Report - Conservation Ontario

Transcription

I N N O VAT I O N S I N W AT E R M A N A G E M E N T
An Assessment of
Data Requirements and Availability
FOR SOURCE WATER PRO TECTION
An Assessment of
Data Requirements
and Availability
for Source Water Protection
T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N A U T H O R I T I E S O F O N TA R I O
P R O J E C T PA R T N E R S
This guide was made possible by the Government of Ontario and Conservation Ontario in partnership
with the Lower Trent Conservation, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, and the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority.
In partnership with
LOWER TRENT CONSERVATION - GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY - CROWE VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
An Assessment of
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was prepared under the leadership of the Lower Trent Region, Ganaraska Region
and Crowe Valley Conservation Authorities to assess the availability of data for Source Water
Protection in rural Ontario. Five subwatersheds within the three Conservation Authority
watersheds were selected for the pilot project.
Key data requirements for Source Water Protection were identified based on a review of the
Part 2 Walkerton Inquiry Report (O'Connor, 2002), the Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water:
Toward a Watershed-based Source Water Protection Framework (Advisory Committee, 2003),
the White Paper on Watershed-based Source Water Protection (Province of Ontario, 2004)
and the draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act (Province of Ontario, 2004). Research
was conducted to identify all available data sets to satisfy the data requirements and a
series of data sheets were prepared for each data type. Data comparisons were made
where more than one data set was available for a given type of data, through a mapping
exercise and simple overlay analysis. A series of maps were also made to assess the
suitability of the data and identify data gaps.
Source Water Protection is a huge undertaking, which will require significant effort and
funding from the Provincial government. New data sets need to be created, existing data
sets need to be revised, updated and expanded, data standards need to be developed, and
a mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that data, which should be stored in the
provincial warehouse, is accessible and current.
This report has been developed with the assistance of water resources experts across the
Province and provides background information that will help Source Water Protection teams
to identify and locate suitable data and to recognize data gaps. It also identifies other data
management issues that affect data availability and accessibility which practitioners should
be aware of, and should address through collaboration.
i
An Assessment of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FOR WATERSHED PLANNING
The Proposed Options Handbook for Key Data Components of Source Water Protection was
developed as a Ministry of Environment funded pilot project. Representatives from the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ministry of Northern
Development and Mining were also key participants.
A Project Task Team was responsible for gathering and assimilating the information for this
guide and overseeing the project. Participants included:
Conservation Authority core staff
Jim Kelleher, Lower Trent Region CA
Linda LaLiberte, Ganaraska Region CA
Shan Mugalingam, Lower Trent Region CA
Mark Peacock, Ganaraska Region CA
Ken Phillips, Crowe Valley CA
Glenda Rodgers, Lower Trent Region CA
Amanda Scaife, Crowe Valley CA
Chris Wilkinson, Ganaraska Region CA
Conservation Ontario
Chris Harrington
Ministry of Natural Resources
John Gaiot
Don Greer
Frank Kenny
Ministry of Environment
Irmi Pawlowski
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Jim Myslik
Peter Roberts
Hugh Simpson
Integral to the development of the project were a number of other individuals from various
organizations that provided data, attended meetings, reviewed draft documents, and
provided input to the project.
ii
An Assessment of
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND/RATIONALE
1
3
2.1 Data Requirements for Source Protection
Planning in Rural Ontario
2.1.1 Status of Source Water Protection
2.1.2 Rural Ontario Issues
2.2 Variability of Capacity of Conservation Authorities
2.3 Project Goal and Objectives
2.4 Variability of Available Data
2.5 Study Scope
2.6 Study Areas
3. METHODS
4. REQUIRED DATA FOR SOURCE PROTECTION
PLANNING MODELS AND MAPPING
9
11
4.1 Modeling Needs for Source Water Protection
4.2 Source Water Protection Models and Their Components
4.3 Data Requirements
5. ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS DATA SETS
30
5.1 Data Set Comparisons
5.1.1 Comparisons of Watershed Boundary Data Sets
5.1.2 Comparisons of Wetlands Data Sets
5.1.3 Comparisons of Woodlands Data Sets
5.1.4 Comparisons of Agriculture/Cropland Data Sets
5.2 Maps to Assess Data
5.2.1 Base Map
5.2.2 Natural Features
5.2.3 Existing Land Use
5.2.4 Future Land Use
5.2.5 Designated High Risk Land Use
5.2.6 Major Point and Non Point Source of Contaminants
5.2.7 Shortcuts That Can Introduce Contaminants
into Aquifers
5.2.8 Well Head Protection Areas
5.2.9 Significant Hydrologic Features
5.2.10 Significant Water Withdrawals/Areas Experiencing
Stress Due to Water Takings
5.2.11 Water Quality Monitoring Stations/Areas
of Contamination
5.2.12 Areas of High, Medium and Low Vulnerability
(Groundwater)
5.2.13 Sensitive Water Resources (Surface Water)
An Assessment of
6. ASSESSMENT OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CAPACITY
7. STUDY FINDINGS
73
8. CONCLUSIONS
83
71
7.1 Data Sets Requiring Effort
7.1.1 Top Ten Data Sets
7.1.2 Other Data Sets/Databases Requiring Effort
7.1.3 Considerations on Select Data Sets
7.2 Other Data Issues
7.2.1 Data Exchange Framework Model
7.2.2 New Data Compilation
7.2.3 Accessibility of Data Sets
7.2.4 Arc Hydro Data Model
7.2.5 Computer/Software Requirements
7.2.6 Scale and Projections
7.2.7 Data Suitability
7.2.8 Northern Ontario
REFERENCES
84
LIST OF ACRONYMS
85
LIST OF APPENDICES
88
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Determining Data Requirements for Modeling
Figure 2: General Description of Modeling based on Source
Protection Plan Requirements and Questions
Figure 3: Modeling -- Tier 1
Figure 5: Data Feedback Loop
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: General Description of Source Protection
Planning Models and Their Components
Table 2: Data Requirements for Source Water Protection Mapping
Table 3: Data Requirements for Source Water Protection Modeling
Table 4: Summary of Data Requirements and Sources for
CANWET Analysis
Table 5: Summary of Data Requirements and Sources for Generic
Water Budget Analysis
Table 6: Comparison of Watershed Area
Table 7: Common Errors in Watershed Boundary Delineation
Table 8: Data Standard Options for Watershed Boundaries
Table 9: Comparison of Wetlands Data for North River
(NRVIS vs. PLC)
Table 10: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Rawdon Creek
(LTC/DU vs. NRVIS)
11
11
12
12
78
13
17
21
24
22
31
32
33
34
35
An Assessment of
Table 11: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Test Area of
Shelter Valley, Grafton, Barnum House Creek
(LTC/DU vs. ORM)
Table 12: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Wilmot Creek
(NRVIS vs. ELC)
Table 13: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Wilmot Creek
ORM Portion (SOLRIS vs. ELC)
Table 14: Data Standard Options for Wetlands Coverage
Table 15: Comparison of Woodlands Data for North River
(NRVIS/OBM vs. PLC)
Table 16: Comparison of Woodlands Data for Test Area
of Shelter Valley, Grafton, Barnum House Creek
(NRVIS vs. ORM)
Table 17: Comparison of Woodlands Data for Wilmot Creek
(NRVIS: ELC)
Table 18: Comparison of Woodlands Data for Wilmot Creek
ORM Portion (SOLRIS: ELC)
Table 19: Data Standard Options for Woodlands Coverage
Table 20: Comparison of Wilmot Creek ELC Intensive
Agriculture (A) vs. PLC Cropland (B)
Table 21: Comparison of Wilmot Creek SOLRIS Intensive
Agriculture (A) vs. ELC Intensive Agriculture (B) for
ORM Portion of Wilmot Creek
Table 22: Comparison of Wilmot Creek ELC Non Intensive
Agriculture (A) vs. PLC Pasture and Abandoned Fields (B)
Table 23: Comparison of Wilmot Creek SOLRIS Non-Intensive
Agriculture (A) vs. ELC Non-Intensive Agriculture (B) for
ORM Portion of Wilmot Creek
Table 24: Data Standard Options for Agricultural Coverage
Table 25: Data Used to Create Base Map
Table 26: Data Used to Create Natural Features Map
Table 27: Data Used to Create Existing Land Use Map
Table 28: Data Used to Create Future Land Use Map
Table 29: Data Used to Create Designated High Risk Land Use Map
Table 30: Data Used to Create Major Point and Non Point Source
of Contaminants Map
Table 31: Data Used to Create Shortcuts That Can Introduce
Contaminants into Aquifers Map
Table 32: Data Used to Create Well Head Protection Areas Map
Table 33: Data Used to Create Significant Hydrologic Features Map
Table 34: Data Used to Create Significant Water Withdrawals/Areas
Experiencing Stress Due to Water Takings Map
Table 35: Data Used to Create Water Quality Monitoring
Stations/Areas of Contamination Map
Table 36: Data Used to Create Areas of High, Medium and Low
Vulnerability (Groundwater) Map
Table 37: Data Used to Create Sensitive Water Resources
(Surface Water) Map
36
36
37
38
39
40
40
41
42
43
43
44
45
45
47
48
50
52
54
56
58
59
60
62
64
66
68
An Assessment of
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
List of Participants
Methods (Simple Overlay Analysis)
Data sheets
Comparison Maps
Source Protection Maps
Computer Specifications
Investigation into available information on water features and associated valley lands
An Assessment of
1. INTRODUCTION
1
Justice O'Connor, in his Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, stated that a multi-barrier
approach, from source to tap, is required to protect Ontario's drinking water. He recognized
that the first step, protecting and enhancing natural systems, is one of the most effective
and efficient means of achieving this. Based on the findings of O'Connor's report, Source
Water Protection has been recognized by the Province as a critical first step in ensuring that
Ontarians have safe, clean drinking water. A series of pilot projects was initiated by the
Province to investigate key aspects of Source Water Protection.
The key purpose of this pilot project is to investigate data needs and data gaps for Source
Water Protection in rural Ontario. Made possible through a partnership agreement with the
Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
and Conservation Ontario (CO), this project was conducted by a core team of staff from the
Lower Trent Region (LTC), Ganaraska Region (GanRCA) and Crowe Valley (CVCA)
Conservation Authorities. Pilot watersheds, within these Conservation Authorities,
representing a range of watershed conditions were selected for the study. The work of
Conservation Authority staff was augmented by a number of representatives from various
ministries, municipalities, consultants, and other organizations through their participation on
the Project Task Team, Additional Resources Team and Peer Review Committee. A list of
participants is included in Appendix A.
The findings of this report will be useful to Source Water Protection teams as they
investigate the data needs and availability for their source protection region.
1
An Assessment of
2
An Assessment of
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND/RATIONALE
2
2.1
Data Requirements for Source
Protection Planning in Rural Ontario
2.1.1 Status of Source Water Protection
Justice O’Connor’s Part Two Report of the
Walkerton Inquiry (completed in 2002) included 22
recommendations related to source protection,
which has served as a starting point for developing
a framework for Source Water Protection. Among
the key concepts put forth in this report, is that
Source Water Protection should not be based on
political boundaries (e.g. Municipalities), but needs
to be carried out at an ecologically meaningful
scale at the watershed level. O’Connor envisioned
MOE as the lead provincial agency in Source Water
Protection, establishing the framework and
approving local plans. He suggested that the plans
need to be developed locally and that Conservation
Authorities, where they exist, are best suited to
coordinate the development of these local plans.
On November 15, 2002, MOE established the
Advisory Committee on Watershed-based Source
Protection. The Advisory Committee's report,
Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward a
Watershed-based Source Water Protection
Framework, was completed in April, 2003. This
report outlines the underlying principles needed to
support Source Water Protection, describes a
"generic" process for developing a Source
Protection Plan, identifies key considerations in
managing risks and threats to drinking water
sources, and outlines an information framework to
support Source Water Protection.
In February 2004, the Province released its White
Paper on Watershed-based Source Water
Protection. The White Paper was intended to
inform Ontarians of the proposed approach for the
development of a watershed-based source
protection program, to describe the proposed
development and approval of the plans, and to
examine the issue of water takings. The White
Paper was put forth for discussion and comments
and a series of consultation forums with the public
and stakeholders ensued. Through this White
Paper, the government built on the
recommendations of Commissioner Justice
O'Connor and the Advisory Committee.
Prior to the release of the White Paper, on
November 14, 2003, the Province announced the
establishment of two expert source water
protection committees.
The 21-member Implementation Committee is
tasked with providing advice to the government on
tools and approaches to implement watershedbased Source Water Protection.
The 16-member Technical Experts Committee is
providing advice on an Ontario-based threat
assessment process.
These committees continued to meet, with their
reports expected to be released in late 2004.
On June 23, 2004, the Ontario Government posted
a notice on the Environmental Registry of the
proposed Drinking Water Source Protection Act,
providing a 60-day comment period. The
proposed Act includes provisions necessary for the
development of Source Protection Plans, including
the following: the establishment of source
protection areas; the designation of source
protection boards and source protection
committees; and their respective roles and
responsibilities in developing assessment reports
and Source Protection Plans. The proposed
legislation also sets out provisions governing the
submission, approval, amendment and appeals of
Source Protection Plans. Minimum requirements
for the Assessment Reports and Source Protection
Plans are included in the proposed legislation.
In the absence of a Source Water Protection
framework, established through regulation, the
Project Task Team for this pilot project has relied
upon the recommendations of the O'Connor's
report, the Advisory Committee's report, the White
Paper, and the proposed Drinking Water Source
Protection Act along with the expertise of the
members of the various project teams and
3
An Assessment of
committees. While the precise content of a Source
Protection Plan, and hence the data requirements,
are not fully known, the Project Task Team is
confident that the key data requirements for Source
Water Protection have been examined in this
project.
2.1.2 Rural Ontario Issues
Source Water Protection in rural Ontario presents its
own unique set of challenges. These fall into two
categories:

4
Only a fraction of rural Ontarians obtain their
drinking water from municipally treated water
distribution systems. A large percentage of rural
residents obtain their drinking water from private
wells, and in some areas, they draw water directly
from lakes and rivers. Source protection, in many
cases, is the only means of protecting drinking
water. Some rural residents have chosen to treat
their water through chlorination, filters or ultraviolet
systems, but on-going monitoring is not in place.
Lack of data, to develop Source Protection Plans
and models, and to monitor water quality, is another
concern in rural Ontario. With a relatively low
population density in rural areas, little funding has
historically been available to support data collection
including water quality, stream flow, groundwater
quality and quantity, and land cover. Parcel fabric
and land use are often not available digitally. Some
Conservation Authorities have been able to expand
their monitoring programs and develop these
databases, but this requires an influx of funding
through partnerships with other organizations or
from larger urban municipalities within their
watersheds. Where development pressure is low,
funding levels do not support comprehensive data
collection and monitoring programs.
Northern Ontario has its own unique set of issues
related to its sparse population and resource
based industry. Data needs will need to directly
relate to the unique issues of source water
protection in these areas.
2.2
Variability of Capacity of Conservation
Authorities
The capacity of Conservation Authorities (CAs)
across the Province varies in terms of available
funding, and consequently, the range of expertise.
They are at varying levels of ability in terms of
watershed management and planning. The three
CAs involved in this project have a range in
capacity, from very small to mid-sized, in terms of
rural CAs.
The Crowe Valley Conservation Authority, budgetwise, is among the smallest in the Province. Its
total budget is approximately $400,000 per year,
with a significant portion of it allocated to flood
forecasting and warning and operation of dams.
No staff is available for monitoring watershed health
or watershed planning and regulation activities.
Lower Trent Conservation's budget is approximately
$1 million per year. Through special funding
partnerships and fees for service it has endeavored
to undertake broad-scale planning initiatives such
as watershed plans and natural heritage strategies
and develop its Geographic Information System
(GIS). With sporadic funding for such projects, a
patchy database has been developed over time,
with significant gaps in some critical data. Staff for
these projects is generally hired on a contract basis,
resulting in a frequent turn over of staff. With the
exception of a watershed planning coordinator,
fisheries and regulations officer, communications
coordinator and GIS technician, other technical
expertise required for a comprehensive watershed
management program is hired as funding allows.
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
(GanRCA) is the largest (budget-wise) of the three
CAs, with an annual budget of approximately $1.5
million. A portion of the GanRCA is within the
Regional Municipality of Durham. With higher
development pressures, and funding from the
region, the GanRCA has been able to secure a fuller
staff complement. Key staff include two water
resources engineers, a hydrogeologist, ecologist,
An Assessment of
fisheries biologist, planner, communications
coordinator, GIS specialist, and various watershed
technicians.
those more detailed data sets with the various
provincial data sets to determine if the minimum
acceptable data sets required for Source Water
Protection are available.
This variability in CA staffing is typical across
Ontario. Therefore, the Province is recommending
that Source Water Protection be undertaken with
groupings of CAs, so that expertise can be shared
among them. The three CAs involved in this project
are part of a Source Protection Watershed Region,
as proposed by the Province, along with the
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority and
Kawartha Region Conservation Authority.
Undertaking this project has provided an
opportunity to assess some of the advantages and
disadvantages of partnering on Source Water
Protection.
2.5
2.3
Project Goal and
Objectives
Goal:
To assess the availability of suitable data for Source
Water Protection in rural Ontario.
