An implementation program should demonstrate water quality improvements.However, most financial assistance programs are voluntary and therefore making itimpossible to target any one particular tributary for remedial work. Also, the entire RideauRiver provides water-based recreational opportunities with an MOE guideline which appliesto its entire length, hence remedial act9s required throughout the watershed.

26

At the same time, the RVCA recognizes the importance of initiating a clean up effortin a way that produces measurable results, which means targeting tributaries that have a highscore.

Therefore the following table shows the tributary ranking for 1990 and 1991 which willact as decision tool for allocating limiting funding.

TABLE #3: 1990 and 1991 Tributary Rank

TRIBUTARY NAME 1990 RANK 1991 RANK

Tay River N/A 1

Kemptville Creek 1 2

Jock River 2 3

Brassils Creek 6 4

Barbers Creek 3 5

Rosedale Creek 4 6

Steven Creek 9 7

Irish Creek 13 8

Mud Creek 7 9

Rideau Creek 12 10

Mosquito Creek 10 11

Cranberry Creek 8 12

Murphy Drain 14 13

Doyle Creek 5 14

Arcand Drain 16 15

Hudson Drain 15 16

Dales Creek 17 17

Otter Creek 11 N/A

It is apparent from this table, that the 1990 and 1991 tributary ranking is similar withsome exceptions. These variations may be the result of fluctuations in the yearly rainfallpatterns within the tributary's geographical area. In the event that the program is over-subscribed by farm operators wishing to complete water quality improvement projects, thistable should be used, together with consideration of the distance from next downstreambeach, when setting priorities.

Also, the RVCA will include at least one tributary on which positive results would actas a demonstration to convey the message to farmers.

27

LIVESTOCK OPERATION SURVEY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The intent of the Rideau Valley Rural Beaches Program was to quantify the extent andmagnitude of agricultural sources of fecal pollution and then prioritize where funds should bespent for remedial action.

To complete this task an estimate of the potential number of water qualityimprovement projects on livestock operations was required.

To achieve this, a livestock survey was designed to assess the potential of eachlivestock operation to contribute bacteria to surface waters. Farm visits were required tocomplete a livestock operation questionnaire (see Appendix F).

The questionnaire was limited to livestock operations adjacent to the Rideau River fromOttawa to Smiths Falls because the size of the study watershed rendered an investigation ofthis scale impractical.

The livestock operation survey was designed to look at four possible sources of fecalpollution: manure storage, manure handling, milkhouse washwater disposal and livestockaccess to watercourses. The four sources allowed a comparison of each farm potential tocontribute fecal pollution to surface waters. The comparison of each farm was then based onthe following Pollution Scoring Methodology.

4.2 FARM POLLUTION SCORING METHODOLOGY

The objectives of the farm pollution scoring methodology were as follows:

1. Assign a relative score to all four potential sources of fecal pollution for each livestockoperation.

2. Analyze all four potential sources of fecal pollution in comparison with the total farmpollution score.

3. Calculate reductions in farm pollution scores resulting from the initiation of remedialmeasures for all four potential sources of fecal pollution.

4. Determine the most cost-effective remedial measure associated with the reduction inthe total pollution score.

The following Farm Pollution Scoring System was developed with the above objectivesin mind. It is a modified version of LAKE SIMCOE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES CURB PLAN(REFERENCE #4).

28

FARM POLLUTION SEVERITY SCORES

5.1 LIVESTOCK BACTERIA PRODUCTION PER DAY

The farm pollution severity score is based on the relative concentration of FecalColiform (FC) bacteria produced per day for each individual livestock operation.

The relative FC bacteria concentration for different livestock species was calculated bymultiplying the FC concentration per cubic metre by the manure production per day todetermine the fecal coliform produced per day by the individual animals. To make calculationsmore simplified, a Bacteria Index was generated by dividing the relative bacteriaconcentration by 1 x 1010.

Relative Bacteria Produced Per Day

Animal TypeFecal

Conformper m3

ManureProductionm3 per day

DailyBacteriaProduced

BacteriaIndex

(I)Beef 5.0 x 1011 0.0340 1.7 x 1010 1.7

Dairy 5.0 x 1011 0.0599 3.0 x 1010 3.0

Sheep 1.6 x 1013 0.0042 6.7 x 1010 6.7

Poultry 9.9 x 1013 0.0001 0.99 x 1010 0.99

Horse 8.7 x 1010 0.0566 0.49 x 1010 0.49

Swine, Sows and Litter 1.0 x 1013 0.0159 1.59 x 1011 15.9

Feeders 1.0 x 1013 0.0071 7.1 x 1010 7.1

Weaners 1.0 x 1013 0.0023 2.3 x 1010 2.3

Source: Maitland Valley Conservation Authority CURB Plan (REFERENCE #5).

The first step was to determine the bacteria factors for each potential pollution sourcecomponent on every livestock operation. The pollution source components that were assessedare as follows:

- Manure Storage- Manure Spreading Practices- Milkhouse\Parlour Wash Water Disposal- Livestock Access To Watercourses

29

Manure Storage & Manure Spreading

Bacteria Factor 1 (BF1) = Sum((BI1 x No. of Animals) + (BI2 x No. of Animals) + ( etc.))

Milkhouse\Parlour Wash Water Disposal

Bacteria Factor 2 (BF2) = 3.0 x No. of Milking Cows

Livestock Access To Watercourses

Bacteria Factor 3 (BF3) = BI PAST X No. of Animals in the pasture.

To evaluate manure storages, manure spreading and livestock access, a transportfactor was also required to assess the potential for runoff to reach the watercourse. Theinformation required to calculate the runoff ability which can be used to determined overlandbacterial transport is percent slope, slope length, soil texture and soil cover. (Snell, 1985).

The following equation is used to calculate transport and was developed by the LandsDirectorate, Environment Canada in Guelph (REFERENCE #9).

Transport = (Slope + Slope Length + Soil Texture + Soil Cover Factor)

To determine if the transport factor should be used, slope length was chosen as thefixed variable. If the slope length was > 120 metres there is no adjustment to the scoreassigned to manure storages, manure spreading and livestock access. When the slope lengthexceeds 120 metres the value is beyond the range of research data. (REFERENCE #9).

Milkhouse washwater disposal does not have an adjustment for transport factorbecause in the majority of cases it is not discharged to the soil surface.

To determine individual transport factors the following assessment was used:

30

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSPORT FACTORS

Slope Slope Factor

If percent slope < = 0.5 Slope=0.5If percent slope >0.5 and < =2 Slope=1

If percent slope >2 and < =5 Slope=1.5

If percent slope >5 and < =9 Slope=2

If percent slope >9 and < =15 Slope=2.5

If percent slope > 15 and < =30 Slope=3

If percent slope >30 Slope=5

Soil Texture Soil Texture Factor

If soil is organic Soil=0.5

If soil is clay Soil = 1

If soil is sand Soil=1.5

If soil is sandy loam Soil=2

If soil is clay loam Soil=2.5

If soil is silty loam Soil=3

Soil Cover Soil Cover Factor

If percent soil cover > 80 Cover =0.5

If percent soil cover < = 80 and > 60 Cover =1

If percent soil cover < = 60 and >40 Cover =1.5

If percent soil cover < =40 and > 20 Cover =2

If percent soil cover < =20 Cover =2.5

Transport Factor (TF) = (Slope Factor + Soil Texture Factor + Soil Cover Factor)

31

5.3 POLLUTION SOURCE COMPONENT RATINGS

Rating Manure Storage

This section assesses the existing manure storage facility based on its ability to detercontaminated runoff from entering watercourses. The manure storage receives a score basedon its construction and distance to the nearest watercourse as follows:

Rating Manure Storage

Solid and Liquid Storage

If storage is a bare yard then MS =5If storage is a cement pad MS =4If storage is a pit MS =3If storage is a tank MS =1