Objectives:
1. To identify the data needed for source
protection mapping and modeling for rural
Ontario
2. To investigate the availability of the required
data
3. To provide options for data standards
4. To report on cost-benefits of various data sets
5. To report on the capacity of rural CAs with
regards to data requirements for Source Water
Protection mapping
2.4
Variability of
Available Data
The availability of data varies across the Province,
as it does across the study areas. Some data sets
are available provincially, through Land Information
Ontario (LIO). Where special studies have been
undertaken, data sets which are more detailed than
the provincial data sets may be available. Where
possible, the Project Task Team has compared
Study
Scope
This project focused on determining the availability
of data for source protection mapping and
modeling in rural Ontario, as opposed to creating
actual source protection maps. Some maps were
produced as tools for assessing the availability and
adequacy of data, but may not be the actual maps
required for Source Water Protection. The maps
produced are not intended to be used for other
purposes, without further review and refinement.
The study covers only a sample of rural Ontario.
However, the sample is designed such that the
watershed characteristics represented by the
different study subwatersheds reflect the conditions
prevalent for most of rural Ontario.
2.6
Study
Areas
Five study areas within the three-partner CAs have
been selected as pilot watersheds for this project.
North River Watershed
The North River watershed is in the Crowe Valley
Conservation Authority's jurisdiction, within the
Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, County of
Peterborough. This is the largest of the pilot
watersheds, being 264 km², and the most sparsely
populated. The population is approximated to be
less than 3000. There are no urban centres in the
watershed.
There is no municipal source of drinking water in
the North River watershed. Source protection
issues include the protection of both groundwater
and surface water, as residents rely on private wells
or draw surface water from the lakes.
5
An Assessment of
The majority of the North River watershed is
located on the Canadian Shield, with the
southernmost portion in the Paleozoic area. The
land use is predominately scattered rural
development, with lake front development
encircling the shield-based lakes. Land cover in the
area is predominantly forested, approximately 73%.
Resource based activities such as forestry, mineral
extraction and cottage development are typical of
this type of watershed. Agriculture is limited
because of the geology, and lack of soil
depth/cover.
The North River is a warm water system; dominant
fish species include large and small mouth bass,
yellow perch, rock bass, bluntnose minnows, and
white sucker. There is a dam operated by the CA,
located at Round Lake, which has been selected as
the outlet of the watershed for this study. The
Methuen Weir is located in the watershed, along
with dams at Kasshabog and Oak Lakes. Further
downstream the North River system empties into
the Crowe River (at Belmont Lake), a major tributary
of the Trent River.
Wilmot Creek
The Wilmot Creek watershed is the westernmost
watershed in the Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority's jurisdiction. This watershed is 98 km²
and its population is on the rise. It is located in the
Municipality of Clarington, within the Regional
Municipality of Durham. The current population of
this small watershed is estimated to be 4500
(approx). Land use includes agriculture, with an
increasing percentage of urban land use. Scattered
rural development is present in the non-urban
areas. Urban centres in the watershed include:
Newcastle, Orono, Kirby and Leskard.
Rural development in the watershed relies on
private wells for drinking water, while Newcastle
draws water from Lake Ontario via municipal water
pumping and treatment systems. There are two
municipal wells in the watershed servicing the
community of Orono. The focus of source
6
protection in this watershed will be on protecting
groundwater resources for both the private wells
and the municipal wells that serve Orono. Regard
must also be given to protecting surface water
systems, as Wilmot Creek empties into Lake
Ontario (a drinking source for Newcastle and many
other communities).
Being in the Paleozoic region, the Wilmot Creek
watershed is underlain by sedimentary rock.
Approximately 27% is forest covered. The
headwaters of Wilmot Creek originate in the Oak
Ridges Moraine. It is a cold water stream with
species such as Brook Trout and Slimy Sculpin
present.
Graham Creek
The Graham Creek watershed is in the Ganaraska
Region Conservation Authority's jurisdiction,
immediately to the east of Wilmot Creek. This
watershed is 78 km² and its population is also on
the rise. It is located in the Municipality of
Clarington, within the Regional Municipality of
Durham. The current population of this watershed
is estimated to be 1500. As with Wilmot Creek,
land use includes agriculture, with an increasing
percentage of urban land use. Scattered rural
development is present in the non-urban areas.
Urban centres in the watershed include:
Newtonville, Starkville, and Crooked Creek.
Rural development in this watershed relies on
private wells. With the exception of Newtonville, all
urbanized areas draw water and rely on private
wells. The urban center of Newtonville draws its
water from a series of municipal wells. Like Wilmot
Creek watershed, source protection efforts will
need to focus on both groundwater and surface
water.
The Graham Creek watershed is underlain by
sedimentary rock with its headwaters in the Oak
Ridges Moraine. It is also a cold water tributary of
Lake Ontario, with cold water species such as
Brook Trout and Slimy Sculpin present. Forest cover
is approximately 35%.
An Assessment of
Rawdon Creek
The Rawdon Creek watershed is one of two pilot
watersheds selected within Lower Trent
Conservation's jurisdiction. It is located in the
northwest corner of the LTC's watershed, and is a
tributary of the Trent River. The watershed is within
the County of Hastings in the Township of StirlingRawdon, the Municipality of Centre-Hastings, and
the City of Quinte West.
The Rawdon Creek watershed is approximately 199
km² with a population of approximately 4000.
Population increases are very gradual in this rural
watershed, resulting predominantly from scattered
rural severances and a very occasional subdivision.
The largest developed area in the watershed is Stirling,
which has a population of approximately 2000. A few
small hamlets exist (with populations seldom
exceeding 100), including Ivanhoe and Crookston.
The residents of Stirling are served by municipal
wells. A well-head study has been conducted for
Stirling's wells, as part of the Municipal
Groundwater Study. The remainder of the
population draws drinking water from private wells.
Source protection efforts in the Rawdon Creek
watershed will need to recognize the reliance on
groundwater as the source of drinking water,
including the well head area for Stirling and the
scattered private wells throughout the municipality.
Surface water protection is also required since
Rawdon Creek empties into the Trent River, a
drinking source for the residents of Frankford,
Batawa and Trenton, downstream.
Less than one percent of the watershed is in the
Pre-Cambrian area, the rest is in the Paleozoic area.
Agriculture is a predominant land use in this
watershed, with forest cover estimated at 44%. The
headwaters of Rawdon Creek are cold water (brook
trout are present).
Barnum House/Grafton/Shelter Valley Creeks
Lower Trent Conservation (LTC) has divided its
watershed into twelve watershed units for
watershed planning purposes. Some of these units
are single watersheds, while others are comprised
of two or more similar watersheds. The Barnum
House/Grafton/Shelter Valley Creek watersheds are
one of these groupings, located in the southwest
corner of LTC's watershed. The total watershed
area is 119 km².
Like the Rawdon Creek watershed, the Barnum
House/Grafton/Shelter Valley Creek watersheds are
quite rural, with agriculture being a predominant
land use. Approximately 37% of the watershed unit
is forested. The total population in the watershed
is approximately 2000. The largest built up area is
Grafton, which has a population of approximately
700. The other hamlets, such as Vernonville and
Centreton, are significantly smaller. The watersheds
are located entirely within the Township of
Alnwick/Haldimand, in the County of
Northumberland. Development pressure is low in
the Township, but limited development is occurring
through occasional subdivisions and rural
severances.
There are municipal wells in the hamlet of Grafton.
Through the Municipal Groundwater Study, a wellhead study was conducted for these wells. The
remainder of the population draws drinking water
from private wells. Source protection efforts will
need to focus on groundwater sources throughout
the watershed to protect both private and
municipal wells. Regard will also need to be given
to surface water protection, since these streams
empty into Lake Ontario, which is a drinking source
for many Ontarians.
These three streams are cold water systems, with
brook trout and rainbow trout present. Shelter
Valley is the largest of these watersheds, followed
by Barnum House. The headwaters of these two
watersheds are in the Oak Ridges Moraine, with
underlying sedimentary bedrock. The smaller
Grafton Creek watershed is nestled between the
two.
7
An Assessment of
8
An Assessment of
3. METHOD
3
The following steps were taken to determine the
availability of data for Source Water Protection and
to fulfill the goal and objectives of this project:
1. A list of maps and type of data required for
Source Water Protection (mapping and modeling)
was developed, based on a review of:
a. Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry
b. Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward
a Watershed-based Source Protection
Planning Framework
c. White Paper on Watershed-based Source
Protection Planning
d. The proposed Drinking Water Source
Protection Act (posted on the Environmental
Bill of Rights Registry, June 23, 2004)
5. A series of maps required for Source Water
Protection (based on the list of maps referred to in
item 1 above) was prepared to assess the
availability and suitability of other data sets. A
qualitative assessment was made of the data based
on these maps, and the problems encountered in
creating them.
6. Comments were made regarding options for
various data sets, data standards (not
specifications, but in terms of suitability for Source
Water Protection), and costs/benefits of using
various data sets. Data gaps were also identified.
7. A number of observations were made
throughout the project regarding various data sets
and data related issues. These were discussed with
staff of various ministries/agencies and reported.
2. A data and metadata search was conducted, via
LIO, the INTERNET, and communications with
ministry and agency staff, to identify what data sets
were available to meet the requirements
3. Data sheets were prepared for each data type
with the following contents:
Applicability to Source Protection
Name/Source
Description/Method Created (including Datum &
Coordinate System)
Accuracy Qualifier
Data Set Availability
Costs/Restrictions
Comments
4. Based on a review of the data sheets,
comparisons were made of some of the data types
where various data sets were available (watershed
boundaries, wetlands, woodlands, and agricultural
lands) using a simple overlay analysis (see Appendix
B). A polygon count of the various data sets, where
applicable, was also done to provide a comparison
of the data. A visual review of the various data sets
was also done and conclusions drawn on the best
data sets available for each (data type) theme.
9
An Assessment of
10
An Assessment of
4. REQUIRED DATA FOR SOURCE PROTECTION
PLANNING MODELS AND MAPPING
4
Based on the study team's review of O'Connor's
Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry; the
Advisory Committee's report, Protecting Ontario's
Drinking Water: Toward a Watershed-based Source
Water Protection Framework; and the Province's
White Paper on Watershed-based Source Water
Protection, as well as the CA's experience with
municipal groundwater studies and watershed
planning, a list of data requirements for Source
Water Protection has been developed. Some data
sets are required for mapping/illustrative purposes,
while others are needed for modeling. Modeling
needs for source water protection planning are
discussed below, followed by lists of data required
for both modeling and mapping.
4.1
Modeling Needs for
Source Water Protection
End Use
Å
Æ
Appropriate Models
Å
Æ
Available Base Data
Figure 1: Determining Data Requirements for
Modeling
The end use requirements for modeling need to be
understood as this will dictate the data and models
required (see Figure 1). The available data will limit
the models used for Source Protection. The quality
of the models will depend on the availability of
calibration data. In many cases models may need
to be run without calibration. A long-term plan will
have to be developed to improve the quantity and
quality of calibration data required for the accurate
calibration of all models.
A Tiered Approach to Modeling
The main requirement of models in Source Water
Protection is to describe the situation, as it exists
right now. The second is to describe the impact
and results of any management decisions made in
the future.
Based on the main requirements of models in
Source Protection, models must be predictive and
minimum data requirements for these predictive
models must be described. It is important to know
how much data is enough (the minimum
requirement for the predictive model). However,
how much is needed to define a specific solution
for a particular watershed problem will depend on
the specific problem (see Figure 2).
Describe conditions
PRESENT
Models
(eg. CANWET)
Nutrient Models
Water Balance
Å
Æ
Management Level
Source Protection
Questions / Answers
Å
Æ
Data Available /
Data Needed
Management Level
Source Protection
Questions / Answers
Figure 2: General Description of Modeling based on Source
Protection Plan Requirements and Questions
11
An Assessment of
A concurrent pilot project (Development of a Water
Quality Model for Nutrient Management) led by the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is
adapting the "AVGWLF" and "PRedICT" models (i.e.
now used in the U.S., Mexico, South America and
Europe) for Ontario conditions. The new model
being developed by Greenland International
Consulting is called "CANWET" (Canadian ArcView
Nutrient and Water Evaluation Tool). The new model
includes many source protection, water use, and
Best Management Practices related enhancements.
The first version of CANWET satisfies many of the
modeling requirements for Source Protection:
Nutrient Models (Nitrogen, Phosphorous and
Sediment)
Water Budget

Tier 2 can be elaborated on once the Tier 1 model is
up and running. It may be identified that there are
significant data gaps and it is not possible to move
to Tier 2 without further watershed specific
information gathering. There may be a huge data
compilation/collection task that is required to move
from Tier 1 to Tier 2. Getting the best model
possible in Tier 2 involves:
TIER 2 (see Figure 4)
Model populated with watershed wide specific
data
Calibration
Verification
Management Level
Source Protection
Questions / Answers
The integrated water balance-water quality model
(CANWET) is therefore being used as a way of
defining the base data requirements for nutrient and
water budget models. Further source protection
related enhancements to the CANWET model have
been proposed.
Å
Æ
Model
Å
Æ
A two-tiered system towards modeling should be
considered based on available data and the
Management level Source Protection Questions and
Answers. The first tier will involve the use of some
watershed specific data and significant literature
data.
Watershed Data Available
TIER 1 (see Figure 3)
Reasonably describes existing conditions
Predicts impact of management decisions
12
Model
Å
Æ
Partial Watershed Data
Available
Å
Æ
Management Level
Source Protection
Questions / Answers
Literature data for
remaining model
parameters
An Assessment of
4.2
Source Water Protection Models and
Their Components
Table 1 provides a general description of the types
of models that are needed for Source Water
Protection.
Table 1: General Description of Source Water Protection Models and Their Components
Model Description
Detailed Description
Water Budget Study
A Water Budget study provides an overall accounting of the volume of water
in the various components of the natural hydrologic cycle, including
-Surface Water Budget
precipitation, evapotranspiration, overland runoff, infiltration, and surface and
Model
groundwater storage. The study also estimates the current volume of water
-Groundwater Budget
use (ground and surface water) and provides an assessment of any impacts
from this use. Low flow measurements, needed for calibration of the surface
ModelModels or Studies
water budget model, are also used in other studies, including aquatic habitat
associated with the Water
studies. A water budget model is needed in order to undertake an
Budget are:
assessment of the impacts associated with potential changes in future land
- Water Use Effects Analysis use, rates of water use, or climate scenarios. Changes in a watershed water
- Water Conservation
budget are interpreted in terms of their impact on watershed systems, such
Projections
as baseflow, groundwater storage, water quality, stream stability, aquatic
- Groundwater Study
habitat, and terrestrial habitat (particularly wetlands).Water Budgets are key to
- Surface Flow Modeling
Source Water Protection because they identify and quantify critical elements
of the hydrologic cycle that may require protective measures. These elements
Examples of Models
may be experiencing stress due to depleting groundwater storage, reduced
Currently Used
baseflow, water loss to adjoining sub-watershed via groundwater aquifers, or
- Watbal
high water demand.
- Wasbal
- CANWET
Key input data include local watershed meteorological data, soils, surficial
geology, topography, land use/cover, long term flow data for baseflow
estimation and model calibration.
Key deliverables include surface and ground water budget models, and maps
showing spatial variation in watershed infiltration rates and flows, which can
be used to set management criteria.
13
Groundwater Study
Models or Studies associated
with the Groundwater Study
are:
- 3D Geological Mapping
- Well record compilation
- Groundwater Flow Model
Development
- Water Use Assessment
- Aquifer Mapping and Flow
Connections
- Groundwater Discharge
Mapping
Examples of Models Currently
Used
- ViewLog / MODFLOW
models
The groundwater study develops a watershed based groundwater flow model
which is used to establish an understanding of groundwater flow directions, water
levels, and discharge areas, and which puts the watershed within a broader
regional groundwater system context. A groundwater flow model defines the
pathways of water through the ground. A groundwater flow model is needed for
Source Water Protection to evaluate impacts to the groundwater flow system in
response to an altered water balance associated with future land or water use
scenarios. Changes in ground water flow could affect stream baseflow, aquatic
habitat, water quality and water use potential.
Key input data include geological mapping, borehole data (e.g. from well records),
groundwater use data, infiltration/recharge rates (from water budget),
potentiometric head/stream/waterbody data (for boundary conditions) and stream
baseflow data & groundwater level data (for model calibration). The groundwater
model is used as a basis for evaluating impacts to the groundwater flow system in
response to an altered water balance associated with future land or water use
scenarios. Projected future water use may be used in the groundwater flow model
to check to determine whether any significant change would occur to the
groundwater storage and/or baseflow. Significant reductions in either would
adversely impact the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of the watershed.
Key deliverables include: a conceptual geological model of the watershed, a 3-D
groundwater flow model tool, and an interpretation of the existing groundwater
system.
Surface Flow Modeling Study
Other Models or Studies
associated with the Surface
Flow Modeling Study are:
- Hydrology Model
Development
- Hydraulics Model
Development
- Floodline and Regulation Line
Mapping
- Flood vulnerable area/roads
Examples of Models
Currently Used:
SWMM, Visual
OTTHYMO, GAWSER
The primary purpose of the surface flow modeling study is to understand the surface
water flow conditions in a watershed. This involves an analysis of storm (rainfall) flow
events and continuous flow conditions. A watershed hydrology model provides a
tool for the assessment of impacts of future land use/cover and water use scenarios
on watershed hydrology, including in-stream flows. The model is also used to
evaluate alternative management strategies. In the context of source protection,
surface flow modeling a storm event would be necessary to protect the water intake
points from the combined sewer or storm sewer overflows as well as to estimate
erosion taking place within the watershed. Event flow models are also required so
that wells can be protected during high flow events. An example is most municipal
wells are required to be cased above the regional flood elevation. Secondly, event
flows are required to drive water quality models for periods covering flow
events.Continuous flow modeling undertaken during a drought event, coupled to the
water quality model may be used to predict critical water quality levels occurring
within streams/lakes.
Key input data include digital elevation model, soils, land use/cover,
meteorological data, streamflow data and a database of structures crossing
streams/channels (e.g. bridges, culverts).
Key deliverables include: recommended stormwater management criteria for
surface flow targets and flow databases for understanding erosion, water quality
and surface water/groundwater interaction.
14
An Assessment of
Water Use Assessment
with the Water Use
Assessment are:
- Current Water Use
- Future Water Use Projections
- Groundwater Study
- Wellhead Delineation
- Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping
- Allocation Assessment
The Water Use Assessment identifies all primary users of ground and surface
water within the watershed (i.e. municipal, commercial, agricultural, etc.), except
for environmental uses, which are addressed under other studies. The study
estimates the current and future volumes of water use and identifies any water
quality restrictions associated with the intended use. With particular focus on
potable water supplies, wellhead delineation and aquifer vulnerability mapping is
prepared. All of this information provides a basis for setting watershed
management goals and objectives; identifying key stakeholders who should be
involved in the planning process; defining future water use scenarios; and setting
criteria to evaluate impacts.
Key input data include the Ministry of the Environment's PTTW & CofA databases,
Water Well Records, Census of Agriculture & Census of Population (Stats Canada),
Compliance Report for the Municipal Drinking Water System, Municipal Water Use
(Environment Canada) and associated field verification updates, land use mapping,
and other related databases used to generate estimates of water use (including users
exempt from PTTW).
Historic and current water use data are used in Source Water Protection to
generate future water demand estimates. The estimated water demand may be
used in the regional groundwater flow model to assess the impacts on
groundwater storage and baseflow. Significant reductions in either may adversely
impact the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of the watershed.
Key deliverables from this work include updated water use databases, wellhead
delineation and aquifer vulnerability mapping, recommended management
goals/objectives/targets, and water use scenarios for further analysis.
Aquatic Resource Study
with the Aquatic Resource
Study are:
-Fish Habitat Survey
-Fish Community Survey
-Benthic Invertebrate Survey
-Regional Reference Fisheries
Community Assessment
-Water Temperature Survey
This study evaluates current and historic data on physical habitat conditions (i.e.
geomorphologic, geologic, flow, water chemistry, temperature, etc.) and species
presence to determine the historic aquatic community types found within the
watershed. Regional reference sites (i.e. aquatic communities found in other
similar, un-impacted, watershed reaches) are reviewed. Finally, human influences,
such as in-stream barriers and altered water quality or thermal conditions, are
considered as an additional layer of analysis to help describe aquatic community
conditions.
The aquatic community understanding is used to evaluate the acceptability of
impacts associated with future land or water use scenarios (e.g. changes in
baseflow, water temperature, etc.), as modeled by other studies. The
development of predictive tools that can be used to evaluate the response of the
aquatic community to changes in watershed conditions is an evolving science.
Aquatic Resource Studies can provide indicators of source protection strategy
failure or success.
15
An Assessment of
Groundwater Quality Study
with the Groundwater Quality
Study are:
-Groundwater Quality
Assessment
-Potential Contaminant
Inventory
-Contaminant Risk Assessment
Surface Water Quality Study
with the Surface Water Quality
Study are:
- Surface Water Quality
Assessment
- Water Quality/Contaminant
Transport Modeling
- Point/Non-point source
Identification
- Spills Inventory and Mapping
- Stormwater Retrofit
Opportunities Assessment
- Assimilation Capacity
Examples of Models Currently
Used
- CANWET - Nutrient
- QUALHYMO
- QualSWMM
- Qual-2K - Assimilative
Capacity
- Stream Plans
- Assimilative Capacity
The Groundwater Quality Study reports on groundwater chemistry in the various
aquifer systems and provides an interpretation of issues associated with current
or anticipated future groundwater use. This study component also involves the
development of a potential groundwater contaminant database and an approach
to undertake a risk assessment in vulnerable areas. Models describing
groundwater quality characteristics may be developed in the future.
Typical anthropogenic activities that impact groundwater quality (especially the
shallow aquifer) may include: road salt application during winter, fertilizer and
pesticide application in agricultural areas, leaching from underground fuel storage
tanks, septic fields etc. The Groundwater Quality Study may be used in Source
Water Protection to identify the anthropogenic activities affecting the aquifer and
the geological characteristics affecting the target aquifer.
The Surface Water Quality Study reports on current water quality conditions in
streams and waterbodies, and assesses the contributions from point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Water quality assessments are usually based on a
combination of chemical and biological indicators. This study assists in setting
water quality and aquatic resource targets.
Surface water quality models are developed and later used to evaluate the water
quality impacts due to future land or water use scenarios and the effectiveness of
alternative management strategies. Depending on the nature of pollutant sources
in the watershed, further studies may include nutrient budgets or assimilative
capacity studies.
Surface water quality models predict critical water quality conditions within
streams/lakes. This is needed for Source Water Protection as these critical water
quality conditions may adversely impact the designated water use (as well as
aquatic habitat). The model can also be used to identify pollutant sources that
have the most impact on the water quality conditions, thus requiring management
actions proposed to address them.
Key input data include: water (chemistry) quality (PWQMN, CA's), flow data, land
use/cover, agricultural practices data from land use/cover or census of agriculture
(e.g. fertilizer application rates, crop types, livestock types, etc.), stormwater
management practices, and a digital elevation model, depending on the
sophistication of studies deemed necessary. Model parameters may depend on
target chemical properties, flow, geography, geomorphology etc. (such as
dispersion coefficient, octanol-water partition coefficient, half-life, organic carbon
content, Henry's coefficient etc.)
Key deliverables include: water quality modeling tool(s), an interpretation of
current conditions, and recommendations for water quality targets.
16
An Assessment of
4.3
Data
Requirements
Data requirements for Source Water Protection
Mapping are outlined in Table 2. This list was
derived by reviewing the three key Source Water
Protection documents described in Section 2.1.1.
In this table we have noted which of the three
reports makes reference to the specific map or data
requirement. The Draft Drinking Water Source
Protection Act, 2004 became available as the
project was nearing completion. It was reviewed to
determine if there were any additional data
requirements indicated.
Table 3 lists the data requirements for various types
of models that are required for Source Water
Protection. Tables 4 and 5 list the data required
specifically for the CANWET model and for a
generic water budget model.
Table 2: Data Requirements for Source Water Protection Mapping
Product
Base Map
Provides geographical context and a base for other
maps
Defines coordinate system
Should be able to be used at different scales

Natural Features
(that contribute to the protection of drinking water
sources)
Shows natural features that contribute to the protection
of drinking water resources and act as an indicator of
source water health.
Source:
Adv. Com. Report
Draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act, 2004
Land Use-existing
Describes existing use of land including anthropogenic
effects on source water
Existing conditions for modeling purposes
Undeveloped lands indicate areas where management
options are more extensive
Detailed mapping useful for identifying potential
contaminant sources

Data Required
Watershed boundary, Roads, Rail lines, Utility lines
Municipal boundaries, Lot and concession, Watercourses
Waterbodies
Annotation (major roads, waterbodies,
watercourses, and place names)
Watercourses
Waterbodies
Thermal classification of watercourses/waterbodies
Wetlands
Woodlands
Grasslands
Vegetated buffers around wetlands, watercourses,
Sensitive/natural areas
Seepage areas and springs
Life science areas of natural and scientific interest
Land cover
Zoning (from municipal by-laws)
Parcel fabric (with attributes)
Census of agriculture
Discussions with municipalities, site inspections, air
photo interpretation
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report
White Paper
17
An Assessment of
Product
Land Use-future (uncontrolled)
Describes the future development scenario as
envisioned by municipalities and other provincial/
regional development plans
Required for modeling to estimate potential effects
and to identify management options necessary to
manage the future land use scenario

Data Required
Existing Land Use
Official plans (upper and lower tier)
Provincial and Federal planning documents and other
planning studies (e.g. ORM, Airport Areas, transportation
corridors)
Discussions with municipalities/agencies
Source:
Adv. Com. Report
White Paper
Designated High Risk Land Uses
This map will be used to identify land uses that
potentially pose a risk to the safety of drinking water
sources. The data from this map could be used in the
"Major Point and Non Point Sources of Contaminants"
map and "Areas where a direct threat to safety of
drinking water exists" map.
Source:
Adv. Com. Report
White Paper*
(every water risk)
Major Point and Non-point Source of
Contaminants
This map shows locations of potential sources of
contaminants, to evaluate the existing threats to source
water and develop management options
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report
White Paper
(every water risk)
18
Hazardous municipal and private landfill sites (point data
only)*
Known locations of groundwater contamination with
industrial byproducts*
Brownfields and abandoned sites*
Direct industrial and municipal discharges to surface
waters*
Stormwater discharges and infiltration lagoons/ponds*
Septic fields and cemeteries*
Uncovered road-salt piles and snow dumps*
Mining areas
Non-point sources:
Land use:
high-intensity developed
low-intensity developed
row crops
potential row crops
pasture
Point sources:
abandoned wells
waste generators
PCB inventory
waste disposal sites
coal gasification plant & waste sites
wastewater discharges
petroleum wells
fuel storage tanks
national pollutant release inventory
waste disposal sites (NRVIS)
waste disposal sites (Anderson database)
manufacturing facilities (Scott's directory)
patrol yards/salt storage domes

An Assessment of
Product
Data Required
Shortcuts That Can Introduce Contaminants Into Pits and Quarries
Aquifers (e.g. location of abandoned/poorly constructed Sand, gravel, bedrock outcrops from Aggregate
wells, excavations, quarries, etc.)
Identifies high risk areas where contaminants can quickly
impact groundwater resources
Resources Inventory/Surficial Geology
Abandoned wells (water from water well records,
petroleum, gas)
Petroleum wells
Karsts (from Earth Science ANSIs)
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report White Paper
(every water risk)
Wellhead Protection Areas
Well Head Protection Area maps are required to show
the areas that require special planning designations and
protection measures
Well Head Protection Area maps from Municipal
Groundwater Studies
Other Well Head Protection Area Studies (e.g. communal
well)
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
White Paper
Significant Hydrologic Features (including
groundwater discharge and recharge, wetlands, and
groundwater supplies under influence of surface water)
This map (or series of maps) will show the locations of
all surface water features, groundwater features and
groundwater/surface water interactions
Source:
White Paper
Significant Water Withdrawals/Areas Experiencing
Stress due to Water Takings
This map will demonstrate where water withdrawals are
occurring that have the potential to adversely impact
water quantity (of both surface and ground water).
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report
White Paper
(water budget requirements)
Watercourses (including intermittent streams)
Waterbodies (including ponds)
Wetlands
Springs and seepage areas
Recharge areas
Discharge areas
Bedrock topography (thalwegs)
Extent and depth of aquifers
Overburden Thickness
Surface water gauge stations
Base flow stations
Water use (Permits to Take Water, Certificate of
Approval/Municipal Drinking Water Systems/MUD, water
well records, Census of Agriculture, and Census of
Population)
Water balance derived knowledge on sustainability of
aquifer/ aquifer yield/ depleting GW storage, and
depleting baseflow conditions
Minimum inflow requirements (surface water) based on
biotic/riparian needs (An Instream Flow Pilot Project is
currently being completed for Conservation Ontario by
the Grand River, Long Point Region and Cataraqui Region
CAs, investigates this issue.)
19
An Assessment of
Product
Areas of high, Medium and Low Vulnerability
(areas at risk) and Sensitive Water Resources
(groundwater and surface water)
The map(s) will illustrate the degree to which the health
of groundwater and surface water is at risk due to the
human use of the land.
Note: A ranking system will need to be provided by the
Province to rank the risks
Source:
Adv. Com. Report
Walkerton-Part 2 (groundwater)
White Paper (groundwater)
Draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act, 2004 (every
water risk)
Known Areas of Water Contamination
(surface and groundwater)
The map will be required to provide an understanding of
existing conditions and to help formulate management
decisions.
Data Required
Groundwater:
Intrinsic Susceptibility Index mapping
Municipal Wellhead Capture Zones
Major Point and Non Point Sources of Data
Short Cuts that Introduce Contaminant to Aquifer
Recharge/Discharge Areas
Surface Water:
Susceptibility: could be defined by a 120m zone of
influence (from ORMCP) around each of:
watercourses (including intermittent streams)
waterbodies (including ponds)
wetlands
springs and seepage areas
Major Point and Non Point Sources of Contaminants
Tile Drain Area
Surface Water Intakes
Surface water quality data (PWQMN, CURB, other
monitoring stations, drinking water intakes)
Groundwater Quality (PGMN, municipal wells, other
monitoring data)
Information on spills, adverse drinking water quality
incidents, non compliant facilities, boil water advisories
etc.
Source:
White Paper
(general assessment of water quality and quantity)
Areas Where a Direct Threat to Safety of Drinking Drinking water sources along with data from other maps
listed above, including sensitive groundwater and surface
Water Exists
(Areas where source protection issues exist)
This map is a consolidation of other maps and serves to
highlight areas where management and protection
measures are required.
water resources, land use, potential contaminants, high
risk land uses, vulnerability, areas experiencing stress due
to water withdrawals, well head capture zones, natural
features.
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report
(every water risk)
20
An Assessment of
Product
Other Data Requirements
(that may not appear on maps, but will be useful in
modeling or deriving other required data and in making
management decisions)
Refer to Table 3 for more details on modeling requirements
Data Required
Contours
Buildings (points, buildings to scale)
Soils
Geodetic datum
Spot heights
Public Lands
Trails
NGO nature reserves
Meteorological data
Stream flow data
Surficial Geology
Physiography
Bedrock Geology
Topography/DEM
Groundwater elevation (potentiometric surface and water
table elevation)
Stream crossing structures (bridges, culverts)
Dams
Storm sewer/combined sewers & overflows
Fisheries Data
Table 3: Data Requirements for Source Water Protection Modeling
Model Description
Water Budget Study
Data Sets Required:
Meteorological Data
- rainfall
- air temperature
- snow fall
- evaporation/evapotranspiration data
- snow storage
Model Parameters
- CN values
- Water holding capacity and soil
storage
- Infiltration
- Run-off coefficient
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report
White Paper
Stream Flow
- Discharge
- Base flow
Water Use
- Integration of PTTW Records (Surface
and Groundwater) and Other Water
Taking Data
- Point Source data such as WWTPs
that contribute to surface water flows,
WWTP effluent will add to surface
water flows
Geographical Data
- Soils
- Land Use
- Land Cover
- Topography/DEM
- Surficial Geology
- Tile Drain Area
21
An Assessment of
Model Description
Groundwater Study
Data Sets Required:
Geological Surface Data
- Surficial Geology
- Bedrock Geology
- Physiography
- Bedrock Topography
- Water Table (based on well data)
- Sand and Gravel Thickness
- Downward Gradient (recharge areas)
- Unit Layers
- Potentiometric Surface
- Discharge Areas
- Overburden Thickness
- Well Records
- DEM
Tile Drainage
Hydraulic and Flow data
- Hydraulic conductivity
- recharge
- discharge
- pumping rates
- well interference data
Surface Flow
Modeling Study
Drainage Area Data
- Catchment Delineation
- Catchment Data (slope, flow length, roughness) from
topography/DEM, soils & surficial geology
- Land Cover
- Impervious type data from soils, surficial geology
- Infiltration from soils, surficial geology, land cover,
topography/DEM
- Depression storage from DEM/hummocky topography
- Soils runoff characteristics data (e.g. CN or C) from land cover, tile
drain area, soils
- Stream crossing structures (bridges, culverts)
Meteorological Data
- See Water Budget
Stream Flow Data
- stage, discharge
- structures (dams, culverts)
- storm sewer data
22
An Assessment of
Model Description
Water Use
Assessment
Data Sets Required:
Water Taking Data
- PTTW
- Field data (metering)
- Compliance Report for Municipal Drinking Water System
- Certificates of Approval
Models Needed to estimate other uses:
- Livestock/crop (census of agriculture with coefficients)
- Private Well Water Use (water well records with coefficients)
- Commercial Use (PTTW/MUD)
- Metered Urban Systems
Census Data
- Population
- Agriculture
Urban Water Use
- Municipal Water Use Database (MUD)
Surface Water
Quality Model (fate
of contaminants
model)
Water Chemistry Data
- PWQMN
- CA data
- Municipal Data
Agricultural Practices Data from Land Use/Land Cover, Census of Agriculture
- fertilizer application rates
- crop types
- livestock types etc.
Source:
Walkerton-Part 2
Adv. Com. Report
Groundwater
Quality Study
Urban water-quality inputs
- discharges from STPs & industrial WWTPs
- Non-point source models / data
o Storm water run-off
o Storm water ponds
o Snow melt containing road salt
- PGMN
- Site Specific Studies
23
An Assessment of
Table 4: Summary of Data Requirements and Sources for CANWET Analysis
Data Requirement
Source
WEATHER.DAT file
Historical weather data from Environment Canada's
Meteorological Service monitoring stations as well as from
local CA stations
TRANSPORT.DAT file
Basin size
GIS/derived from basin boundaries
Digital Elevation Map
Derived from DTM using ArcInfo, Surfer, etc.