Runoff Collection

If storage is covered MS =MS-1If storage has a runoff pond MS =MS-1If storage has a liner MS =MS-1If storage has retaining walls MS =MS-1If storage receives runoff from

yard or roofs: Negative Impact MS =MS+1 Positive Impact MS =MS-1

If animal capacity exceedspresent storage MS =MS+2

Manure Storage Transport Factor

If storage is yard or pad and distance to the watercourse> 120 metres No Adjustment

If storage is yard or pad and distance to the watercourse< =120 metres MST = MS+(TF)

32

Rating Manure Spreading Practices

This section assesses the potential for runoff from manure spreads fields to reachwatercourses. The time of application is taken into consideration because manure spread onfrozen ground is usually transported to the watercourse with the spring runoff. The transportfactor plays a key role in assessing the score because its components reflect the runoffpotential from the field. The manure spreading score is calculate as follows:

Spreading Practice Spreading Practice Factor

If manure is spread in winter months MFIELD =10If manure spread field is < =120 metres

to a watercourse MFIELD = (TF)If manure spread field is > 120 metres

to a watercourse MFIELD = 0

Rating Milkhouse\Parlour Wash Water Disposal

This section assesses the disposal of milkhouse/parlour wash water because it hasgained attention from other Rural Beaches studies in southwestern Ontario, which show thatsignificant amounts of bacteria and phosphorus are found in milkhouse/parlour wash waterwhich can in many cases, directly enter watercourses. The scoring system has only twooutcomes as follows:

Disposal System Disposal System Factor

If system is expanded manurestorage capacity MHOUSE =0

If system is holding tank MHOUSE =0If system is treatment trench MHOUSE =0If system is septic tank and

weeping bed MHOUSE =0If system connected to tile drain MHOUSE =10If system is surface disposal MHOUSE =10

33

Rating Livestock Access To Watercourses

This section addresses the pasture management of each operation. Livestock accessprovides direct contamination when they defecate into the watercourses. Therefore, iflivestock have access to the watercourse they get the highest score, and if they are restricted,the transport factor will be considered. The assessment is as follows:

Livestock Access Livestock Access Factor

If livestock have access tosurface water PAST =10

If livestock access is restrictedand is located > 120 metres fromsurface waters PAST=0

If livestock access is restrictedbut located < =120 metres fromsurface waters PAST = (TF)

5.4 TOTAL POLLUTION SEVERITY SCORE (TPSS)

The total pollution severity score combines the calculated bacteria factors and thepollution source components which provides a total pollution severity score for each livestockoperation as follows:

TOTAL MANURE STORAGE: TMS = BF1 X MST =

TOTAL MANURE SPREADING: TMSP = BF1 X MFIELD =

TOTAL MILKHOUSE: TMH = BF2 X MHOUSE =

TOTAL LIVESTOCK: TLA = BF3 X PAST = _____________

TPSS = _____________

Appendix G contains an example Farm Score Sheet.

34

Farm Survey and Ranking Summary

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Each farm that was surveyed along the Rideau was ranked using the above mentionedpollution severity scoring methodology.

In total 50 farms were surveyed which provides a general cross-section of farms withinthe study watershed. The individual farm scores and a description of each farm can be foundin Appendix H. When the farm scores are examined, an analysis of each contributing sourceprovides priority ranking for remedial action on each individual farm. As well, eachcontributing source is examined to identify the cost effective methods for reducing bacterialoading to watercourses. To examine the results of the pollution severity scores, it wasnecessary to examine dairy farms separate from all other livestock operations becausemilkhouse/parlour washwater is an additional pollution source. Other livestock operationsinclude beef, horse, sheep and poultry farms.

6.2 DAIRY FARMS

There were 20 dairy farms out of the 50 surveyed livestock operations. To determinethe potential pollution severity score for the dairy farms, the 4 components; manure storage,manure spreading, milkhouse/parlour washwater, livestock access had to be analyzed.

These individual scores were added together and compared to the total pollutionseverity score (GRAPH #20). From GRAPH #20 it can be seen that manure spreadingaccounts for the largest percentage of fecal contamination based on the pollution severitymethodology, followed by manure storage milkhouse washwater and livestock access. (SeeAppendix I for individual scores).

In terms of actual capital projects, 17 farms (85%) require a manure storage, 14 farms(70%) should have a change in their manure spreading practices, 12 farms (60%) could usea proper milkhouse/parlour washwater disposal system and 12 farms (60%) need restrictedlivestock access.

6.3 OTHER LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

The remaining 30 farms required 3 potential pollution source components to beanalyzed; manure storage, manure spreading and livestock access. The individual scores wereadded together and compared to the total pollution severity score to obtain a percentage ofthe total fecal contamination GRAPH #21. (See Appendix I for individual scores).

From GRAPH #21, livestock access is the largest potential contributor of bacteria to ourwatercourses, followed by manure storage and then manure spreading.

In terms of actual capital projects, 27 farms (90%) require a manure storage, 9 farms(27%) should have a change in their manure spreading practices and 26 farms (87%) needrestricted livestock access. These percentages differ from the percentages for Dairy Farmsbecause they may be dealing with larger volumes of manure and different confinementsystems.

35

GRAPH #20: Farm Pollution Severity Score, Dairy Operations

GRAPH #21: Farm Pollution Severity Score, Other Livestock Operations

36

Possible Remedial Measures and Associated Costs

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the CURB plan is to determine the most cost effective remedial actionto achieve reduced bacterial contamination of our watercourses. To achieve this goal, adescription of the possible remedial actions for each source component and its associated costis required.

7.2 MANURE STORAGES

In Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food recommends that manurestorages be designed to hold a minimum 200 days of manure production. This time period isdesigned to prevent the spreading of manure on frozen ground.

Manure storages can be divided into two categories, solid manures storages and liquidmanure storages, therefore it is important to categorize the livestock operations.

Solid manure has maximum moisture content of 84%, is stiff and non-flowing and mustbe handled by equipment designed for moving bulk materials.

For solid manure there are 3 types of approved manure storages as follows:

Option Cost

1. Concrete Pad with Separate Runoff Storage(Concrete) $15,000 - $19,000(Earthen) $11,000 - $15,000

2. Roofed Rectangular Storage $25,000 - $35,000

3. Open Earthen Storage $ 6,000 - $ 8,000

These cost estimates were obtained in 1990 from Harold House, an AgricultureEngineer with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Reference #3). The estimatesreflect a herd of 50 cows without milkhouse/parlour waste included. For the purpose of thisCURB plan, a 15% increase will be added to the costs to reflect inflation over the last twoyears and local difference in contractors cost.

37

The 15% increase brings the average cost to the following:

Option Average CostInflated to 1991

1. Concrete Pad with Separate Runoff Storage(Concrete) $19,550(Earthen) $14,950

2. Roofed Rectangular Storage $34,500

3. Open Earthen Storage $ 8.050

Average $19,300

The type of storage a farmer will choose will be based on individual preference and thetype of operation they run, given that all options can be equally effective. Therefore, for thepurpose of this CURB plan, $19,300 is the average of the 4 options and will be used todetermine the cost effectiveness of this remedial action.

Liquid manure has a minimum moisture content of 88%, is free flowing and is capableof being pumped or transferred by gravity. Usually, only dairy operations will have a liquidsystem.

For liquid manure there are 3 types of approved manure storages as follows:

Option Cost

1. Open Concrete Storage $15,000 - $17,000

2. Covered Concrete Storage $30,000 - $35,000

3. Open Earthen Storage $ 6,000 - $ 8,000

These cost estimates were obtained in 1990 from Harold House, an AgricultureEngineer with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Reference #3). The estimatesreflect a herd of 50 cows without milkhouse/parlour waste included. For the purpose of thisCURB plan, a 15% increase will be added to the costs to reflect inflation over the last twoyears and local difference in contractors cost.

38

The 15% increase brings the average cost to the following:

Option Average CostInflated to 1991

1. Open Concrete Storage $18,400

2. Covered Concrete Storage $37,375

3. Open Earthen Storage $ 8,050

Average $21,300

The type of liquid storage a farmer will choose will be based on individual preferenceand the type of operation they run, given that all options can be equally effective. Therefore,for the purpose of this CURB plan, $21,300 is the average of the 3 options and will be usedto determine the cost effectiveness of this remedial action.

7.3 MILKHOUSE/PARLOUR WASTEWATER

In Ontario, through the Rural Beaches Program, milkhouse waste has been identifiedas being a major agricultural source of bacteria and phosphorus,. Therefore proper disposalis required. There are 3 approved disposal system options:

Option Cost

1. Treatment Trench System $ 4,000 - $ 6,000

2. Separate Storage(Concrete Tank) $ 8,000 - $10,000(Earthen Storage) $ 4,000 - $ 6,000

3. Adding Milkhouse Waste to Manure Storage- Roofed Rectangular $10,000- Concrete Pad with Separate Runoff Storage- (Concrete) $ 7,000

(Earthen) $ 3,000- Open Concrete Storage $ 5,000 - $ 8,000

39

These cost estimates were obtained in 1990 from Harold House, Ontario Ministry ofAgriculture and Food (Reference #3). For the purpose of this CURB plan, a 15% increase willbe added to the cost to reflect inflation over the last two years and local difference incontractors cost.

Option Average Cost Inflated to 1991

1. Treatment Trench System $ 5,750

2. Separate Storage(Concrete) $10,350 (Earthen) $ 5,750

3. Adding Milkhouse Waste To Manure Storage- Roofed Rectangular $11,500- Concrete Pad with Separate Runoff Storage

(Concrete) $ 8,050(Earthen) $ 3,450

- Open Concrete Storage $ 7,475

Average $ 7,500

The type of milkhouse/parlour waste disposal system is the individuals choice since alloptions can be equally effective but depend on their existing operation. Therefore, for thepurpose of this CURB plan, $7,500 is the average of the 7 options and will be used todetermine the cost effectiveness of this remedial action.

40

7.4 MANURE SPREADING

The spreading of manure during the winter when the ground is frozen is a waste of anatural resource. When the spring melt comes, the manure is washed off the field to nearbywatercourses. Also, spreading in the spring, summer and fall next to a watercourse can addbacteria with stormwater runoff.

The cost associated with remedial action for improving manure spreading practicesrelates to running an education program. The education program has to convince farmers toadopt a change in their manure management and will include time of application, proximityto watercourses and application rates.

Therefore, a large reduction of the pollution severity score could be achieved with aongoing education program at the local level which is estimated to cost $20,000 over 5 yearsand consists of the following components:

Workshop $ 7,500Displays and Exhibits $ 5,000Newsletters $ 5,000Tours $ 2,500

Total $20,000

7.5 LIVESTOCK ACCESS

The cost associated with restricting livestock from our watercourses will varyconsiderably. Once the livestock are fenced out of the watercourse, there is also a cost toprovide an alternate water supply, for rehabilitating the streambank, if required, and forstream crossing.

For this CURB plan, the cost for livestock restriction is the average cost per site forfarms adjacent to the Rideau River tributaries.

Rideau River Components Average Cost

Fencing $6.00/mAlternate Watering Device $2000Streambank Rehabilitation $1000

Average $3000 + $6/m

From the livestock inventory, the average length of required fence was 1000 metres.Therefore, the average cost for livestock restriction along the Rideau River is $9000.

41

Rideau River Tributaries

The difference in the cost for livestock access is the stream crossing componentbecause it was not applicable to the Rideau River. A stream crossing may be required if thefarmer pastures his/her livestock on the other side of the watercourse

Components Average Cost

Fencing $6.00/mAlternate Watering Device $2000Streambank Rehabilitation $1000Stream Crossings (Culverts) $2000

Average $5000 + $6/m

If 1000 metres is used as the average length of required fence, the average cost forlivestock restriction along the tributaries is $11,000.

8.0 COST OF REMEDIATION FOR RIDEAU RIVER

The total cost of remedial work on the 50 farms adjacent to the Rideau River isapproximately $1,381,283. The break down of this total is as follows:

Manure Storages

Dairy - Solid Storages 16 x $19,300 = $ 308,808- Liquid Storages 1 x $21,300 = $ 21.300

$ 330,100

Other Livestock Operations- Solid Storages 27 x $19,300 = $ 521,100

Milkhouse Washwater

Dairy - 12 Farms x $7,500 = $ 90,000

Livestock Access Restriction

Dairy - 12 Farms x $9,000 = $ 108,000

Other Livestock Operations- 26 Farms x $9,000 = $ 234,000

Manure Spreading Practices

Education Program $ 20.000Total $1,303,200

42

COST EFFECTIVENESS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

A cost/score ratio can be used to prioritize remedial action for livestock operationsexamined in the survey. The cost/score ratio is determined by dividing the cost of remedialaction by the potential reduction in pollution severity scores. (See Appendix 7 for RemedialScores).

To determine the reduction in pollution severity scores it was necessary to recalculateeach individual farm score.

This was accomplished by using the lowest possible score for manure storages,assuming a 90% reduction for manure spreading practices, using a 100% reduction formilkhouse/parlour washwater, and assuming a 90% reduction for livestock access. GRAPH#22 and GRAPH #23 were developed to display the pollution severity score after remediationfor Dairy Farms and Other Livestock Operations respectively.

9.2 DAIRY OPERATIONS

The following TABLE #4 provides the cost/score ratio for remedial action.

Pollution Component Cost Reduction Cost/Score

Manure Storage $330,100 19,741 $16.72

Manure Spreading $ 10,000 44,702 $ 0.22

Milkhouse Washwater $ 90,000 16,260 $ 5.54

Livestock Access $108,000 10,868 $ 9.94

Therefore, in terms of cost effectiveness for dairy farms, an education program formanure spreading practices is the most effective, if the expenditure results in a change inpractice. In this respect the remedial measure is not 100% reliable, but even if 25% ofagricultural operators change, then the Cost/Score ratio is $0.88/point which still is the bestcost/reduction.

For capital project, milkhouse washwater disposal systems are the most cost effectiveat reducing potential bacteria loading to our watercourses, followed by livestock accessrestriction and then, manure storages.

43

GRAPH #22: Dairy Operations: Farm Pollution Severity Score After RemedialAction

GRAPH #23: Other Livestock Operations: Farm Pollution Severity Score AfterRemedial Action

44

9.3 OTHER LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

TABLE #5 provides the cost/score ratio for remedial action for livestock operationsexcluding dairy.

Pollution Component Cost Reduction Cost/Score

Manure Storage $521,100 8,852 $58.87

Manure Spreading $ 10,000 4,155 $ 2.41

Livestock Access $234,000 17,043 $13.73

Therefore in terms of cost effectiveness for livestock operations excluding dairy, aneducation program for manure spreading practices is the most effective again, if it yieldspositive response. For capital projects, livestock access restriction is the most cost effectiveat reducing bacteria loading to our watercourses followed by manure storages.

10. COST OF REMEDIATION FOR RIDEAU RIVER TRIBUTARIES

The cost of remediation for tributaries throughout the watershed is determined byextrapolating the results for the Rideau River survey, assuming the surveyed farms arerepresentative.

First it was necessary to obtain the number of farms in the study area using the 1986Census of Agriculture (REFERENCE #10) and breaking them into the following groups (seeAppendix K):

Dairy Farms 268Other Livestock Operations 475

NOTE: These numbers exclude the farms in the Rideau River survey.