Land use/cover distribution
Based on ecological land use classification or similar
information. CANWET uses up to16 classes of land use.
Soil Map used to derive other layers and
parameters
Attributes include: available water holding capacity, K-factor
for USLE equation, hydrological soil group, bulk density and
organic matter content
Curve numbers by source area (cover type)
GIS/derived from land cover and soil maps
USLE (KLSCP) factors by source area
GIS/derived from soil, DEM, OMAF tables and land cover
ET cover coefficients
GIS/derived from land cover
Erosivity coefficients
GIS/ derived from rainfall erosivity map and literature
Daylight hrs. by month
Computed automatically by CANWET based on latitude
Growing season months
Input by user
Initial saturated storage
Default value of 10 cm
Initial unsaturated storage
Default value of 0 cm
Recession coefficient
Calibration parameter or GIS/derived from literature
estimates
Seepage coefficient
Default value of 0
Initial snow amount (cm water)
Default value of 0
Sediment delivery ratio
GIS/based on basin size
Tile drainage extent and loads
GIS/derived from new maps based on OMAF drainage
sheets
Soil water (available water capacity)
GIS/derived from literature and soil type
24
An Assessment of
Data Requirement
Source
NUTRIENT.DAT file
Dissolved N in runoff by land cover type
Default values from literature
Animal Equivalent Units (AEU) or
Nutrient Units (NU)
Derived from Statistics Canada 2001 Agriculture
Census attributed by regional municipal boundaries.
Better approach would be to use animal
populations by "consolidated subdivisions"
Dissolved P in runoff by land cover type
Default values derived from literature
N/P concentrations in manure runoff
Default values/adjusted using AEU/NU density
N/P buildup in urban areas
Default values (approximate values from original
GWLF Manual)
N and P point source loads
GIS/derived from row data. Model allows for
dynamic point source data from feedlots, treatment
plants, etc.
Background N/P concentrations in GW
GIS/derived from new background Nitrogen
concentration map
Background P concentrations in soil
GIS/derived from new soil Phosphorous
concentration map
Background N concentrations in soil
Approximate - based on default/literature values
Months of manure spreading
Input by user
Population on septic systems
GIS/derived from census tract map (Population
census); also from Township databases
Per capita septic system loads (N/P)
Default values (from GWLF Manual)
Calibration
Stream Flows
field monitoring, HYDAT
Measured Nutrient Concentrations
field monitoring, PWQMN
25
An Assessment of
Table 5: Summary of Data Requirements and Sources for Generic Water Budget Analysis
Data Requirement
Source
Basin Input File
Area
WRIP / Arc Hydro / 2002 Ortho Products
Slope
Derived from DTM using ArcInfo, Spatial Analyst,
etc.
Land use (Existing and Future)
SOLRIS
Vegetation
SOLRIS / ELC, MNR WOODLOTS
Stream configuration
WRIP / ARC HYDRO
Lake configuration
WRIP / ARC HYDRO
Reservoir configuration
Site Specific
Soil types - antecedent moisture, field capacity,
wilting point, porosity, infiltration rates, hydraulic
conductivity,
OMAF
Sediment/erosion factor - removal rates/ land
surface/channel routing/ peak rate adjustment
factor/sediment re-entrainment factor during
channel routing
Calculated Value/Calibration Factor
Hydrologic response parameter e. g., Peak rate,
surface runoff lag time
Calculated Value/Calibration Factor
Water quality response parameters, where required, Calculated Value/Calibration Factor
e. g., pollutant movement factors, pollution
accumulation and wash off amount, pollution
adsorption, decomposition coefficient, etc.
Meteorological/Climatic Input File
Precipitation
CA Gauges / Environment Canada
Temperature
Evapotranspiration - Radiation, Wind speed,
Relative humidity
Snowfall/melt rate - temperature, contents,
equivalent, temperature lag factor,
Snow Stations / CA Gauges / Environment Canada
Climatic change factors (if appropriate)
NA
26
An Assessment of
Data Requirement
Source
Hydrometric Data File
Stream flow - rates, volume
WSC / CA Gauges
Sediment - concentration
Limited Data / Old Water Survey Data
Water level
CA Gauges / MNR
Water quality
PWQMN/CURB/CA/Site-Specific
Groundwater Data File
Geological profile - bedrock/maps/DEM
OGS/Municipal GW Study
Surficial profile - sand/gravel/silt/clay
OGS / Well Records / Municipal GW Study
Hydro geological parameters permeability/conductivity/transitivity
Literature Value / Field Tests
Yields - specific
WWR Database (MOE)/Field Tests
Observation wells - shallow, deep
CA / PGMN
Well logs
MOE
Surface features - depression, pits, cracks,
DEM / Physiography (OGS)
Water quality data
PGMN / OFA
General Water Quality Parameters File
Physical
Water Quality Results
Conventional
Chemical
Heavy metals
Trace metals
Pesticides
Organics
Microbiology
Radiology
Pathogens
Algae
27
Data Requirement
Source
Reservoir Input File
Capacity
Site Specific / L+R Files (Dams)
Surface area
Site Specific / L+R Files (Dams)
Reservoir control curve
Site Specific
Years of operation
Site Specific
Number of contributing sub-watersheds
Site Specific
Operating characteristics - e. g., drought response (Minimum storage),
emergency storage, flood storage
Site Specific
Hydraulic conductivity/seepage
Derived Value
Sediment - concentration
Literature Value
Withdrawals - permits, evaporation, others
PTTW, Additional Field Work
Impoundment - lowers the movement of water in the channel network
- types:
Sediment storage
Water use requirement
Site Specific
Flood control level
Site Specific
Emergency control factor
Site Specific
Lake water quality - agricultural pesticides/ metals/ sediment
levels/microbial contaminant levels
Reaction rate of chemicals
Volatilization coefficient
Partition coefficient
Settling velocity
Mixing velocity
Burial velocity
Re-suspension velocity of absorbed contaminants
Depth of active sediment
Initial phosphorus concentration
Phosphorus settling
Site Specific
Watershed Management Practices File
Tillage
SOLRIS/Census of Agriculture
Row crops
Mixed crops
Relevant policies and criteria
Drought management policies
Best management practices
Groundwater management
Watershed and sub-watershed management
Flood management practices
Site Specific
28
Data Requirement
Source
Watershed Structure Filez
Precipitation
Evaporation/transpiration
CA Gauges / Environment Canada /
Calculated Value
Soil layers/types
Dominant Surface Type - OMAF
Soil moisture
Literature Value / Site Specific
Irrigation
Fieldwork and Site Specific
Snowmelt
Calculated / Field Work
Surface runoff
SOLRIS / DEM / OMAF / OGS / Calculated Value
Lateral flow
Derived Value
Percolation
Literature Value / Derived Value
Recharge
SOLRIS / DEM / OMAF / OGS / Calculated Value
Return flow
Derived Values / Hydrologic Modeling
Transmission losses
Derived Values / Modeling
Deep percolation
Pond
Hydrology Sub -Model
Surface runoff - daily runoff
Derived Through Modeling
Percolation - estimate flow through soil layers
Lateral subsurface flow - estimate flow in soil profile (0-2m)
Groundwater flow - flow contribution to total flow
Evapotranspiration - estimates moisture loss from the
watershed (other than total runoff)
Snowmelt - estimate daily melt
Transmission losses - sub-watershed with alluvial channel
abstracting large volume of streamflow
Ponds - accounting for small volume of pond storage
Weather Sub -Model
Precipitation
Air temperature, solar radiation
Wind speed, relative humidity
Sedimentation Sub -Model
Sediment yield
Soil temperature
Crop growth Sub -Model
Single model simulating all crop growth activities
Nutrient Sub -Model
Nitrogen - amount of nitrogen contained in runoff
Literature Values
Source: Cumming Cockburn Limited, 2002
29
An Assessment of
5. ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS DATA SETS
5
The availability of the required data sets identified
in the previous chapter has been investigated for
the pilot watersheds and is reported on the data
sheets in Appendix C.

This investigation has shown that for some types of
data, there is only one data set available (e.g.
waterbodies). Sometimes other data sets may be
available but they are known to be of lesser quality.
The data sheets indicate if a certain data set is
adequate for Source Water Protection purposes, based
on the experiences of the members of the Project Task
Team, or if further assessment is required.
For the above noted themes, the best available data
sets for each pilot subwatershed were compared.
In some cases, there are several data sets to choose
from (e.g. watershed boundaries). Where this is the
case, maps comparing the data sets have been
created and discussed in detail (in section 5.1 below).
Locational precision and completeness has been
assessed by comparing the data sets against satellite
imagery or orthophotography, where available. No
ground-truthing was undertaken. Cost and availability
has also been considered.

5.1.1 Comparisons of Watershed Boundary Data Sets
The first step in Source Water Protection, and any
watershed study, is to create an acceptable
watershed boundary. As with any data, it is desirable
for the boundary to be as accurate as possible.
However, keeping scale and purpose in mind, the
accuracy of the boundary for Source Water
Protection for a large rural watershed may not be as
critical as it would be for a small urban catchment.
Several sources for creating watershed boundaries
are available. The following data sets have been
compared and options listed for Source Water
Protection mapping:
Watershed
Watershed
Toolbox
Watershed
Watershed
Method

Where there were no comparable data sets, the data
were assessed by preparing maps to evaluate their
usefulness and completeness. Some data sets are not
adequate on their own, but need to be combined with
others to make a meaningful data set. An example of
this is potential contaminants. Section 5.2 of this
report provides an analysis of the maps, and discusses
data availability, deficiencies and gaps. Data standards
and costs-benefits are also discussed.
5.1
Data Set
Comparisons
Where multiple data sets exist, they were evaluated
by creating maps of the various shape files and doing
a visual and simple analytical exercise. This type of
comparison could not be completed for all themes
with multiple data sets because of the time which
would have been required; therefore key data themes
relevant to source protection planning were selected:
30
watershed boundaries
wetlands
woodlands
agricultural land
Boundary Created by WRIP Toolbox
Boundary Created by Arc Hydro
Boundary created by OFAT model
Boundary Created by Traditional Hand
A description of each of these data sets is provided
on the data sheets in Appendix C. The OFAT
watershed boundaries can be generated by
Conservation Authorities at a low cost. WRIP and
ArcHydro boundaries can be generated by
Conservation Authorities that have access to Arc
Editor and Spatial Analyst and the associated
toolbox, or can be created by MNR. Digitized handgenerated watershed boundaries are not available for
all Conservation Authorities. This can be a fairly timeconsuming job as opposed to the more automated
methods of generating watershed boundaries.
The watershed boundaries (generated by different
methods) were plotted for all pilot watersheds for
the purpose of comparisons (no hand generated
boundary was available for the North River
An Assessment of
watershed). An overall watershed map is provided
for each study area with enlargements of the areas
illustrating common discrepancies (see Appendix D).
As a measure of the differences, a table was
generated showing the difference in area and
standard deviation. Since there is no valid "true"
data set, the analysis demonstrates the relative
agreement of one dataset with the other, rather than
which is most accurate. However, areas of
discrepancy are highlighted and can then be
examined in more detail to see which data set
appears to be most accurate. The decision on
which boundaries were most accurate was based on
these visual qualitative comparisons.
Results
Table 6 illustrates the differences in watershed boundaries for each method of generation.
Table 6: Comparison of Watershed Area
Method of
Boundary
Generation
HandDrawn
WRIP
Toolbox1
OFAT2
Rawdon Creek
199.20 km2
195.32 km2
194.95 km2 195.18 km2
196.16 km2 2.03 km2 (approx. +/-1.03%
variation)
Shelter Valley
Creek
70.34 km2
69.98 km2
70.67 km2
70.32 km2
0.28 km2 (approx. +/-0.40%
variation)
Barnum House
Creek
*37.63 km2
*36.48 km2
*35.70 km2 *36.20 km2
36.50 km2
0.827 km2 (approx. +/-2.2%
variation)
Grafton Creek
7.8 km2
8.3 km2
8.7 km2
8.9 km2
8.42 km2
0.49 km2 (approx. +/-5.7%
variation)
Wilmot Creek
97.45 km2
(Including
Foster
Creek)
98.82 km2
(Including
Foster
Creek)
97.18 km2
(Including
Foster
Creek)
88.49 km2
(Not
including /
missing
Foster Creek)
95.49 km2
4.71 km2
(approx. +/-4.9% variation)
0.88 km2 (No Arc Hydro
since Foster Creek was
missing)
(approx. +/-0.92% variation)
Graham Creek
77.85 km2
78.14 km2
78.67 km2
78.12 km2
78.20 km2
0.34 km2 (approx. +/-0.43%
variation)
262.66 km2
258.27 km2 178.16 km2
233.03km2
47.57 km2
(approx. +/-20.41 %
variation)
North River
ArcHydro3
70.28 km2
Average
Standard Deviation
*The WRIP generated and digitized watershed extends into Lake Ontario, making the watershed area
slightly larger.
1 WRIP: uses 10m hydrologically corrected, filled DEM (streams essentially burned into DEM)
2 OFAT: 20 m DEM used (errors based on scale; doesn't include all streams, etc.)
3 ArcHydro: for evaluation purposes, 10 m DEM was used to generate likely places for streams and
subsequent watershed boundaries (no stream burning was used)
31
An Assessment of
The attached maps illustrate some of the common errors which are described in Table 7.
Table 7: Common Errors in Watershed Boundary Delineation
Common Error
Description
Boundary Crosses Water
(Lake/Watercourses)
The watershed boundary crosses waterbodies and
watercourses.
BCW
Missing Stream Arcs
Missing stream arcs cause errors in the computer
generated watershed boundaries
MSA
Internally Drained Areas
(isolated lakes or
hummocky topography)
Varying decisions are made on whether to include or
exclude an isolated lake or hummocky area from the
watershed.
IDA
Urban Stormwater
Sewersheds seem to be recognized by WRIP, but not
OFAT.
USW
Flat Area
Poor, and differing, decisions are sometimes made where
there are no contours.
FA
Missing Spot Heights
High spots (indicated by spot heights) are picked up by
OFAT, but seldom picked up by WRIP and ArcHydro tools.
MSP
Subjectivity
Slight variations occur in the boundaries for no apparent
reasons.
Outflow Node
The location of the selected outflow node affects the
boundary at the bottom end of the watershed.
ON
Not at Right Angles
The digitized hand-drawn boundary tends to cross
contours at angles other than right angles.
NRA
Isolated Ridge
Hand generated boundaries follow the top of the ridge
while computer generated boundaries fall on either side of
the ridge.
IR
Impact of Shoreline
WRIP boundaries tend to extend into the lake (this may
reflect the positioning of the outflow node). Lack of flow
direction data in the lake may be one of the problem
sources.
IS
Shared Boundary Not
Matching
Shared boundary of two adjacent watersheds does not
perfectly match.
SB
Overlapping Boundary
Shared boundary of adjacent watersheds sometimes
overlaps significantly.
OB
32
Code used on Maps
S
An Assessment of
Generally the differences in the watershed
boundary, based on various methods of generation,
are minor, +/- 5.7 %, with the exception of the
North River watershed. ArcHydro did not include a
major tributary of the North River, thereby affecting
the total watershed area.
Data Standard Options
For any mapping project, the best available
watershed boundary should be used. The following
options (summarized in Table 8) are available for
watershed boundary use.
a.
The WRIP watershed boundary is currently
the best option. However, it should be verified
with other boundaries (preferably hand-drawn) to
check for obvious errors.
b.
As a second choice, ArcHydro watershed
boundary could be used, but again it must be
verified by checking with other boundaries. Some
modifications need to be made (i.e. streamburning) to ArcHydro to ensure that major errors
do not occur (as was the case with the North
River watershed.)
c.
A hand-generated boundary, which is
thought to be accurate, can be used, but should
be compared against computer generated
boundaries to check for discrepancies and
corrected accordingly.
The OFAT boundary appears to be an inferior
product and is not recommended for Source Water
Protection (because of the scale of the base DEM20m).
Scale is an important issue when determining if
watershed boundaries are accurate. Any boundary
used should ideally be plotted and reviewed with
contours, streams, waterbodies and spot heights as
a backdrop. Any obvious errors should be
corrected and the resultant watershed boundary
used.
Table 8: Data Standard Options for Watershed
Boundaries
Watershed
Boundary Data Set
Value in Source Water
Protection
WRIP
Acceptable, but must be
verified
ArcHydro
verified
hand-generated
verified
OFAT
Not acceptable using the
current 20 m DEM
In terms of availability, with the exception of
digitized hand-drawn boundaries, the other
boundaries can easily be generated through MNR or
by the CA itself if it has the required tools and
software. The OFAT boundary is easy to generate
at low cost, but needs to be used with caution. If
the DEM utilized in OFAT were improved, with the
stream locations updated as in WRIP layer, the data
produced from the program would be more reliable.