The second step was to extrapolate the results of the Farm Survey and RankingSummary to calculate the possible number of projects for the two groups of livestockoperations. Then, it was assumed that approximately 60% of these projects could beconsidered high priority. TABLE #5 outlines the calculation of possible remedial action projectsfor the tributaries.

45

TABLE #6: Number of Tributary Projects

Type OfLivestockOperation

NumberOf

Farms

PollutionSource

Component

PercentageRequiringRemedial

Action

ApproximateNumber Of

Projects

ApproximateNumber Of

Projects 60% High Priority

Dairy Farms 268

Manure Storage 85% 228 137MilkhouseWashwater

60% 161 97

Livestock AccessRestriction

60% 161 97

OtherLivestockOperations

475Manure Storage 90% 428 257

Livestock AccessRestriction

87% 413 248

TOTAL 836

From TABLE #6, it is possible to assign a cost of remedial action for the farmsassociated with the Rideau River Tributaries.

The total cost of remedial work for manure storages assumes the lower cost of a solidstorage because there is no indication of how many liquid manure systems are present, andthere is some concern about liquid manure application contaminating surface water throughtile drainage systems (REFERENCE #1).

The breakdown of the cost is as follows:

Manure Storages

Dairy Farms - Solid Storages 137 x $19,300 = $ 2,644,100Other Livestock Operations - 257 x $19,300 = $ 4,960,100

Milkhouse Washwater

Dairy Farms - 97 x $7,500 = $ 727,500

Livestock Access Restriction

Dairy Farms - 97 x $11,000 = $ 1,067,000Other Livestock Operations - 248 x $11,000 = $ 2.728,000

TOTAL $12,126,700

46

11. COST OF AGRICULTURAL REMEDIATION SUMMARY

The approximate total cost of remediation for agricultural projects along the RideauRiver and its tributaries is $13,429,900 which consists of 930 individual projects.

It is possible to calculate the dollar value in grants required from MOE since theannouncement in September, 1991 of the CURB Implementation Program

TABLE #7: Requested Grants

NumberOf

Projects

CalculatedProjectCost

GrantRate

GrantCeilings

PotentialDemand

For GrantsRideau River

Manure Storages 44 $19,300/21,300 50% $12,000 $ 425,000

Milkhouse Washwater 12 $ 7,500 50% $ 5,000 $ 45,000Livestock Access Restriction

38 $ 9,000 75% $10,000 $ 256,500

Rideau River TributariesManure Storages 394 $19,300 50% $12,000 $3,802,100

Milkhouse Washwater 97 $ 7,500 50% $ 5,000 $ 363,750Livestock Access Restriction

345 $11,000 75% $10,000 $2,846,250

TOTAL 930 $7,738,600

Therefore, $7,738,600 is the approximate amount required for grants to fund 930individual projects.

47

12. NON-AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION SOURCES

The water sampling program in 1990 (REFERENCE #7) identified the sewage treatmentplants in the Town of Kemptville and the Town of Smiths Falls as contributors of fecal coliformbacteria and phosphorus. At present, these sewage treatment plants are at various stagesof expansion or upgrading and when completed should reduce loading to the Rideau River.

Although the water sampling program did not directly identify private septic system asa source of pollution, they are considered a potential source by MOE, (Personalcommunication, KIRK HANSEN, MOE, Ottawa).

It is suggested that 1% - 3% of private septic systems could be faulty within the studyarea, which would translate into the order of 100 faulty septic systems in the study area.(Personal communication, KIRK HANSEN, MOE, Ottawa).

48

13. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

To implement remedial work for improving surface water quality, the CURB PROGRAMwas announced by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in September, 1991.

The program will be administered on a watershed basis by Conservation Authorities.Each Conservation Authority that has completed a CURB PLAN is eligible to participate in theCURB PROGRAM for 5 years.

The program provides $6 million per year for financial assistance grants, technologytransfer and education.

Farmers requesting financial assistance for water quality improvement projects willcontact the Conservation Authority for a site visit by a CURB Facilitator. With the help of theCURB Facilitator, the farmer will complete a WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN which willbe reviewed by a multi-agency steering committee similar to the Rural Beaches SteeringCommittees.

The project grant requests will be reviewed annually based on the participation of thewatershed farmers in the CURB Program.

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority has anticipated an uneven request forfunding over the 5 year period because of lack of public awareness of the program in the firstyear. The RVCA has divided the request for $7,738,600. of financial grant into 5 years asfollows:

Percent Participation Potential Grant Demand

YEAR 1 10% $ 773,860

YEAR 2 25% $1,934,650

YEAR 3 30% $2,321,580

YEAR 4 25% $1,934,650

YEAR 5 10% $ 773,860

TOTAL $7,738,600

If the situation arises where there are more requests for grants dollars than allocatedin any one year, the RVCA will target projects adjacent to the Rideau River followed byprojects adjacent to the Rideau River Tributaries based on the Tributary Ranking.

The project grant requests will be reviewed annually based on the participation of thewatershed farmers in the CURB Program.

49

CONCLUSION

The second year of the Rideau Valley Rural Beaches Program has yielded a CURB PLAN,as well as water quality data which reinforces the first years data and assumptions.

The CURB PLAN will help the RVCA target funding from the CURB IMPLEMENTATIONPROGRAM to address agricultural pollution sources within the watershed.

The water quality sampling in the second year of the Rural Beaches Program hasreinforced the following:

1. The Rideau River from Kilmarnock to Mooney's Bay in the centre channel only hadgeometric mean fecal coliform concentrations below the MOE recreation guidelines of100 coliforms per 100 millilitres. There are numerous tributary mixing zones andisolated sources of pollution along this reach causing elevated fecal coliform bacterialevels which exceed the recreation guideline.

2. The majority of the tributaries within the study area have fecal coliform levels abovethe MOE guideline of 100 organisms per 100 ml. The extent to which these tributariesimpair water quality in the Rideau is unknown except that the tributaries can be rankedby their potential to contribute fecal coliform bacteria to the Rideau.

3. The high bacteria levels at Old Slys Locks may be the result of stormwater runoff andsewer overflows in Smiths Falls. (REFERENCE #12).

4. The high fecal coliform levels at Edmunds Lock is a combination of stormwater runoff,sewer overflows and the sewage treatment plant in Smiths Falls. (REFERENCE #12)

5. The Rideau River within the study area in most cases exceeds the total phosphorusguideline of 0.03 mg/L, accounting for heavy algae growth and excessive aquatic weedgrowth.

6. The majority of tributaries within the study area have total phosphorus levelsexceeding the MOE guideline.

7. Total phosphorus levels increase from Smiths Falls to Mooney's Bay.

8. Excessive aquatic plant growth and algae blooms are common place on the RideauRiver and its tributaries.

50

9. The potential sources of bacteria pollution and phosphorus loading are the following:

! urban stormwater runoff! sewer overflows! sewage treatment plants! livestock access to the watercourse! manure storage facilities! manure handling and management! milkhouse washwater disposal agricultural runoff! rural septic systems

10. The Rideau River from Smiths Falls to Mooney's Bay provides for water-basedrecreation along the whole reach, not only at the beaches.

The Livestock Operation Survey revealed the following:

11. Of the 20 Dairy Farms surveyed, 85% required improved manure storages, 60%required improved milkhouse washwater disposal systems and 60% requirelivestock access restriction to help reduce the potential bacteria loading.

12. Of the 30 Other Livestock Operations surveyed, 90% require improved manurestorages and 87% require livestock access restriction to help reduce thepotential bacteria loading.

13. An education program to convince farmers that manure is a natural resourceand not a waste product may be the most cost effective option to reducebacteria loading to watercourses.

14. For Dairy Farms in the survey, capital projects in order of cost effectiveness aremilkhouse washwater disposal systems, livestock access restriction and theleast, manure storages.