The following updates/revisions would improve
ArcHydro, the WRIP Toolbox and OFAT's capabilities
of generating watershed boundaries:
a.
incorporation of spot heights in the DEM
used in the WRIP Toolbox and ArcHydro
b.
verification of the integrity of the flow arcs
used by the WRIP Toolbox and ArcHydro (spatial
location and flow direction)
c.
incorporation of the 10m DEM in OFAT
5.1.2 Comparison of Wetlands Data Sets
Wetlands are sometimes hydrologically linked with
groundwater resources and also have an important
role in purifying surface water. The location and
extent of wetlands in the watershed will be needed
as an input to watershed models for Source Water
Protection. An accurate, complete wetlands data
set is, therefore, a required data set. Wetland
location was the only criteria considered: no
attempt was undertaken to consider/compare
33
An Assessment of
wetland type. A variety of wetlands data sets are
available including:
Natural Resource Values Information System
(NRVIS) wetlands (evaluated wetlands and
unevaluated Ontario Base Map [OBM] wetlands)
Wetlands derived from Provincial Land Cover
(PLC), also known as Land Cover 28
Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Wetlands
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) wetlands
(community series level)
Southern Ontario Land Resource Information
System (SOLRIS) wetlands
Other comprehensive wetland inventories (e.g.
LTC/Ducks Unlimited [DU] Wetland Inventory)
on the data sheets in Appendix C. The NRVIS and
PLC wetlands are widely available. The NRVIS data
set includes evaluated and unevaluated wetlands
from the OBM map series. The unevaluated
wetlands have not been recently updated and are
comprised only of marsh and fen; therefore, some
wetlands are not picked up by this data set. The
ORM wetlands are only available for the Oak Ridges
Moraine landform (although the technique used to
derive them may be transferable). ELC wetlands are
only available where Conservation Authorities or
other organizations/firms have undertaken this work.
It is not widely available in rural Ontario. SOLRIS is
not complete but is a work in progress. It is the
intent of the MNR to complete SOLRIS mapping for
all of southern Ontario with a northern version also
possible. Some CAs have undertaken wetland
inventories for their watersheds (this type of
inventory is available for the pilot areas in the LTC
watershed).
In order to determine which of the data sets are
suitable for mapping and modeling for Source
Water Protection, a simple overlay analysis
(methodology in Appendix B) of two data sets was
made for the various pilot watersheds. The
following comparisons were made:
North River: NRVIS vs. PLC
Shelter Valley, Grafton, Barnum House Creek (part
area): LTC/DU vs. ORM
34
Rawdon Creek: LTC/DU vs. NRVIS
Wilmot Creek (part area): ORM vs. ELC
Wilmot Creek (part area): ELC vs. SOLRIS
The wetlands shape files were superimposed over
the most recent photography or satellite imagery to
make a qualitative judgment on the accuracy of the
wetlands features (maps illustrating the
comparisons are contained in Appendix D).

North River: NRVIS vs. PLC
For the North River watershed, wetlands from PLC
were compared with NRVIS wetlands (see Table 9).
Since PLC wetlands consist of several classes, a
data set was created by merging the following PLC
wetland classes:
Coastal Mudflats
Inter-tidal Marsh
Super-tidal Marsh
Freshwater Coastal Marsh/Inland Marsh
Deciduous Swamp
Conifer Swamp
Open Fen
Treed Fen
Open Bog
Treed Bog.
Table 9: Comparison of Wetlands Data for North
River (NRVIS vs. PLC)
Data Set
Area (km2)
NRVIS
Wetlands
PLC
Wetlands
33.25
31.86
Combined Area (A F B)
(km2)
57.94
Area in common (A B)
(km2)
7.28
Number of Polygons
1422
578
Number of Polygons that
do not intersect with other
data set
1066
295
An Assessment of
The NRVIS and PLC wetlands are not very similar.
The area of NRVIS wetlands in the North River
watershed is 33.25 km2, while the PLC wetlands
area is 31.86km2. As seen from the comparison
table, wetland area common to both the NRVIS and
PLC data set (i.e. 7.28 km2) is at the most 23% of
the individual wetland coverage (PLC), indicating a
very poor match between the two data sets. The
fact that a large number of polygons occur in one
data set but not the other, also illustrates the
degree of difference between the two layers. When
compared to satellite imagery of the area, it
appears that the NRVIS layer is more accurate.
Some of the areas that are shown to be wetlands
by the PLC layer do not appear to be wetlands on
the imagery. However, the NRVIS wetlands layer
does not include all of the wetlands (swamps are
under-represented) on the landscape.
Rawdon Creek: NRVIS vs. LTC/DU
For the Rawdon Creek watershed, the NRVIS
wetlands and the LTC/DU inventory of wetlands
were overlain in the GIS to identify discrepancies
(see Table 10). The purpose of this comparison was
to illustrate the added value to the NRVIS data set
by undertaking additional wetland inventories. The
LTC/DU inventory includes all previously identified
wetlands (NRVIS un-evaluated and evaluated
wetlands) and other wetlands identified by aerial
photograph interpretation and satellite imagery.
Based on a visual review of the map and a review
of the table (re: number of polygons), the LTC/DU
wetland inventory identified additional wetlands
that were not included in the NRVIS wetlands data
set. This included mostly small wetlands and nonevaluated swamps that would not be included in
the NRVIS layer. Due to the incorporation of newly
identified features (approx. 200 polygons), 7
additional square km of wetlands were identified.
This indicates the value added by doing additional
studies, rather than just using readily available data.
(part area): LTC/DU vs. ORM
For the Shelter Valley/Grafton/Barnum House Creek
Table 10: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Rawdon
Creek (LTC/DU vs. NRVIS)
Data Set
Area (km2)
LTC/DU
Wetlands
NRVIS
Wetlands
22.41
15.05
(km2)
22.70
(km2)
14.76
Number of Polygons
351
155
do not intersect with other
data set
244
02*
* Since the LTC/DU wetlands incorporated the NRVIS wetlands, the
number of polygons should be greater in the LTC/DU wetlands and
all NRVIS wetlands should be incorporated in the LTC/DU wetlands.
Two polygons from the NRVIS data set were not incorporated in the
LTC/DU inventory because the digitized watershed boundary was
used to identify and incorporate wetlands in the LTC/DU inventory
while the WRIP generated watershed boundary was used in this
overlay analysis.
watershed, a section of the ORM wetlands
shapefile (created to help implement the ORMCP)
and the LTC/DU inventory of wetlands were overlain
in the GIS to identify discrepancies (see Table 11).
The purpose of this comparison was to investigate
any potential added value to the ORM data set by
undertaking additional wetland inventories. The
LTC/DU inventory includes all previously identified
wetlands (NRVIS evaluated and un-evaluated
wetlands, ORM) and other wetlands identified by
aerial photograph interpretation and satellite
imagery. The ORM wetlands are an updated NRVIS
wetlands data set: MNR staff used IRS satellite
imagery and infrared photos for this purpose.
Similar techniques appear to have been used to
update the NRVIS layer for the LTC/DU wetlands
and ORM wetlands.
The LTC/DU wetland inventory contains a number of
wetlands that are not in the ORM wetlands and
35
An Assessment of
Table 11: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Test
Area of Shelter Valley, Grafton, Barnum House
Creek (LTC/DU vs. ORM)
Data Set
LTC/DU
Wetlands
Area (km2)
ORM
Wetlands
1.28
1.05

(km2)
1.30
(km2)
1.02
Number of Polygons
do not intersect with
other data set
74
23
MAM - Meadow Marsh
MAS - Shallow Marsh
SAF - Shallow Floating
SAS - Shallow Submergent
SWC - Coniferous Swamp
SWD - Deciduous Swamp
SWM - Mixed Swamp
SWT - Thicket Swamp
Table 12: Comparison of Wetlands Data for Wilmot
Creek ORM Portion (ORM vs. ELC)
Data Set
57
01*
* Since the LTC/DU wetlands incorporated the ORM wetlands, the
number of polygons should be greater in the LTC/DU wetlands and all
ORM wetlands should be incorporated in the LTC/DU wetlands. A
single polygon from the ORM data set was not incorporated in the
LTC/DU inventory because the digitized watershed boundary was
used to identify and incorporate wetlands in the LTC/DU inventory
while the WRIP generated watershed boundary was used in this
overlay analysis.
matches the satellite imagery and
orthophotography well. Twenty-three additional
wetlands were identified in the LTC/DU; this
suggests that more time and effort was spent in
developing this layer.
Wilmot Creek (part area): ORM vs. ELC
ORM wetlands data for Wilmot Creek was
compared with ELC coverage completed by the
GanRCA (see Table 12). The ELC coverage was
completed to the community series level. In order
to create an ELC wetlands layer, the following ELC
(community series) classes were merged.
Area (km2)
ORM
Wetlands
(Wilmot)
ELC
Wetlands
(Wilmot)
0.28
1.46
(km2)
1.57
(km2)
0.17
Number of Polygons
6
39
other data set
1
34
A significant variation was found between the ORM
and ELC wetlands for Wilmot Creek watershed. The
ELC wetlands cover 1.46 km2 of the test area while
the ORM wetlands cover 0.28 km2. The ELC also
identified a number of additional wetland features
that were not in the ORM layer. It is clear, based
on this analysis, that ELC wetlands provide a much
more detailed inventory of wetlands. Swamps likely
accounted for a number of the wetlands missed in
the ORM layer as they have not been mapped
outside of the wetland evaluations.
The two wetlands layers were displayed with
orthophotography as a backdrop (see Appendix D).
The map illustrates some of the areas where
discrepancies between the two layers exist. When
compared to the orthophotography, it appears that
36
An Assessment of
the ELC layer is more correct. The polygons
identified as wetland in the ORM layer (especially
unevaluated wetlands) and not identified as
wetlands in the ELC layer do not appear to be
wetland areas in the orthophoto image. The ELC
wetlands layer is superior because of the precise
digitizing of community types, as well as the field
checks required by the ELC methodology. An
added advantage of the ELC data set is that the
wetland community is recorded. This is not the
case for unevaluated wetlands within the ORM data
set.
Wilmot Creek (part area): ELC vs. SOLRIS
SOLRIS wetlands data for Wilmot Creek was
GanRCA (see Table 13) for the Oak Ridges moraine
portion of the Wilmot Creek watershed.
In order to create the SOLRIS wetlands layer, the
following datasets were merged.
Marsh_Val - Marsh
Swamp_Val - Swamp
Water_Val - Ponds / Water Features
The ELC coverage was completed to the
community series level. In order to create an ELC
wetlands layer, the following ELC (community
series) classes were merged.
MAM - Meadow Marsh
MAS - Shallow Marsh
SWM - Mixed Swamp
SWT - Thicket Swamp
Table 13: Comparison of Wetlands Data
for Wilmot Creek SOLRIS Test Area (SOLRIS vs. ELC)
Data Set
Area (km2)
SOLRIS
Wetlands
(Wilmot
ORM)
ELC
Wetlands
(Wilmot
ORM)
0.56
0.02
Combined Area
(A F B) (km2)
0.565
Area in common
(A B) (km2)
0.015
Number of Polygons
22
1
Number of Polygons
that do not intersect
with other data set
21
0
Based on the overlay analysis and the comparison
with the orthophotography, it appears that wetlands
were more accurately located and mapped through
the SOLRIS project than through manual ELC.
There may have been some human error in
completing the ELC, as some wetlands in this area
were overlooked. This is evidenced by the number
of polygons and by comparison with the
orthophotography. One of the major areas of
discrepancy appears to be in differentiating
between swamp and forest. The SOLRIS technique
uses topography and soils, along with satellite
imagery, rather than relying solely on air
photo/satellite imagery interpretation. Therefore,
SOLRIS may be superior at identifying swamps.
Nevertheless, field checking is a critical component
of wetland identification. It should be noted that
the aerial photos used for the ELC were older than
the imagery used by SOLRIS; this would affect the
accuracy.
Table 14 lists the options for wetland coverage for
Source Water Protection. SOLRIS, ELC, and other
comprehensive inventories (such as the LTC/DU
37
An Assessment of
project) have been identified as being the best
source of wetland mapping for Source Water
Protection. ELC and other comprehensive
inventories vary in quality, depending on the age of
the digital imagery used, the methods and the skill
of the interpreter/mapper. SOLRIS utilizes a
standard methodology and therefore produces a
more consistent product. Remote identification of
wetlands, especially swamps, is a challenge, for any
techniques used; therefore, field checking is critical.
especially in rural areas where other accurate land
cover is not available. A similar system for northern
Ontario would be beneficial.
Where ELC has been completed, it can be
incorporated into the SOLRIS mapping to produce
a high quality product. Field checks would still be
required, unless they were completed as part of the
ELC mapping exercise.
5.1.3 Comparison of Woodlands Data Sets
NRVIS and ORM wetlands data sets are not
comprehensive, often missing some of the swamps,
as well as smaller wetlands. The unevaluated
wetlands in the NRVIS wetlands data set are older,
and have not been updated since the 1980's.
The Provincial Land Cover wetlands fall short of
being an acceptable data layer for Source Water
Protection.
Table 14: Data Standard Options for Wetlands
Coverage
Wetlands Data Set
Protection
SOLRIS
Adequate (field checking
required)
ELC/Other
Comprehensive
inventories (e.g.
LTC/DU data set)
required) (also dependent
on quality of ELC/inventory)
ORM
Inadequate (needs
additional work)
NRVIS
Inadequate
PLC
Inadequate
In terms of availability, ELC wetlands and other
comprehensive inventories are not widely available
in rural Ontario. SOLRIS is not currently widely
available; however, when it is completed it will be
very beneficial for Source Water Protection,
38
Information on the extent of woodlands on the
landscape is required for Source Water Protection. It
will be used as an input to hydrologic/watershed
models and to identify where sensitive water
resources are protected by woodland cover. A
variety of data sets are available including:
Natural Resource Values Information System
(NRVIS) woodlands (former Ontario Base Map
[OBM] vegetation)
Woodlands derived from Provincial Land Cover
Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Woodlands
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) woodlands
(community series level)
System (SOLRIS) woodlands
on the data sheets in Appendix C. The NRVIS and
PLC woodlands are widely available. The ORM
woodlands data set is only available for the Oak
Ridges Moraine landform (although the technique
used to derive the data set may be transferable).
ELC woodlands is only available where Conservation
Authorities or other organizations/firms have
undertaken this work. It is not widely available in
rural Ontario. SOLRIS work is currently underway;
it is the intent of the MNR to complete SOLRIS
mapping for all of southern Ontario by spring 2006.
A northern version may also be developed.
Water Protection, a simple overlay analysis
(methodology in Appendix B) of two data sets were
An Assessment of
made for the various pilot watersheds. The
following comparisons were made:
North River: NRVIS and PLC
Shelter Valley, Grafton, Barnum House Creek (part
area): NRVIS and ORM
Wilmot Creek: NRVIS and ELC
Wilmot Creek (part area): ELC and SOLRIS
The woodlands shape files were superimposed over the
most recent ortho-photography or satellite imagery to
make a qualitative judgment of whether the woodlands
delineation was reasonably accurate. (Maps illustrating
the comparisons are contained in Appendix D).
North River: NRVIS/OBM vs. PLC
The NRVIS woodlands data for the North River
watershed was compared with the PLC woodlands
coverage (see Table 15). The PLC woodlands layer
consists of multiple types of woodlands. In order
to create the PLC data set, the following PLC
classes were merged:
Dense Deciduous Forest
Dense Coniferous Forest
Coniferous Plantation
Mixed Forest - Deciduous
Mixed Forest - Coniferous
Sparse Coniferous Forest
Sparse Deciduous Forest
The various types of PLC woodlands were overlain
in the GIS with the NRVIS woodlands layer to
identify discrepancies.
Table 15: Comparison of Woodlands Data for
North River (NRVIS/OBM vs. PLC)
Data Set
2
Area (km )
NRVIS
PLC
187.74
178.26
Combined Area (A F B) (km2)
240.60
Area in common (A B) (km2)
125.94
Number of Polygons
513
142
Number of Polygons that do
not intersect with other data set
88
13
The PLC woodlands and NRVIS woodlands layers
are significantly different: the PLC layer covers 178
km2 of the study area while the NRVIS layer covers
188 km2. As seen from the comparison table,
woodlands area common to both the NRVIS and
PLC data set (i.e. 126 km2) is approximately 67% of
the individual woodlands coverage, indicating a
poor match between the two data sets. The map
in Appendix D, which shows the two woodlands
layers with the satellite imagery as a backdrop,
illustrates some of the areas where there are
discrepancies between the two layers. When
compared to the satellite imagery and air
photography, it appears that the NRVIS layer is
more correct. The area (polygons) identified as
woodlands in the PLC layer and not identified as
woodlands in the NRVIS layer, do not appear to be
wooded areas as seen in the satellite image. The
automated procedure adopted to delineate
woodlands in the PLC coverage appears to be
inaccurate. While the NRVIS woodlands data set is
superior to the PLC woodlands data set, its
accuracy is still questionable because it seems to
identify patches of wetland as seen from the
satellite image, as woodlands. As noted in the
wetlands section above, differentiating between
woodland and treed swamp is difficult.
(part area): NRVIS vs. ORM
A section of the ORM woodlands shapefile (created
to help implement the ORMCP) and the NRVIS
woodlands were overlain in the GIS to identify
discrepancies (see Table 16).
The ORM woodlands and NRVIS woodlands data
sets are fairly similar. The ORM woodlands layer
covers 11.33 km2 of the test area (Oak Ridges
Moraine portion of the Shelter Valley/Barnum House
Creek watersheds) while the NRVIS woodlands layer
covers 11.31 km2. As seen from the comparison
table, woodlands area common to both the NRVIS
and ORM data set (i.e. 11.19 km2) is approximately
99% of the individual woodlands coverage, indicating
a very good match between the two data sets.