15. For Other Livestock Operations in the survey, capital projects in order of costeffectiveness are livestock access restriction followed by manure storages.

51

REFERENCES

1. Dean, D. Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, 1990. The Effect of Farm LiquidWaster Application on Receiving Water Quality.

2. Environment Canada, Water Resources Branch (1988). Historical StreamflowSummary. Ottawa, Ontario.

3. House, H.K., Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food May 14, 1991. Cost of MilkhouseWaste Disposal Alternatives

4. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 1989 CURB Plan - Beaverton RiverDrainage Basin. Newmarket, Ontario

5. Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, 1989 CURB Plan. Wroxeter, Ontario

6. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, (1988). Agricultural Statistics for Ontario. Publication20

7. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, 1990. Water Quality Study. Manotick, Ontario.

8. Seyfried, P., Harris E., and M. Young, 1986. Pathogen Indicator Bacterial Relationshipsand their Relevance to Recreational Waters Introduction. Unpublished.

9. Snell E. A., 1984. A manual of Regional Targeting of Agricultural Soil Erosion andSediment Loading to Streams, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Working PaperNo. 36.

10. Statistics Canada, 1986 Census of Agriculture

11. Stiles B. Ministry of the Environment. Ottawa, Ontario Personal Communication 12. Totten Sims Hubicki and Associates, 1989. Town of Smiths Falls, Report on the

Sanitary Sewer System Evaluation, Needs Study.

52

APPENDICES

PAGE

A Bacterial Indicators i

B Nutrient/Physical Parameters i-ii

C Water Sampling Locations iii

D Bacteriological Data iv-vii

E Total Phosphorus Data viii-x

F Landowner Questionnaire xi-xiv

G Farm Score Sheet xv

H Farm Descriptions xvi-xxv

I Farm Pollution Severity Scores xxvi-xxvii

J Farm Pollution Severity Scores after Remedial Action xxviii-xxix

K Number of Livestock Operations xxx

53

BACTERIAL INDICATORS FECAL COLIFORM

Of all indicator bacteria, fecal coliforms are frequently found in manure and sewage.This makes it the most commonly analyzed indicator of fecal pollution.

The MOE guideline for fecal coliforms is 100 organisms per 100 millilitres. When thisguideline is exceeded, a potential health hazard exists which may cause eye and skinirritations. If swallowed, intestinal problems such as cramps or diarrhoea may occur.

ESCHERICHIA COLIFORM (E. COLI)

E. Coli is the component of fecal coli which is used to indicate feces since its naturalenvironment is in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. E. Coli are occasionally pathogenicto man and can cause sever intestinal problems.

NUTRIENT/PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN)

TKN is a measurement of organic nitrogen and ammonia together. This nutrientcontributes to eutrophication when in excessive amounts.

Sources of TKN include manure, treated sewage, fertilizer from runoff on agriculturallands, and natural fixation.

The suggested MOE guideline is 0.5 mg/L.

NITRATE NITROGEN

Nitrate is the most stable form of combined nitrogen in surface waters. Nitrateconcentrations in surface waters are usually less than 1 mg/L and are rarely as much as 5mg/L. Excessive levels of nitrate will contribute to eutrophication and algae growth.

Sources of nitrate include manure, treated sewage, and fertilizer from agriculturalrunoff.

The MOE guideline for drinking water is 10 mg/L for Nitrate plus nitrite.

NITRITE NITROGEN

Nitrite nitrogen is an intermediate form between ammonia and nitrate, therefore it isvery unstable. Surface waters containing nitrite concentrations above 0.001 mg/L indicateactive biological processes influenced by organic pollution.

Sources of nitrite include animal digestive systems and moist feeds.

The MOE guidelines for drinking water is 10 mg/L for Nitrite plus nitrate.

i

AMMONIUM

Ammonium is of importance due to its relationship with ammonia since it is themeasurement of dissociated Ammonium and Ammonia. Ammonia occasionally reaches levelstoxic to fish. Ammonia will reduce the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood and fish suffocateas a result.

A excepted guideline for aquatic life is 0.02 mg/L.

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS

Total phosphorus measures all forms of phosphate both soluble and in particulate form.Excessive concentrations of this nutrient encourages excessive algae and plant growth leadingto eutrophication.

Sources of phosphorus include manure, treated sewage, milkhouse washwater,industrial cleaners, and fertilizer from soil erosion.

The MOE guideline is 0.03 mg/L for rivers and 0.02 mg/L for lakes.

DISSOLVED REACTIVE PHOSPHORUS

Filtered reactive phosphorus is the soluble portion of the total phosphorusmeasurement. This soluble phosphorus is readily available for plan growth and will causeeutrophication when in excessive amounts.

MOE has no specific guideline.

TURBIDITY

Turbidity measures the amount of light absorbed, reflected or scattered by materialssuch as: clay, silt, organic and inorganic material. Turbidity, by altering light penetration, canhave a great affect on aquatic plant growth, especially algae.

CONDUCTIVITY

Conductivity is a numerical expression of water's ability to conduct electrical current.Conductivity increases with the level of dissolved solids in the water.

pH

The pH scale is used to indicate the acidity or alkalinity of water. Both acidic andalkaline waters may cause eye irritations.

The guideline for recreational water is 6.5 - 8.5 on the pH scale.

ii

WATER SAMPLING LOCATION

Sample Location Sample LocationCode Description Code Description

F1 Mud Creek at Bankfield RoadF4 Steven's Creek at Rideau Valley

Drive SouthF5 Cranberry Creek at Rideau Valley

Drive SouthF6 Brassil's Creek at Highway 43F7 Rideau Creek at County Road #2F8A Kilmarnock Locks at Kilmarnock

RoadF8B Kilmarnock Dam at Kilmarnock

RoadF9 Rosedale Creek Highway #43F10 Black Creek at Highway #43F11 Rideau River and Hydro Park

Footbridge in Smiths FallsF12 Rideau River at Old Sly's Dam in

Smiths FallsF13 Rideau River at Edmund's LocksF14 Irish Creek at Kilmarnock RoadF15 Barber's Creek at County Road

#16F21 Dales Creek at County Road #23F22 Murphy's Drain at Country Road

#23F26 Kemptville Creek at Oxford Mills

BridgeF27 Kemptville Creek at Hurd Street

BridgeF28 Kemptville Creek at County Road

#24F29 Kemptville Creek at Highway #43F30 Arcand Drain on Country Road

#19 Before Highway #16F31 Hudson's Drain at Country Road

#19F33 Doyle Creek at Country Road

#19F40 Mosquito Creek at River Road

North

R1 Rideau River below ManotickMarina

R2 Rideau River below Carleton Golf& Yacht Club

R6 Rideau River below W. A. TaylorR7 Rideau River below W. A. TaylorR8 Rideau River below Baxter

BeachR12 Rideau River below Kemptville

CreekR13 Rideau River below Libby's

IslandR15 Rideau River near MerrickvilleJ1 Jock River at Highway #16J2 Jock River at Jockvale RoadJ3 Jock River at Greenbank RoadJ5 Jock River at Moodie DriveJ7 Jock River at Twin Elm BridgeJ9 Jock River at Eagleson RoadJ11 Jock River at McBean Street

(Richmond)J12 Jock River at Ottawa Street

(Richmond)J15 Jock River at Munster Side RoadJ16 Jock River at Jock Trail RoadJ18 Jock River at Franktown RoadJ19 Jock River at Copeland RoadJ20 Jock River at Bleeks RoadJ21 Jock River at Dwyer Hill RoadJ22 Jock River at McCafferey TrailJ23 Jock River at Ashton DamJ24 Jock River at Cemetery RoadT1 Tay River at Port Elmsley BridgeT5 Tay River at Glen Tay RoadT7 Tay River at Bowes RoadT9 Tay River at Sawmill near

Dewitt's CornerT10 Tay River at Christie Lake RoadT11 Tay River at Rathwell Road

iii

RIDEAU RIVERFECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES

Sample Location Monthly Geometric MeanGeometricMean ForMay, June

July, August

GeometricMean ForJune, July

AugustMay June July August

Mooneys Bay 13 12 26 34 19 22

CN Railway Bridge 17 11 55 35 24 28

Hunt Club Bridge 18 15 25 70 26 30

Black Rapids Dam 18 20 75 [120] 160 46 [45] 62 [60]

Long Island Locks 19 18 65 79 36 45

Manotick 15 33 125 [120] 91 49 [48] 72 [71]

Carleton Golf 17 11 50 27 22 25

W. A. Taylor (Down) 12 18 56 44 27 35

W. A. Taylor (Up) 13 11 46 55 25 30

Baxter Area (Down) 10 12 42 44 22 28

Highway #16 Bridge 12 14 53 33 23 29

Kemptville (Down) 10 12 46 27 20 25

Libby Island 14 17 63 35 27 33

Burritts Rapids 18 13 41 113 32 39

Andrewsville 19 13 42 105 32 39

Merrickville (Up) 12 13 61 44 25 33

Kilmarnock Dam 61 26 173 [155] 94 [87] 71 [68] 75 [71]

Edmonds Lock 578 [332] 115 640 [455] 215 [208] 309 [245] 251 [222]

Old Slys Lock 134 204 [168] 285 [200] 1021 [429] 299 [210] 390 [243]

Hydro Park Bridge 45 29 76 244 [211] 70 [68] 81 [77]

NOTE: Numbers in square brackets represent a 10 ml dilution which allows a maximum reading of1000+. This allows a comparison with 1990 data.

iv

RIDEAU RIVER TRIBUTARIESFECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES

Sample LocationMonthly Geometric Mean

GeometricMean ForMay, June

July, August



Mosquito Creek 79 129 84 193 113 128

Jock River 77 290 2578 [979] 416 [132] 393 [232] 678 [310]

Mud Creek 478 313 [293] 196 92 288 [224] 178 [174]

Doyle Creek 187 641 [500] 188 93 214 [201] 224 [206]

Steven Creek 140 62 119 81 96 84

Cranberry Creek 47 61 [49] 150 160 91 [86] 114 [106]

Hudson Drain 221 905 [707] 121 4960 [1000] 589 [371] 816 [441]

Arcand Drain 32 63 102 607 [341] 106 [92] 157 [130]

Kemptville Creek 398 [316] 398 [344] 504 [283] 376 [211] 416 [284] 423 [274]

Brassil's Creek 51 921 649 [319] 346 224 [188] 367 [290]

Dales Creek 67 39 317 [200] 134 103 [91] 118 [101]

Rideau Creek 172 170 129 56 121 107

Barbers Creek 479 1082 [609] 306 [224] 507 [278] 533 [367] 552 [336]

Irish Creek 16 17 73 700 [234] 61 [46] 95 [66]

Rosedale Creek 272 405 [336] 841 [530] 69 283 [240] 286 [231]

Black Creek 55 21 133 156 70 76

Murphy Drain 32 24 237 [159] 171 [150] 75 [65] 99 [83]

Tay River 68 170 983 806 309 513

NOTE: Numbers in square brackets represent a 10 ml dilution which allows a maximum reading of1000+. This allows a comparison with 1990 data