39
An Assessment of
Table 16: Comparison of Woodlands Data for Test
Area of Shelter Valley, Grafton, Barnum House
Creek (NRVIS vs. ORM)
Data Set
NRVIS (Test ORM (Test
Area)
Area)
Woodlands Woodlands
Area (km2)
11.31
11.33
(km2)
11.45
(km2)
11.19
The ELC woodlands data set were overlain in the
GIS with the NRVIS woodlands layer to identify
discrepancies.
Table 17: Comparison of Woodlands Data for
Wilmot Creek (NRVIS: ELC)
Data Set
Number of Polygons
128
128
other data set
03
05
Maps of the two woodlands layers with the satellite
imagery and orthophotography as a backdrop (see
Appendix D) illustrate some of the areas where there
are discrepancies between the two layers. When
compared to the orthophotography and satellite
imagery, it appears that the ORM layer is more
accurate. The table indicates that three NRVIS
woodland polygons are independent of the ORM
woodlands. Five ORM woodland polygons are also
independent of the NRVIS woodlands. The area
(polygons) identified as woodlands in the NRVIS layer
and not identified as woodlands in the ORM layer,
do not appear to be wooded areas as seen in the
orthophotography/satellite imagery. The woodland
cover appears to have changed since the NRVIS
woodlands data set was created and the ORM layer
picks up some of these changes. Overall, despite a
few discrepancies, both woodlands layers are fairly
accurate. The ORM woodlands layer is slightly
superior; this is expected because the ORM
woodlands layer is actually a recently edited/updated
NRVIS woodlands data set.
Wilmot Creek: NRVIS vs. ELC
The NRVIS woodlands data for Wilmot Creek was
compared with ELC woodlands coverage created by
the GanRCA (see Table 17). In order to create ELC
woodlots, the following ELC (community series)
40
classes were merged.
CUP - Cultural Plantation
FOC - Coniferous Forest
FOD - Deciduous Forest
FOM - Mixed Forest
Area (km2)
NRVIS
ELC
Woodlands Woodlands
21.31
22.45
(km2)
26.54
(km2)
17.22
Number of Polygons
231
225
other data set
52
84
The ELC woodlands covers 22.45 km2 of the test
area while the NRVIS woodlands covers 21.31 km2.
As seen from the comparison table, woodland area
common to both the NRVIS and ELC data sets (i.e.
17.22 km2) is approximately 80% of the individual
woodland coverage, indicating a reasonable match
between the two data sets. The comparison also
indicates that 84 ELC woodland polygons are
independent of the NRVIS woodlands, while 52
NRVIS woodland polygons are independent of the
ELC woodlands.
The map in Appendix D, which shows the two
woodlands layers with orthophotography as a
backdrop, illustrates some of the areas where there
are discrepancies between the two layers. When
An Assessment of
compared to the orthophotography, it appears that
the ELC layer is more accurate. The polygons
identified as woodland in the NRVIS layer and not
identified as woodland in the ELC layer do not
appear to be wooded areas on the orthophoto.
The woodlands cover appears to have changed
since the NRVIS woodlands layer was digitized and
the ELC layer picks up some of these changes.
The above analysis suggests that ELC woodlands
layers provide a more detailed inventory of
woodlands. The discrepancies can easily be
accounted for. Precise digitizing of detailed
community types and field checks are required to
develop ELC data sets. Additionally, the NRVIS
woodlands is an older data set (based on 1980's
data).
The ELC woodlands data set was overlain in the GIS
with the SOLRIS woodlands layer to identify
discrepancies.
Table 18: Comparison of Woodlands Data for Wilmot
Creek SOLRIS Test Area (SOLRIS: ELC)
Data Set
Area (km2)
SOLRIS
ELC
Woodlands Woodlands
8.17
6.98
(km2)
8.96
(km2)
6.18
Wilmot Creek (part area): SOLRIS vs. ELC
SOLRIS woodlands data for Wilmot Creek was
Number of Polygons
267
47
Number of Polygons
with other data set
193
3
In order to create the SOLRIS woodlands layer, the
following data sets were merged:
Coniferous_Val - Coniferous Forest
Deciduous_Val - Deciduous Forest
Plantation_Val - Plantation or Planted Forest
Mixed_Val - Mixed Forest
HedgeRow_Val - Hedge Row
The overlay analysis and comparison with the
orthophotograpy shows that SOLRIS captured
woodland areas are more complete and more
precise than the ELC woodlands layer. SOLRIS
appears to pick up small polygons missed by ELC.
It also attempts to separate swamp from forest.
Field checks would be required to determine if all
the areas identified as swamp by SOLRIS and not
by ELC are indeed swamp, but it appears from the
orthophotography that some of them are. The
SOLRIS mapping also includes hedgerows; the ELC
mapping does not. Hedgerows were likely left out
of the ELC deliberately. The accuracy of ELC
polygons varies depending on the age/quality of the
digital photobase, the methodology employed and
skill of the interpreter/mapper.
In order to create ELC woodlots, the following ELC
(community series) classes were merged.
FOM - Mixed Forest
The ELC (community series) classes for woodlots
mentioned above and used in the analysis, maps
wooded areas with canopy coverage greater than
60%. This is consistent with the SOLRIS procedure
for delineating woodlots, whereby wooded areas
greater than 60% canopy coverage are mapped.
It should be noted that the actual edge of the
woodlands (where it has been mapped) appears to
be more accurate in the ELC data as it was hand
digitized, whereas SOLRIS data is in raster format,
resulting in a jagged edge.
41
An Assessment of
Data standard options for woodlands are outlined
in Table 19. SOLRIS, ELC or ORM woodlands data
sets have been identified as being the best source
of woodlands mapping for Source Water Protection.
NRVIS woodlands requires updating, as changes in
woodland coverage have occurred since the data
set was created in the 1980's. The updating of
NRVIS woodlands to create ORM woodlands
appears to be successful in capturing woodland
coverage fairly accurately. The PLC woodlands falls
short of being an acceptable data layer for Source
Water Protection.
Table 19: Data Standard Options for Woodlands
Coverage
Wetlands Data Set
Protection
SOLRIS
required)
ELC (community
series)
required) (also dependent
on quality of ELC)
ORM
Adequate
NRVIS
Needs updating
PLC
Inadequate
In terms of availability, ELC woodlands is not widely
available in rural Ontario. SOLRIS is not yet available
across Southern Ontario, but will be useful for Source
Water Protection when it is completed. A similar
system would be useful for northern Ontario. The
ORM woodlands is available over a relatively small
geographical area. The techniques used to update the
NRVIS woodlands, to create the ORM woodlands,
could be applied to the rest of the Province. This
would create an alternative to ELC and SOLRIS, but
the automated approach of developing SOLRIS
mapping is apt to be more cost-effective.
42
Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) mapping was not
assessed in this analysis. It is not available digitally
for the pilot subwatersheds (only available in dated
hard copy mapping). However, FRI mapping should
be reviewed and considered for its value for Source
Water Protection in northern Ontario.
5.1.4 Comparison of Agriculture / Cropland Data
Sets
The extent of agricultural lands on the landscape is
a required data set for Source Water Protection. It
will be used as an input to watershed models and
to identify where land use has the potential to
impact water quality. A variety of data sets are
available including:
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Intensive
Agriculture
ELC Non - Intensive Agriculture
Cropland derived from Provincial Land Cover
Pasture and Range Land derived from PLC
System (SOLRIS) Agricultural Lands (No Rotation,
Rotation, Marginal Lands/Hay Pasture)
on the data sheets in Appendix C.
The Provincial Land Cover derived agriculture is
widely available. ELC agricultural lands are only
available where Conservation Authorities or other
organizations/firms have undertaken this work. It is
not widely available in rural Ontario. As noted
above, SOLRIS is not currently widely available.
However, it is the intent of the MNR to complete
SOLRIS mapping for all of southern Ontario by
spring 2006. A northern version may also be
developed.
Water Protection, a simple overlay analysis (see
Appendix B) of two data sets were made for the
various pilot watersheds. The following
comparisons were made:
An Assessment of
Wilmot Creek - Intensive Agriculture: ELC vs. PLC
Wilmot Creek (part of) - Intensive Agriculture: ELC
vs. SOLRIS
Wilmot Creek - Non-Intensive Agriculture: ELC vs.
PLC
Wilmot Creek (part of) - Non-Intensive
Agriculture: ELC vs. SOLRIS

Maps illustrating the comparisons are contained in
Appendix D. The agricultural shape files (both
intensive and non-intensive) were superimposed
over the most recent orthophotography to make a
qualitative judgment of whether the depicted
agricultural lands are reasonably accurate. It should
be noted that unlike woodlands and wetlands
coverage (which are comparatively static),
agricultural intensity may vary from year to year, as
part of crop rotation or market influences.
Accurately mapping agricultural land use is
therefore a challenge.
Wilmot Creek - Intensive Agriculture: ELC vs. PLC
The Intensive Agricultural class (IAG) for ELC was
compared with Cropland (class 26) of the PLC (see
Table 20). The ELC and PLC mapping were each
produced based on a single set of imagery, and
therefore do not account for change over time.
Table 20: Comparison of Wilmot Creek ELC
Intensive Agriculture (A) vs. PLC Cropland (B)
Data Set
Area (km2)
ELCIAG
PLCCropland
41.77
67.68
(km2)
34.93
Number of Polygons that do
not intersect with other data set
Wilmot Creek - Intensive Agriculture (part area):
SOLRIS vs. ELC
SOLRIS Intensive Agriculture data (Monoculture_Val)
for Wilmot Creek was compared with ELC coverage
(Intensive Agriculture - IAG) completed by the
Table 21: Comparison of Wilmot Creek SOLRIS
Intensive Agriculture (A) vs. ELC Intensive
Agriculture (B) for SOLRIS Test Area of Wilmot
Creek
Data Set
Area (km2)
SOLRIS IAG
ELC - IAG
5.31
5.20
(km2)
6.39
(km2)
4.12
Number of Polygons
52
38
Number of Polygons
with other data set
12
13
60.84
Combined Area (A F B) (km2)
Number of Polygons
The superior data set seems to be the ELC
coverage. The ELC polygons appear to better
match with the orthophotography. This was
anticipated because of the method of collecting the
data (including field checks), the age of the data
set, and the scale at which the data was recorded.
172
99
7
41
Classification of intensive agricultural land is difficult
because of the change in land use over time. The
SOLRIS mapping has attempted to accommodate
for this by developing its classes based on
observations of cropping over three time frames,
whereas the ELC class is based on only one
observation. Because of this, the two data sets
cannot fairly be compared against each other or
with a digital image (which represents one moment
in time).
43
An Assessment of
The comparison with the orthophotography does
indicate that the precision with which SOLRIS
intensive agricultural is mapped is comparable to
ELC. Both seem to follow the edge of fields
satisfactorily. The overlay analysis also suggests a
fair amount of agreement between the two layers.
Table 22: Comparison of Wilmot Creek ELC Non
Intensive Agriculture (A) vs. PLC Pasture and
Abandoned Fields (B)
Data Set
ELC-NAG
PLC-Pasture
and Abandoned
Fields
15.43
11.30
Because of the limitations in mapping agricultural
land use, each Source Water Protection committee
will need to develop their own methodology,
depending on the agricultural practices in the area.
SOLRIS and/or ELC will be helpful, but other data
may be required to supplement the mapping to
develop a true understanding of agricultural land
use.
Area (km2)
Number of Polygons
248
430
Wilmot Creek - Non-Intensive Agriculture: ELC vs.
PLC
For the purposes of comparison, the ELC classes
Non-Intensive Agriculture (NAG) and Cultural
Meadow (CUM) were merged to create ELC Non
Intensive Agriculture. This is compared against
Abandoned Fields/Pasture (Class 25) from PLC (see
Table 22). This comparison is reasonable because
abandoned fields generally have the same spectral
characteristics as Non-Intensive Agriculture, and
Cultural Meadow is often interchanged with
pasture. The ELC and PLC mapping were each
produced based on a single set of imagery, and
therefore do not account for change over time.
Number of Polygons
with other data set
85
203
Based on the overlay with the orthophotography,
the best data set seems to be the ELC coverage.
Again, these results were anticipated because of the
method of collecting the data, including field
checks, and the scale at which the data was
recorded. The ELC is more recent than the PLC
mapping and therefore more comparable to the
recent orthophotography.
Combined Area
(A F B) (km2)
23.99
Area in common
(A B) (km2)
2.74
Wilmot Creek - Non-Intensive Agriculture (part
area): SOLRIS vs. ELC
SOLRIS Non-Intensive Agriculture data for Wilmot
Creek was compared with ELC coverage completed
by the GanRCA (see Table 23) for the Oak Ridges
moraine portion of Wilmot Creek only.
In order to create the SOLRIS Non-Intensive
Agriculture layer, the following data sets were
merged.
HayPasture_Val - Hay and Pasture Land
IdleLand_Val - Idle Land (No Activity in 5yrs)
In order to create ELC Non-Intensive Agriculture,
the following ELC (community series) classes were
merged.
CUM - Cultural Meadow
NAG - Non-Intensive Agriculture
As with the Intensive Agriculture mapping,
classification of non-intensive agricultural land is
difficult because of change in land use over time.
As noted above, the SOLRIS mapping has
attempted to accommodate for this by developing
its classes based on observations over three time
frames, whereas the ELC class is based on only one
44
An Assessment of
Table 23: Comparison of Wilmot Creek SOLRIS
Non-Intensive Agriculture (A) vs. ELC Non-Intensive
Agriculture (B) for SOLRIS Test Area of Wilmot Creek
Data Set
Area (km2)
SOLRISNonIntensive
ELC NonIntensive
4.45
2.91
Combined Area
(A F B) (km2)
5.69
Area in common
(A B) (km2)
1.66
Number of Polygons
135
53
Number of Polygons
with other data set
79
7
lands for Source Water Protection. The Provincial
Land Cover agricultural lands falls short of being an
acceptable data layer for Source Water Protection.
Table 24: Data Standard Options for Agricultural
Coverage
Wetlands Data Set
Protection
SOLRIS Intensive
Adequate (needs field
verification and review of
additional information)
SOLRIS NonIntensive
Adequate, but does not
incorporate change over time
(needs field verification and
review of additional
information)
ELC Non-Intensive
Adequate, but does not
incorporate change over time
(needs field verification and
review of additional
information)
PLC Intensive
Inadequate
PLC Non-Intensive
Inadequate
observation. Because of this, the two data sets
cannot fairly be compared against each other or
with a digital image (which represents one moment
in time).
The overlay analysis indicates a fairly poor match
between the two layers. This may be a result of the
differences in techniques used to develop the two
data sets.
As with identification of intensive agriculture land
use, techniques used specifically for each Source
Water Protection area may need to be developed to
map non-intensive agriculture land (based on the
agricultural practices in the area). SOLRIS and/or
ELC will be helpful, but other data may be required
to supplement the mapping to develop a true
understanding of agricultural land use in the area.
SOLRIS and ELC may both be used to identify
agricultural land. The advantage of SOLRIS is that it
incorporates change over time. However,
additional data and information should be used
along with the SOLRIS/ELC mapping to help
develop a clearer picture of agricultural land use.
Data standard options for agricultural coverage are
outlined in Table 24. SOLRIS and ELC agricultural
lands (both intensive and non-intensive) have been
identified as being the best source of agricultural
45
An Assessment of
5.2
Maps to
Assess Data
The Project Task Team developed a list of maps to
assess the data, based on the requirements for
Source Water Protection discussed in section 4.3 of
this report:
Base Map
Natural Features
Existing Land Use
Future Land Use
Designated High Risk Land Use
Major Point and Non-Point Source of
Contaminants (Potential Contaminant Sources)
Shortcuts that can Introduce Contaminants into
Aquifers
Significant Hydrologic Features
Significant Water Withdrawals/Areas Experiencing
Stress due to Water Takings
Water Quality Monitoring Stations/Areas of
Contamination
Areas of High, Medium and Low Vulnerability
(Groundwater)
Sensitive Water Resources (Surface Water)
(It should be noted that other maps and variations
of these maps may be required for Source Water
Protection.)
A series of maps (see Appendix E) for each pilot
watershed was created using the best available data
for each of the maps noted above. Once the maps
were created, a visual analysis of the maps for the
various pilot watersheds was completed to assess
the availability and completeness of data, as well as
data gaps and deficiencies. These are outlined in
tables 25 to 37, below.
46
An Assessment of
Table 25: Data Used to Create Base Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot
Creek
Shelter Valley, Grafton,
Barnum House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Watershed
boundary
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
Waterbodies
WRIP1
WRIP1
LIO Waterbody Segment
(GUT No. 1281)1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
WRIP1
Watercourses
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
Roads
NRN1
NRN1
Official Plan
Transportation Schedule1
NRN1
NRN1
The data quality of OP
Transportation Schedule
generally will be superior
to the NRN layer.
Railway
LIO2
LIO2
LIO2
LIO2
LIO2
Abandoned RR need to be
identified
Utility Lines
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LTC municipal boundaries1
LTC municipal
boundaries1
Municipal
Boundary
Lots and
Concession
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
Annotation
Manual
Manual
GW study2
GW study2
GW study2
5.2.1
Base Map
Data Standards
1- adequate data set
2- adequate, with some updates
3- inadequate
NA no data set available
Analysis
Data is generally available for creating base maps
although some layers (such as annotation) require
some editing before they are cartographically
corrected. Additional local knowledge and
fieldwork may be required to ensure accuracy.
Comments
The LIO waterbody
includes wetlands such as
marsh and fen.
The annotation produced
by the municipal
groundwater study will
not be visible at a smaller
scale.
Data Issues/Gaps
While there are no specific data gaps, the following
data sets require further work:
- LIO Municipal boundaries need to be corrected
- Abandoned railways need to be identified
- Annotation layers need improvement
- Watercourses/waterbodies need to be updated
(these will need to be propogated into the digital
elevation model)
Costs/Benefits
Accurate base maps are critical data sets for Source
Water Protection to obtain confidence and support
from the public. This must be included in the cost
of preparing a source protection plan. Updating of
watercourses/waterbodies, municipal boundaries,
and railway data sets is required.
47
An Assessment of
Table 26: Data Used to Create Natural Features Map
Graham Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley, Grafton,
Barnum House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North
River
Wetlands
ELC1, MNR1
ELC1, MNR1
LTC/DU1
LTC/DU1
LIO3
Woodlands
ELC1
ELC1
LIO2 & ORM1
LIO2
LIO2
ANSI
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
LIO1
Thermal
Classification of
Watercourses/
Waterbodies
Aquatic
Resource Area
- MNR Aurora
District (to be
obtained)
Aquatic
Resource Area
- MNR Aurora
District (to be
obtained)
Aquatic Resource Area MNR Peterborough
District2
Aquatic
Resource Area MNR
Peterborough
District2
NA
ARA Classification is
based on point data, thus
the quality may be
somewhat coarse. Not a
critical data set for Source
Water Protection.
Grasslands
ELC1
ELC1
ORM1
NA
NA
ORM data only partially
covers the watershed.
Vegetated
buffers around
wetlands,
watercourses,
waterbodies
ELC1
ELC1
NA
NA
NA
The vegetated buffers
shown were created by
clipping the ELC
communities consisting of
vegetation by 30m buffers
produced from WRIP
watercourses and water
bodies.
Significant
natural features
NA
NA
LTC SNA study1
LTC SNA study1
NA
Not a critical data set for
Seepage areas
and springs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spring Water Source
within the Water Supply
data class in the LIO
warehouse identifies
spring water, but the data
coverage is very sparse.
48
Comments
An Assessment of
5.2.2
Natural Features
Data Standards
3- inadequate
NA- no data set available
Analysis
All Natural Features Maps created are incomplete,
since no data is readily available on seepage areas
and springs. The Ganaraska Region watersheds
(Graham and Wilmot) generally have more data
available for this map than the more rural CA's, since
ELC has been completed for these watersheds.
Data Issues/Gaps
Community Series ELC or ELC (created through
SOLRIS)
This data set is critical.
Sensitive Natural Features
Not a critical data set if ELC completed.
Costs/Benefits
ELC (community series) is a costly undertaking. An
estimate to do ELC to the community series is
approximately one hundred dollars per hectare
including field verification. SOLRIS is a less costly
alternative, which would also provide provincial
consistency and ease of updating through an
automated approach. The cost for SOLRIS is
approximately 18 to 24 dollars per sq. km.
(significantly less than $1 per ha).
The costs of identifying seepage areas and springs
for each CA watershed would be significant, but this
data is required for source protection. These costs
should be included in the cost of preparing a
source protection plan.
Vegetated buffers around wetlands, watercourses,
waterbodies
The vegetated buffers shown in the Wilmot and
Graham systems were created by buffering WRIP
watercourse and water bodies by 30m, and the
intersecting with ELC communities consisting of
vegetation. ELC is not fine enough to identify
narrow buffers therefore field studies may be
required. Detailed mapping of vegetated buffers
may only be necessary where problem areas exist.
Thermal classification of watercourses, waterbodies
Work done to classify watercourses and
waterbodies (ARA inventory) for Peterborough and
Aurora MNR Districts though of broad scale, has
some value. This data set is not critical.
Seepage areas and springs
This is useful data for Source Water Protection.
Methodology should be developed for identifying
sources of watercourses.
49
An Assessment of
Table 27: Data Used to Create Existing Land Use Map
Land-use categories are based on modeling requirements of CANWET
(which produces water budgets and nutrient loadings on a sub-watershed basis).
Graham Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Wetlands
ELC1, MNR1
ELC1, MNR1
LTC/DU1
LTC/DU1
LIO3
Woodlands
ELC1
ELC1
LIO2 & ORM1
LIO2
LIO2
ORM data only partially covers
the watershed.
Pits & Quarries
ELC2
ELC2
LIO2
LIO2
LIO2
LIO data shows licensed area,
not actual extraction area.
Developed
Areas
Combination
of ELC, Parcel,
ZBL and
Photo
interpretation1
Combination of
ELC, Parcel, ZBL
and Photo
interpretation1
PLC3
PLC3
PLC3
PLC data is captured at a very
coarse resolution - does not pick
up small communities. See
comments under Agricultural
Areas for details on
anthropogenic uses.
Water
WRIP1
WRIP1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
WRIP1
Agriculture
Areas
Combination
of ELC, Parcel,
ZBL and
Photo
interpretation1
Combination of
ELC, Parcel, ZBL
and Photo
interpretation1
NA
NA
NA
Beaches/Coastal
Areas
ELC
ELC
NA
NA
NA
Transitional
ELC
ELC
NA
NA
NA
50
Comments
Anthropogenic uses will need
more detail than is available in
ELC. These details are provided
by a combination of ortho-photo
interpretation, parcel fabric data,
municipal zoning by-law data
and discussions with municipal
planners.
An Assessment of
5.2.3
Existing Land Use
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
Existing Land Use maps are incomplete for the
more rural watersheds (within Lower Trent Region
and Crowe Valley). There is insufficient available
digital data to accurately and completely map
existing land use
Data Issues/Gaps
Community Series ELC (created in the traditional
manner or through SOLRIS) is required to identify
land use features with sufficient accuracy.
Anthropogenic uses such as Agricultural Area and
Developed Area definitions will need more detail
than is available in ELC as this additional data is
needed for model development for predicting land
use impacts. Pits and Quarries data must be
constantly updated for active operation boundaries
as MNR's Pits and Quarries layer denotes the
licensed (not active) pit/quarry boundary.
If zoning could be identified by parcel (though a
mechanism such as TERANET), this would be
helpful in creating land use maps. While the parcel
fabric is now available through OGDE, the attribute
data is not currently available to CAs. The attribute
data (OASYS data base) is required to identify land
use.
Costs/Benefits
The costs to undertake SOLRIS at approximately 18
to 24 dollars per sq. km. would be beneficial as
opposed to each source protection area
undertaking labour intensive ELC.
The costs of acquiring the parcel fabric attributes
should be investigated as this would be helpful in
identifying land use for Source Water Protection.
51
An Assessment of
Table 28: Data Used to Create Future Land Use Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon
Creek
North River
Comments
Existing Land Use
See Existing Land Use Map
ORM -Natural Core and
Linkage areas
ORM1
ORM1
ORM1
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Future Development
Areas (i.e. Residential,
Industrial, Waste
Disposal, Transportation
Corridors etc.)
OP2
OP2
OP2
OP2
NA
Official Plans (OP) are
generally maintained
by the municipalities as
digital drawing files or
in a hard copy format.
In such cases, they
have to be digitized
and/or geo-referenced.
Other planning studies
need to be reviewed
and consultation with
the municipality/
community is required.
52
An Assessment of
5.2.4
Future Land Use
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
Future Land Use Maps were created for each pilot
watershed, with the exception of the North River,
where no information was available to suggest any
change from current land use. For the other
watersheds, the best available data was used.
However, it must be recognized that consultations
with municipalities, other agencies and the public
would be required to develop a picture of future
land use. Future Land Use maps are difficult to
create without complete Existing Land Use Maps
and a vision of future land use from the community.
Data Issues/Gaps
The data issues are the same as for existing land
use. Community Series ELC (created in the
traditional manner or through SOLRIS) is required
to identify land use features with sufficient
accuracy. In addition, a future development
scenario is required which should be provided by a
digital Official Plan, communications with the
municipality and community, and knowledge of any
other planned development/infrastructure.
Parcel mapping would also be of value.
Costs/Benefits
The costs to undertake SOLRIS at $18 to 24 per sq
km would be beneficial as opposed to each source
protection area undertaking labour intensive ELC.
As noted above, the costs of acquiring the parcel
fabric attributes should be investigated as this
would be helpful in identifying land use for Source
Water Protection.
53
An Assessment of
Table 29: Table 29: Data Used to Create Designated High Risk Land Use Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot
Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Comments
Hazardous
municipal &
private landfill
sites
MOE1
MOE1
OP2, NTS2,
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1, MOE1
OP2, NTS2,
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1, MOE1
MOE1
Private databases such as
Anderson database provides
corrections/ updates to the
MOE sites as well as identifies
additional sites.
Known Areas of
groundwater
contamination
with industrial
products
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stations with water quality
violating provincial water
quality objectives/ drinking
water standards/ CCME
guidelines/ IJC guidelines (as
appropriate) may deemed to
be areas with contamination.
Brownfields and
abandoned sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Brownfields are closely
associated with areas of
groundwater contamination
with industrial by-products.
Direct industrial
and municipal
discharges to
surface waters
NTS2,
MOE1
NTS2,
MOE1
NTS2, MOE1
NTS2, MOE1
MOE1
Stormwater
discharges and
infiltration
lagoons/ponds
NA
NA
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Septic fields
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cemeteries
NTS2
NTS2
NTS2, Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1
NTS2, Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Uncovered Road
Salt Piles
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Snow Dumps
NA
NA
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Mining Areas
NA
NA
NA
NA
LIO1
Features are found only within
North River study area.
Abandoned Mine
Sites
NA
NA
NA
LIO1
LIO1
Features are found only within
Rawdon Creek and North River
study areas.
54
No known data sets;
Residential areas without a
central sewer service, may be
assumed to contain septic
fields.
Salt/Sand piles required for
winter road maintenance are
generally stored within a
covered dome.
An Assessment of
5.2.5
Designated High Risk Land Use
Data Standards
1 adequate data set
2 adequate, with some updates
3 inadequate
Analysis
The designated high-risk land use map was difficult
to create because of the lack of data in a number of
categories. Most of the data were obtained
through the windshield survey carried out as part of
the municipal groundwater study and by identifying
relevant features in the 1:50,000 NTS topographic
maps.
Data Issues/Gaps
Areas of groundwater contamination with industrial
products data are an important set of data, but
were not found for the test watersheds.
Brownfields and abandoned sites registered through
Control Orders and/or Field Orders or Record of
Site Condition (RSC) was not available in any of the
pilot watersheds.
Cemeteries require digitizing from the NTS mapping
and are inclusive of most of the cemeteries unless
one has been created since the early 80's.
Cemeteries are also identified in the windshield
survey carried out within the municipal groundwater
study.
Uncovered Road Salt piles and Snow dumps are not
readily available but were obtained through the
windshield survey.
Mining areas as well as abandoned mine sites are
available through MNR/LIO.
At the present time, a centralized database on high
risk land uses is not available, but this would be
useful for Source Water Protection.
Costs/Benefits
Data on high risk land uses is required for Source
Water Protection. Source Protection Teams should
ensure that the costs of searching for such data is
built into the cost of the project, as a
comprehensive provincial database is not currently
available.
Direct industrial and municipal discharges to
surface waters are available from the MOE.
Stormwater discharges and infiltration
lagoons/ponds need to be identified.
The location of septic beds is not generally
mapped. The location of septic fields in some
locations may be available on hard copy mapping,
filed with the municipality. Creating digital files may
not be necessary unless it is identified as a problem
area.
55
An Assessment of
Table 30: Data Used to Create Major Point and Non Point Source of Contaminants Map
Graham Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Comments
Abandoned
Wells
MOE3
MOE3
MOE3
MOE3
MOE3
Obtained from MOE's water
well records, through attribute
queries.
Waste
generators
NA
NA
NA
None in the
watershed (MOE)
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
Data sets obtained from BQRAP
Study.
PCB Inventory
NA
NA
NA
None in the
watershed (MOE)
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
Study.
Waste Disposal
Sites
MOE1 , NTS2
MOE1 , NTS2
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1, NTS2,
MOE1
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1, NTS2,
MOE1
Petroleum Wells
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MN
R)
Data sets obtained from the
Ontario Gas, Salt and Resource
Library in London, ON.
Fuel storage
Tanks
NTS2
NTS2
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1
NA
The premier database of gas
storage tanks is maintained by
TSSA and can be purchased for
a fee.
Sewage
Treatment Plants
MOE1 , NTS2
MOE1 , NTS2
MOE1
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1, MOE1
, NTS2
MOE1
Auto Wreckers &
Scrap Yards
NTS2
NTS2
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1, NTS2
NA
Study (data from EcoLog ERIS),
Municipal GW Study
(Windshield Survey) and from
NTS features.
Coal Gasification
Plants &
Disposal Sites
NA
NA
NA
None in the
watershed (MOE)
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
Study.
CofA Sites
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
None in the
watershed (MOE)
None in the
watershed
(MOE)
The CofA data set was
compiled by MOE to be used in
the Municipal GW Studies
(2000/01).
Manufacturing
facilities
NA
NA
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
NTS2
NA
Study, Municipal GW Study
(Windshield Survey) and from
NTS features.
Patrol Yards/Salt
Storage Domes
MTO /
Municipalities
MTO /
Municipalities2
MTO /
Municipalities2
MTO/
Municipalities2
NA
Paper records (addresses, lot/
concession) obtained from
MTO and Municipalities and
converted to digital form.
2
Agricultural
Lands
ELC2
ELC2
Windshield
Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1, NTS2
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1
NA
Good quality polygon data is
difficult to obtain for CAs
without ELC data.
Urban Areas
ELC2
ELC2
None identified
(PLC)
PLC3
NA
PLC data is captured at a very
coarse resolution - does not
pick up small communities.
56
An Assessment of
5.2.6 Major Point and Non Point Source of
Contaminants (Potential Contaminant
Sources)
Data Standards
1 adequate data set
2 adequate, with some updates
3 inadequate
Analysis
The Major Point and Non Point Source of
Contaminants map is not comprehensive for
most of the pilot watersheds. Most of the
data for such a map is scattered in various
MOE databases (both digital and hard
copy), or available for a fee from EcoLogERIS. The exception is the Rawdon Creek
Subwatershed and North River Watershed
which are in the Bay of Quinte watershed.
A recent project was completed for the Bay
of Quinte Remedial Action Plan in
cooperation with MOE, which resulted in
development of a database for potential
sources of point contaminants. This type
of database is not currently available
province-wide.
Costs/Benefits
A comprehensive database of potential non
point and point sources is required for
Source Water Protection, but is not currently
available province-wide. This must be
included in the cost of preparing a source
protection plan.
The costs to develop the BQRAP database
was approximately $2.00 per sq km. Some
additional items should be included.
The cost for an EcoLog-ERIS data search
varies depending on the area to be
searched, and the number of sites within
the search area. Searches for the Well-head
Studies for the Trent Conservation Coalition
Regional Groundwater Studies were $300
each (for areas approximately 25 sq km).
This suggests an approximate cost of
$10.00 sq km.
Data Issues/Gaps
A detailed digital database of the potential
non point and point sources is not available.
57
An Assessment of
Table 31: Data Used to Create Shortcuts that can Introduce Contaminants into Aquifers Map
Graham Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Comments
Pits and quarries
ELC1
ELC1
LIO2
LIO2
LIO2
LIO data shows licensed area,
not actual extraction area.
Abandoned Wells
MOE3
MOE3
MOE3
MOE3
MOE3
Obtained from MOE's water
well records, through attribute
queries.
Petroleum Wells
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
None in the
watershed
(OGSRL/MNR)
Data sets obtained from the
Ontario Gas, Salt and
Resource Library in London,
ON.
Karsts
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Surficial Geology does not
indicate any presence of Karst
topography
Surficial Geology
OGS1
OGS1
See ARI below
OGS1
OGS1
Sand, gravel and/or bedrock
deposits obtained from
Surficial Geology can readily
transmit contaminant to the
aquifer.
MNDM1
NA (Available
in the form of
"Open File
Report" )
NA
This is an inventory of sand,
gravel and bedrock aggregate
resources available near the
surface. These deposits can
readily transmit contaminants
to the aquifer.
Aggregate
Resource
Inventory
5.2.7 Shortcuts that can Introduce Contaminants
into Aquifers
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
With the exception of abandoned wells and karsts
formations, the maps are reasonably comprehensive.
Abandoned wells are identified from the MOE
WWIS: Spatial accuracy and attribute accuracy
need to be assessed.
Costs/Benefits
Spatial accuracy and attribute accuracy of
abandoned wells in the WWIS should be verified.
This is critical for Source Water Protection and must
be included in the cost of preparing a source
protection plan.
Data Issues/Gaps
Surficial Geology is widely available and fairly
accurate for the Province. In the ORM areas,
additional interpolated detail is available. If
Aggregate Resource Inventory data is available, it
can be used in-lieu of Surficial Geology.