v

JOCK RIVERFECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES


GeometricMean For



May, JuneJuly, August

Highway #16 77 290 2578 416 393 678

Jockvale Road 41 109 713 344 182 299

Greenbank Road 38 267 660 685 260 494

Cedarview Road 105 13 727 965 176 209

Moodie Drive 50 138 294 285 155 226

Twin Elm Bridge 58 31 430 333 127 164

Eagleson Road 51 158 293 289 162 237

Richmond (McBean Street) 12 393 623 752 217 569

Richmond (Ottawa Street) 19 241 1080 347 204 449

Munster Side Road 87 265 401 241 217 295

Jock Trail Road 44 589 805 N/A 275

Franktown Road 103 81 280 394 174 208

Copeland Road 93 175 145 562 191 243

Bleeks Road 91 352 859 520 346 540

Dwyer Hill Road 34 104 258 1000 174 299

McCafferey Trail 26 74 1014 N/A 125

Ashton Dam 68 156 718 N/A 197

Cemeterr Road 12 52 63 137 48 77

Monaghan Drain N/A 159 346 444 290

Flowing Creek 708 5623 1369 589 1339 1655

vi

TAY RIVERFECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES


GeometricMean ForMay, June

July, August



Port Elmsley 68 170 483 806 309 513

Rathwell Road 16 26 230 124 59 91

Glen Tay Road 46 83 379 92 107 143

Bowes Road 17 158 120 605 118 226

Dewitt's Corner 10 47 562 573 111 247

Christie Lake 10 31 289 123 58 103

vii

RIDEAU RIVER TRIBUTARIESTOTAL PHOSPHORUS

Sample LocationMonthly Arithmetic Mean

ArithmeticMean For

ArithmeticMean ForJune, July



Mosquito Creek 0.083 0.139 0.118 0.058 0.100 0.105

Jock River 0.032 0.042 0.083 0.033 0.048 0.053

Mud Creek 0.045 0.055 0.047 0.028 0.044 0.043

Doyle Creek 0.246 1.355 1.272 0.117 0.748 0.915

Steven Creek 0.073 0.074 0.065 0.039 0.063 0.059

Cranberry Creek 0.151 0.074 0.075 0.038 0.085 0.062

Hudson Drain 0.040 0.455 0.082 0.180 0.189 0.239

Arcand Drain 0.217 0.390 0.460 0.227 0.324 0.359

Kemptville Creek 0.104 0.083 0.116 0.170 0.118 0.123

Brassil's Creek 0.026 0.018 0.013 0.010 0.017 0.014

Dales Creek 0.035 0.037 0.046 0.094 0.053 0.059

Rideau Creek 0.042 0.045 0.033 0.164 0.071 0.081

Barbers Creek 0.028 0.093 0.093 0.205 0.105 0.130

Irish Creek 0.022 0.009 0.018 0.012 0.015 0.013

Rosedale Creek 0.026 0.052 0.040 0.112 0.058 0.068

Murphy Drain 0.062 0.084 0.069 0.046 0.065 0.066

Tay River 0.027 0.040 0.02 0.013 0.026 0.025

viii

RIDEAU RIVERTOTAL PHOSPHORUS


ArithmeticMean ForMay, June

July, August



Mooneys Bay 0.030 0.040 0.049 0.048 0.042 0.046

CN Railway Bridge 0.037 0.055 0.050 0.056 0.050 0.054

Hunt Club Bridge 0.031 0.054 0.049 0.046 0.045 0.050

Black Rapids Dam 0.041 0.055 0.061 0.052 0.052 0.056

Long Island Locks 0.054 0.044 0.046 0.061 0.051 0.050

Manotick 0.043 0.039 0.048 0.058 0.047 0.048

Carleton Golf 0.036 0.049 0.068 0.052 0.051 0.056

W. A. Taylor (Down) 0.035 0.058 0.054 0.056 0.051 0.056

W. A. Taylor (Up) 0.032 0.054 0.051 0.043 0.045 0.049

Baxter Area (Down) 0.032 0.057 0.058 0.043 0.048 0.053

Highway #16 Bridge 0.047 0.044 0.063 0.058 0.053 0.055

Kemptville (Down) 0.030 0.051 0.052 0.046 0.045 0.050

Libby Island 0.035 0.058 0.043 0.036 0.043 0.045

Burritts Rapids 0.040 0.045 0.044 0.045 0.043 0.045

Andrewsville 0.032 0.055 0.047 0.048 0.046 0.050

Merrickville (Up) 0.031 0.047 0.042 0.031 0.038 0.040

Kilmarnock Dam 0.029 0.050 0.036 0.020 0.034 0.035

Edmonds Lock 0.032 0.078 0.062 0.026 0.050 0.055

Old Slys Lock 0.018 0.179 0.025 0.013 0.059 0.072

Hydro Park Bridge 0.020 0.022 0.017 0.014 0.018 0.018

ix

JOCK RIVERTOTAL PHOSPHORUS



July, August



Highway #16 0.032 0.042 0.083 0.033 0.048 0.053

Greenbank Road 0.036 0.056 0.055 0.041 0.047 0.051

Moodie Drive 0.055 0.058 0.052 0.070 0.059 0.060

Eagleson Road 0.019 0.062 0.093 0.060 0.059 0.072

Richmond (Up) 0.042 0.046 0.180 0.038 0.077 0.088

Munster Side Road 0.025 0.045 0.025 0.017 0.028 0.029

Franktown Road 0.029 0.046 0.053 0.015 0.036 0.038

Dwyer Hill Road 0.032 0.051 0.098 0.042 0.056 0.064

Cemetery Road 0.029 0.018 0.043 0.036 0.032 0.032

TAY RIVERTOTAL PHOSPHORUS


ArithmeticMean For




Port Elmsley 0.027 0.040 0.022 0.013 0.026 0.025

Rathwell Road 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.013 0.021 0.020

Christie Lake Road 0.026 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.014 0.009

KEMPTVILLE CREEKTOTAL PHOSPHORUS



July, August



Highway #43 0.104 0.083 0.116 0170 0.118 0.123

No-Name 0.176 0.368 0.968 1.850 0.841 1.062

Hurd St. Bridge 0.014 0.032 0.275 0.011 0.083 0.106

Oxford Mills 0.019 0.028 0.021 0.041 0.027 0.030

x

RIDEAU VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITYRURAL BEACHES PROGRAM

LANDOWNER QUESTIONNAIRE - LIVESTOCK OPERATION

DATE: ________________ FARM CODE ___________________NAME: _________________________________ TOWNSHIP: __________________ LOT _____ CONCESSION _________

* * * * SIZE OF OPERATION * * * *

1. TYPE OF LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISE

NUMBER DETAILSA. DAIRY __________________ _______________________________B. BEEF __________________ _______________________________C. SWINE __________________ _______________________________D. POULTRY __________________ _______________________________E. HORSES __________________ _______________________________F. SHEEP __________________ _______________________________G. OTHER __________________ _______________________________

* * * * MANURE STORAGE * * * *

2. TYPE OF MANURE SOLID _______________________________SEMI-SOLID _______________________________LIQUID _______________________________

3. TYPE OF STORAGE SYSTEMS(S)

A) YARD _________ B) CONCRETE PAD _________RUNOFF POND _________ RUNOFF POND _________COVERED _________ COVERED _________DIMENSIONS _________ RETAINING WALLS _________

DIMENSIONS _________

xi

C) EARTHEN PIT _________ D) TANK _________COVERED _________ COVERED _________DIMENSIONS _________ DIMENSIONS _________

4. DAYS OF MANURE STORAGE ____________________________

5. TRANSPORT FACTORS: STORAGE TO RECEIVING WATERS

SOIL TEXTURESAND% _________ % SOIL COVER _________SANDY LOAM _________ % SLOPE _________SILTY LOAM _________ % SLOPE LENGTH _________ FEETCLAY LOAM _________CLAY _________ORGANIC _________

* * * * BARNYARD LAYOUT * * * *

6. IS YARD RUNOFF COLLECTED: YES ________, NO _________TRANSPORTED WHERE: (A) DITCH _______________________

(B) MANURE STORAGE _______________________

7. DO BARNS/SHEDS HAVE EAVESTROUGHS: YES ______, NO _________(A) IF YES: WHERE DO THEY DISCHARGE? YARD _________

MANURE STORAGE _________TILE DRAINS _________

(B) IF NO: NUMBER OF BARNS _________DIMENSIONS (1) ____________________

(2) ____________________ (3) ____________________ (4) ____________________ (5) ____________________

* * * * MILKHOUSE WASHWATER * * * *

8. WASTES DRAIN TO: SURFACE __________________SEPTIC TANK & TILE BED __________________HOLDING TANK __________________MANURE STORAGE SYSTEM __________________DRY OPERATION __________________

xii

*** * MANURE MANAGEMENT * * * *

9. TIME OF APPLICATION: SPRING ________SUMMER ________FALL ________WINTER ________

10. INCORPORATION: ________ < 1 DAY1 DAY < ________ < 3 DAYS3 DAYS < ________ 7 DAYS7 DAYS < ________

11. ESTIMATE RATE OF APPLICATION: ________ GALS/ACRE

________ TONS/ACRE

12. FIELD # ACRES TILED DISTANCE TO WATERCOURSE1. ______ _____ _______________ FEET2. ______ _____ _______________ FEET3. ______ _____ _______________ FEET4. ______ _____ _______________ FEET5. ______ _____ _______________ FEET

NOTE: FOR THE TILED FIELDS ENTER A) NONEB) RANDOMC) SYSTEMATIC

13. SOIL TEST YES ______ HOW OFTEN __________NO ______

14. MANURE TEST YES ______ HOW OFTEN __________NO ______

15. TRANSPORT FACTORS: FIELD TO RECEIVING WATERS

FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

SAND _____ _____ _____ _____ _____SANDY LOAM _____ _____ _____ _____ _____SILTY LOAM _____ _____ _____ _____ _____CLAY LOAM _____ _____ _____ _____ _____CLAY _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ORGANIC _____ _____ _____ _____ _____% SOIL COVER _____ _____ _____ _____ _____% SLOPE _____ _____ _____ _____ _____SLOPE LENGTH (FEET) _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

xiii

* * * * PASTURE MANAGEMENT * * * *

16. DO LIVESTOCK HAVE ACCESS TO WATERCOURSE YES _____NO _____

17. LENGTH OF ACCESS ALONG WATERCOURSE ______ FEET1 SIDE _______2 SIDES _______

18. NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN PASTURE:

DAIRY _________BEEF _________SWINE _________POULTRY _________HORSES _________SHEEP _________OTHER _________

19. IF NO ACCESS: DISTANCE OF FENCE FROMWATERCOURSE _______ FEET.

20. TRANSPORT FACTORS: PASTURE TO RECEIVING WATERS

SOIL TEXTURESAND% ______ % SOIL COVER __________SANDY LOAM ______ % SLOPE __________SILTY LOAM ______ % SLOPE LENGTH __________ FEETCLAY LOAM ______CLAY ______ORGANIC ______

21. IN A SUBSIDIZED WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM, WHAT PERCENTAGE SHOULDFARMERS PAY THEMSELVES?

______________________

xiv

FARM SCORE SHEET

LANDOWNER: ______________________________________________

FARM CODE: ______________________________________________

BF1 = ______BF2 = 3.0 x = _______BF3 = _______

MANURE STORAGE: MS =MS(TF)MST = MS + MS(TF) =

MANURE SPREADING: MFIELD =

MILKHOUSE: MHOUSE =

LIVESTOCK ACCESS: PAST =

TOTAL POLLUTION SCORE:

TMS = BF1 X MST =TMSP = BF1 X MFIELD =TMH = BF2 X MHOUSE =TLA = BF3 X PAST = ________

TPSS =

xv

FARM CODE: N191 FARM SCORE: 1140 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (200)TYPE OF MANURE: LiquidMANURE STORAGE: TankMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Manure StorageLIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: N22A FARM SCORE: 1185 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (55)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: SpringMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Septic Tank and Tile Bed LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: G291 FARM SCORE: 74 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Horses (20)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

FARM CODE: G26BF FARM SCORE: 1656 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (25), Beef (10)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Septic Tank and Tile Bed LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: G141 FARM SCORE: 5420 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (75)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

xvi

FARM CODE: R191 FARM SCORE: 323 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (22)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: R21WBF FARM SCORE: 99FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (3), Horses (3)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes



FARM CODE: R14BF FARM SCORE: 1615 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (50)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: PadMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (128)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Septic Tank and Tile Bed LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

xvii


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (88), Beef (2)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Septic Tank and Tile Bed LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (100)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (108)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: PadMANURE HANDLING: SpringMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Septic Tank and Tile Bed LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (650)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: PadMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: 071 FARM SCORE: 1140 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (40)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: WinterMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

xviii




TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (100)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: SummerMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: 030BF FARM SCORE: 3900 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (60)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Sheep (60)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/ALIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (55)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

xix


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (80)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Summer, Fall and WinterMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: SurfaceLIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: 024BF FARM SCORE: 5625 FARM DESCRIPTION


FARM CODE: OR21S FARM SCORE: 272 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (20)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: Earthen PitMANURE HANDLING: Spring and SummerMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/ALIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

FARM CODE: OR21N FARM SCORE: 108 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Horses (20)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

FARM CODE: OR41N FARM SCORE: 471 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (14), Horses (2)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: SpringMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

xx

FARM CODE: OR201 FARM SCORE: 578 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (40)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

FARM CODE: OR211 FARM SCORE: 167 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Horses (40)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

FARM CODE: OR41S FARM SCORE: 799 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (47)TYPE OF MANURE: N/AMANURE STORAGE: N/AMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: OR121 FARM SCORE: 6630FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (260)TYPE OF MANURE: LiquidMANURE STORAGE: Earthen PitMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Manure Storage LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

FARM CODE: OR141 FARM SCORE: 3740FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (200)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: Earthen PitMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

xxi

FARM CODE: OR12A FARM SCORE: 6688 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (55), Beef (66)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: W2B FARM SCORE: 694 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (40), Horses (5)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: SpringMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: W231 FARM SCORE: 1292 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (40)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (35)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/ALIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes



xxii

FARM CODE: W26B FARM SCORE: 1658 FARM DESCRIPTION


FARM CODE: W25A FARM SCORE: 1700 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (40)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: WinterMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (40)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Summer, Fall and WinterMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/ALIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes



FARM CODE: W25A FARM SCORE: 4897 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (95)TYPE OF MANURE: LiquidMANURE STORAGE: Earthen PitMANURE HANDLING: Spring and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Manure Storage LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

xxiii

FARM CODE: W29C FARM SCORE: 723 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (50), Poultry (40), Horses (15)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: W12AFARM SCORE: 6888FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (125), Hoses (5)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: M261 FARM SCORE: 25 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Horses (10)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Spring and SummerMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/ALIVESTOCK ACCESS: No


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (25)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: Earthen PitMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

FARM CODE: M19A FARM SCORE: 468 FARM DESCRIPTION

TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (55)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No

xxiv


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Horses (15), Sheep (21)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: Summer and FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/ALIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (50)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: N/AMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (50), Sheep (10)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Dairy (50)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: FallMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: Surface LIVESTOCK ACCESS: No


TYPE OF LIVESTOCK: Beef (100)TYPE OF MANURE: SolidMANURE STORAGE: NoneMANURE HANDLING: All YearMILKHOUSE/PARLOUR DISPOSAL: N/A LIVESTOCK ACCESS: Yes

xxv

FARM POLLUTION SEVERITYSCORE/DAIRY OPERATIONS

FARMCODE

ManureStorageScore

ManureSpreading

Score

MilkhouseWashwater

Waste

LivestockAccessScore

TotalFarmScore

N191 600 540 1140

071 600 540 1140

N22A 825 360 1185

G26BF 736 920 1656

M22A 750 600 750 2100

R6BF 3264 3264

W222 750 1500 1500 3750

030BF 900 1800 1200 3900

R11BF 1337 2674 4011

0111 1485 990 900 1350 4725

W24A 2233 1914 750 4897

G141 1820 1350 2250 5420

091 1800 2400 900 900 6000

OR121 2340 4290 6630

OR12A 2356 2772 1050 510 6688

W12A 1888 3775 1200 25 6888

024BF 1335 2670 1620 5625

R7BF 1500 3000 1650 900 7050

R281 3078 1782 3240 8100

R231 5850 19500 3600 330 29280

TOTAL 35447 49667 16260 12075 113449

xxvi

FARM POLLUTION SEVERITYSCORES/ BEEF, HORSE, POULTRY, SHEEP OPERATIONS

FarmCode

ManureStorage Score

ManureSpreading Score

LivestockAccess Score

TotalFarm Score

M261 25 25

G291 74 74

R21BF 33 66 99

OR21N 49 59 108

OR211 98 69 167

OR21S 102 170 272

R191 187 136 323

M291 425 425

M19A 468 468

OR41N 124 99 248 471

0161 159 317 476

OR201 578 578

R211 85 510 595

W2B 669 25 694

W29C 547 176 723

M5A 741 15 756

OR41S 799 799

W241 298 238 595 1131

M231 425 850 1275

W231 340 272 680 1292

W251 474 947 1421

R14BF 425 340 850 1615

W26B 808 850 1658

W251 340 680 680 1700

W203 340 680 680 1700

M292 760 608 670 2038

0121 850 1700 2550

OR141 2040 1700 3740

M242 850 1700 1700 4250

0141 2010 4020 6030

TOTAL 13899 4617 18937 37454

xxvii

FARM POLLUTION SEVERITYSCORES AFTER REMEDIAL ACTION

BEEF, HORSE, POULTRY & SHEEP OPERATIONS

FarmCode

ManureStorageScore

ManureSpreading

Score

LivestockAccessScore

TotalFarmScore

M261 5 5

G291 15 15

R21BF 7 7 14

OR21N 10 6 16

OR211 20 7 27

OR21S 34 17 51

R191 37 14 51

M291 42 42

M19A 94 94

OR41 25 10 25 60

0161 32 32 64

OR201 306 306

R211 17 51 68

W2B 387 3 390

W29C 318 18 336

M5A 149 1 150

OR41 80 80

W241 60 24 59 143

M231 85 85 170

W231 68 27 68 163

W251 95 94 189

R14BF 85 34 85 204

W26B 468 85 553

W251 68 68 68 204

W203 68 68 68 204

M292 152 61 67 280

0121 170 170 340

OR141 1700 170 1870

M242 170 170 170 510

0141 402 402 804

TOTAL 5047 462 1894 7403

xxviii

NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

Township# Of DairyOperationsIn Township

# Of OtherLivestock

Operations InTownship

PercentageOf Township

InWatershed

Number Of Farms InWatershed

# Of DairyOperations

# Of OtherLivestock

OperationsNepean 17 13 100 17 13Gloucester 18 35 50 9 17

Osgoode 84 85 10 8 9

Rideau 42 45 100 42 45

Goulbourn 28 80 100 28 80

South Gower 14 12 50 7

Oxford-on-Rideau 20 36 90 18 32

Wolford 16 17 100 16 17

Kitley 24 36 100 24 36

Elizabethtown 35 58 45 16 26

South Elmsley 14 21 100 14 21

Montague 9 43 100 9 43

Beckwith 11 46 60 7 28

North Elmsley 19 29 100 19 29

Drummond 29 78 40 12 31

North Burgess 9 17 100 9 17

Bathurst 26 49 50 13 25

TOTAL268 475

xxix

Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for the Rideau River Watershed

Documents

Transcript of Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for the Rideau River Watershed