58
An Assessment of
Table 32: Data Used to Create Well Head Protection Areas Map
Wellhead Capture
Zones*
Graham Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Comments
No municipal
well in the
watershed
Orono Well Head
Protection study2
Municipal GW
Study2
Municipal GW
Study2
No municipal well
in the watershed
The Municipal
Wellhead Capture
Zones were
digitized using
hardcopy maps
from the draft
report on the
Municipal GW
Study (subject to
change). The time
of travel based
capture zones
were delineated
using predictions
from a simplified
analytical model
(WhAEM), as
opposed to a
numerical model
such as
MODFLOW.
*The base data sets used to create the derived data from the municipal groundwater study are listed in the relevant data sheets.
5.2.8
Well Head Protection Areas
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
The Well Head Protection Area maps can be
created if the Wellhead Study is completed.
Costs/Benefits
There would be significant costs in completing
wellhead studies for all wells in the Province
(excluding private, single user wells). However,
identifying capture zones is a very important
component for Source Water Protection. This must
be included in the cost of preparing a source
protection plan. Capture zones data should be
collected in a standardized format (e.g. MOE's
protocol for delineating well head protection areas)
through the municipal groundwater studies.
Data Issues/Gaps
Wellhead Studies for non municipal wells (e.g.
communal wells, wells serving institutional uses,
etc.) are lacking except in the case of the Orono,
where well head capture zones have been
developed for the two community wells.
A provincial database of capture zones is not
currently available.
59
An Assessment of
Table 33: Data Used to Create Significant Hydrologic Features Map
Graham Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North
River
Comments
Waterbodies
WRIP1
WRIP1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
WRIP1
Watercourses
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
Wetlands
ELC1, MNR1
ELC1, MNR1
LTC/DU1
LTC/DU1
LIO3
Seepage areas
and springs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Recharge Areas*
Municipal /
ORM GW Study2
Municipal / ORM
GW Study2
ORM GW Study2
ORM GW
Study2
NA
ORM GW Study produced the
surface mapping in Viewlog GRIDS.
They were converted to ESRI GRID,
re-classified as integer files and
converted to ESRI shape files.
Discharge Areas*
Municipal /
ORM GW Study2
Municipal / ORM
GW Study2
ORM GW Study2
ORM GW
Study2
NA
Same as above
Bedrock
Topography*
Municipal /
ORM GW Study2
Municipal / ORM
GW Study2
ORM GW Study2
ORM GW
Study2
NA
Same as above
Overburden
Thickness*
Municipal /
ORM GW Study2
Municipal / ORM
GW Study2
ORM GW Study2
ORM GW
Study2
NA
Same as above
60
An Assessment of
5.2.9
Significant Hydrologic Features
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
These maps are reasonably complete, with the
exception of seepage areas and springs. The data
sets representing surface models (e.g. Discharge
Areas) can be generated using municipal
groundwater study - generated surfaces: Topography
and Aquifer Groundwater Elevations (Potential Head
developed from water level information for deep
(=15m deep) wells and Water Table developed from
water level information for shallow (<15m deep)
wells with less than 5m of overlying aquitard
materials).
Data Issues/Gaps
Through some of the groundwater studies, there is a
significant base of groundwater / subsurface datasets
available for analysis. There is also a surface
modeling application called Viewlog that can be used
to store and manipulate surface and subsurface
layers and can be used to manage data. Where no
groundwater study exists, there is considerable work
required to map the subsurface layers.
The groundwater layers have been created using
the MOE water well records. These need to be
updated to ensure that the surfaces being created
from the records are accurate.
ELC Community Series Land use mapping (through
SOLRIS) would help identify significant hydrologic
features (i.e. wetlands).
Costs/Benefits
Groundwater studies have provided surface /
subsurface information. Further work will be
required to maintain/enhance these data layers.
Updates to the MOE WWIS is critical. If this is not
done provincially, these costs must be included in
the cost of preparing a source protection plan.
61
An Assessment of
Table 34: Data Used to Create Significant Water Withdrawals/Areas Experiencing Stress due to Water Takings Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot
Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North
River
Waterbodies
WRIP1
WRIP1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
WRIP1
Watercourses
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
Wetlands
ELC1,
MNR1
ELC1, MNR1
LTC/DU1
LTC/DU1
LIO3
Surface Water Gauge
Stations (Hydrometric
Stations)
NA
WSC & CA2
WSC & CA2
WSC & CA2
WSC &
CA2
need more gauge stations
Baseflow Stations
CA1/GW
Study2
CA1/GW
Study2
CA1
CA1
NA
a standardized method of measuring
and defining baseflow needs to be
established
Water Wells
WWR2
WWR2
MOE-WWR2
MOE-WWR2
PTTW
MOE2
MOE2
MOE2
MOE2
MOE2
PTTW should be revised to
incorporate actual water takings
Aquatic Resource
Area (ARA)
NA
NA
Not Used
Not Used
NA
Classification is based on a broadscale interpretation of point data(s)
retrieved from files or correspondence
Water Treatment
Plants
NA
MOE1
MOE1
MOE1
MOE1
Municipal Drinking
Water Systems
NA
MOE-CofA2
MOE-CofA2
MOE-CofA2
NA
CofA for municipal drinking water
systems were obtained from the MOE
Drinking Water Systems Inspection
Reports.
Municipal Water Use
NA
Environment
Canada MUD2
Environment
Canada - MUD2
Environment
Canada - MUD2
NA
Database of generalized water use
data. Data is municipal specific rather
than plant specific. Identifies several
water use types (e.g. domestic,
commercial, industrial etc.). Spatial
attributes (lat. and long.) denotes the
location of municipal town hall.
62
Comments
A system such as SiteFX should be
developed province-wide to
incorporate any updates
An Assessment of
5.2.10 Significant Water Withdrawals/Areas
Experiencing Stress due to Water Takings
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
These maps illustrate some of the general data
required for models to estimate water use and
develop water balances.
Increased data on stream flow will be needed for
many rural watersheds.
An estimate of the total water use can be obtained
through the analysis of some of the above
mentioned data sets (Water Well Records, PTTW,
Water Treatment Plants, MUD, and DWIS) in
conjunction with Census of Population, Census of
Agriculture and agricultural/industrial/domestic
consumption indices available from the literature.
Data Issues/Gaps
Estimating domestic water use through the water
well records has been identified as a possible way,
but not an accurate way to define water use. This is
best calculated through identifying watershed
population and deriving water use based on per
capita consumption literature values.
A revised PTTW database indicating actual water
taking would be helpful.
Additional gauge stations/baseflow stations are
required to quantify stream flow.
An agreement with Statistics Canada would
facilitate reasonably accurate water use evaluations
(urban and agricultural) based on a finer scale
polygon data from the Census of Population and
Census of Agriculture.
Costs/Benefits
Additional gauge stations/spotflow stations are
required to quantify stream flow. This must be
protection plan.
63
An Assessment of
Table 35: Data Used to Create Water Quality Monitoring Stations/Areas of Contamination Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot
Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Waterbodies
WRIP1
WRIP1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
WRIP1
Watercourses
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
Surface Water
Monitoring Stns
CA & MOE
(PWQMN)1
/(CURB)2
CA & MOE
(PWQMN)1
/(CURB)2
CA & MOE
(PWQMN)1
CA & MOE
(PWQMN)1
/(CURB)2
NA
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring
Network (PWQMN) is an on-going
initiative of MOE and CAs. Clean Up
Rural Beaches (CURB) Program was a
joint initiative (1991-94) of MOE and
CAs.
Groundwater
Monitoring Stns
CA & MOE
(PGMN)1
CA & MOE
(PGMN)1
CA & MOE
(PGMN)1
CA & MOE
(PGMN)1
NA
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring
Network (PGMN) is an on-going
initiative of MOE and CAs.
Municipal Water
Use Data
Stats Can
(Census)2
Stats Can
(Census)2
EC MUD
Database2
EC MUD
Database2
NA
Database of generalized water use
data. Data is municipal specific rather
than plant specific. Identifies several
water use types (e.g. domestic,
commercial, industrial etc.). Spatial
attributes (lat. and long.) denotes the
location of municipal town hall.
Water Treatment
Plants
MOE WTP
Database1
MOE WTP
Database1
MOE WTP
Database1
MOE WTP
Database1
MOE WTP
Database1
Sewage
Treatment Plants
MOE STP
Database1
MOE STP
Database1
MOE STP
Database1
MOE STP
Database1
MOE STP
Database1
Municipal
Wells/Drinking
water Systems
EC MUD
Database2
EC MUD
Database2
MOE (CofA)2
MOE (CofA)2
NA
64
Comments
CofA for municipal drinking water
systems were obtained from the MOE
Drinking Water Systems Inspection
Reports.
An Assessment of
5.2.11 Water Quality Monitoring Stations/Areas of
Contamination
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
These maps indicate data available for water quality
assessments and modeling. They indicate that
water quality monitoring stations are very sparse.
There is a lack of surface water quality data for
many rural watersheds; more stations are required.
Where data is available, the format of data storage
varies widely. The standardization of the provincial
results would be useful in compiling a seamless
water quality data across the Province.
In terms of groundwater, the PGMN is a recent
MOE program implemented through the CAs,
whereby the collection and storage of groundwater
quality and quantity data is standardized and stored
on a MOE central server called PGMIS (Provincial
Groundwater Management Information System).
While these stations have been established across
the Province, they are sparse.
Data Issues/Gaps
The termination of provincial water quality
monitoring programs such as CURB, has resulted in
a lack of surface water quality monitoring stations
in some watersheds. Some CAs have continued
surface water quality sampling/analysis through their
own programs, but some of the smaller CAs have
not been able to afford this. Except for the limited
number of PWQMN stations, some CAs have very
little surface water quality data.
There are also major gaps in groundwater quality
data. Some CAs have some dated data, but this
provincially funded program was terminated in the
70's and 80's. However, since 2001, the PGMN has
established wells throughout the Province, with
some high quality groundwater quality data.
Funding for data analysis is however limited. The
monitoring well coverage is also sparse.
Some groundwater and surface water quality data is
available for site-specific studies. Access to data
collected from these studies is not widely available.
Costs/Benefits
Additional groundwater and surface water quality
data is needed where data is sparse. This data is
required to identify areas of poor water quality. The
costs should be included in Source Water Protection
budgets.
65
An Assessment of
Table 36: Data Used to Create Areas of High, Medium and Low Vulnerability (Groundwater) Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot
Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon
Creek
North
River
Comments
Intrinsic
Susceptibility Index
(ISI)*
NA
NA
Municipal GW
Study2
Municipal
GW Study2
NA
The Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) was
digitized using hardcopy maps from the
draft report on the Municipal GW Study
(subject to change). Since North River
watershed falls within the Pre-Cambrian
(Canadian Shield) area, the ISI contouring
cannot be performed from the individual
well values, because of the discontinuity
encountered within the sub-surface.
Wellhead Protection
Areas*
NA
Orono WH
Protection
Study2
Municipal GW
Study2
Municipal
GW Study2
No
Municipal
Well in the
watershed
The Municipal Wellhead Capture Zones
were digitized using hardcopy maps from
the draft report on the Municipal GW
Study (subject to change). The time of
travel based capture zones were
delineated using predictions from a
simplified analytical model (WhAEM), as
opposed to a numerical model such as
MODFLOW.
Recharge Areas*
Municipal
GW Study2
Municipal
GW Study2
ORM GW Study2
ORM GW
Study2
NA
ORM GW Study produced the surface
mapping in Viewlog GRIDS. They were
converted to ESRI GRID, re-classified as
integer files and converted to ESRI shape
files.
Discharge Areas*
Municipal
GW Study2
Municipal
GW Study2
ORM GW Study2
ORM GW
Study2
NA
Same as above
Potential
Contaminant
Sources
See Major Point and Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Map Table
Designated High
Risk Land Uses
See Designated High Risk Land Uses Map Table
Short Cuts for
Contaminant
Transport to Aquifer
See Short Cuts for Contaminant Transport to Aquifer Map Table
66
An Assessment of
5.2.12 Areas of High, Medium and Low Vulnerability
(Groundwater)
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
A number of layers shown previously on other maps
(except for ISI) are brought together for this
product. The ranking of areas into High, Medium
and Low Land Use Risk Category is quite subjective
and requires provincial direction.
Data Issues/Gaps
A number of data layers are widely available,
although some such as the Designated High Risk
Land Use requires significant additional work.
Many data layers are obtained through the
municipal groundwater studies and wellhead
protection studies. Capturing these data sets in a
standardized format would provide data coverage
across the Province. The fact that data sets
compiled by the individual studies encompassed a
5km buffer should be helpful in creating a seamless
province-wide coverage.
Data layers obtained through the municipal
groundwater studies, if stored in a central
repository such as Ontario Land Information
Warehouse (OLIW) in a standardized data model
and format and made available to the members of
the OGDE would immensely enhance the value of
the products coming out of these studies.
Costs/Benefits
The results of the groundwater study will be
essential to Source Water Protection. The costs of
enhancing the data to meet the needs of source
protection must be included in the source
protection plan budget.
67
An Assessment of
Table 37: Data Used to Create Sensitive Water Resources (Surface Water) Map
Graham
Creek
Wilmot Creek
Shelter Valley,
Grafton, Barnum
House Creek
Rawdon Creek
North River
Waterbodies
WRIP1
WRIP1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
LIO Waterbody
Segment (GUT
No. 1281)1
WRIP1
Watercourses
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
WRIP1
Wetlands
ELC1,
MNR1
ELC1, MNR1
LTC/DU1
LTC/DU1
LIO3
120 m buffer
around
watercourse,
waterbodies and
wetlands
ELC &
WRIP2
ELC & WRIP2
LIO Waterbody
Segment, WRIP &
LTC/DU2
LIO Waterbody
Segment, WRIP &
LTC/DU2
WRIP & LIO2
120m buffer was used to
represent a Zone of
Influence (ZOI), as
indicated in ORMCP
Tile Drain
AreaMunicipal
Drains
NA
OMAF3
NA
NA
NA
The current digital
coverage of OMAF Tile
Drain does not cover the
jurisdiction of LTC,
GanRCA and CVCA. The
digital coverage for
Graham & Wilmot Creeks
was prepared to facilitate a
GIS training program.
Municipal
Stormwater
Discharges/Infiltr
ation Ponds and
Lagoons
NA
NA
Windshield Survey
(Municipal GW
Study)1
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1
Windshield
Survey (Municipal
GW Study)1
Surface Water
Intakes
MOE PTTW2,
CofA2
MOE -PTTW2,
CofA2
MOE - PTTW2,
CofA2 & LIO3
MOE - PTTW2,
CofA2 & LIO3
MOE - PTTW2
Potential
Contaminant
Sources
See Major Point and Non-Point Sources of Contaminants Map Table
Designated High
Risk Land Uses
See Designated High Risk Land Uses Map Table
68
Comments
Data type: Water Intakes
(GUT # 1441) from the
Data Class: Water Supply
is available from LIO, but
the data coverage is very
sparse.
An Assessment of
5.2.13 Sensitive Water Resources (Surface Water)
Data Standards
3- inadequate
Analysis
A number of layers shown previously on other maps
are brought together for this product. While the
map is reasonably complete, tile/municipal drainage
and municipal stormwater mapping should be
included along with more accurate mapping of
wetlands.
Costs/Benefits
Mapping of tile drains and municipal drains is
essential for modeling purposes. This must be
protection plan.
As discussed previously, SOLRIS would be beneficial
in producing the wetlands layer.
Effort needs to be put into developing
comprehensive potential contaminant sources and
high risk land use databases for use in Source Water
Protection. If not available provincially, the costs
must be included in source protection plan budget.
Data Issues/Gaps
Digital mapping of tile/municipal drains and
municipal stormwater drains are essential for Source
Water Protection.
Accurate wetland mapping is required.
69
An Assessment of
70
An Assessment of
6. ASSESSMENT OF
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CAPACITY
6
Previous work by Conservation Ontario has
suggested that in order to undertake Source Water
Protection, the source protection study team must
as a minimum be comprised of the following:
Project Coordinator/Manager
Water Resources Engineer
Hydrogeologist
Water Quality Specialist
Planner
Water Resources Technician
GIS/Database Specialist
Education/Consultation Specialist
Since this Pilot Project did not result in creation of
an actual source protection plan, the Project Task
Team is unable to confirm that these are the
required staff. However, based on the types of
data that were obtained and reviewed during the
course of this study, it would appear that a water
resources engineer, hydrogeologist and water
quality specialist are required to interpret the data.
The GIS/Database specialist would be required to
acquire and manage data. These staff would be
needed to help develop the Assessment Report and
to help interpret the technical information for the
Source Protection Plan. One or more Water
Resources Technicians may be required to carry out
field programs.
While this project looked at the data required for
the Assessment Report, it would seem that the
Planner and Education/Consultation Specialist would
have a role throughout, but would be required
primarily to assist with development of the Source
Protection Plan and the related public consultation
process.
It has become clear that there are a number of
sources of data; therefore GIS and Database
specialists will be key staff needed for Source Water
Protection. The GIS staff must have a sound
understanding of the data, be adept at acquiring
data, and have access to people who can interpret
it.
A full time Project Manager is a requirement for any
project of this magnitude. A technical or
administrative assistant should also be assigned to
the project to assist with managing the large
volume of data and communications with external
agencies and groups.
Not all Conservation Authority's have access to this
range of staff. The groupings of Conservation
Authority's into source protection regions will mean
that the technical experts required will serve the
larger planning unit and can be shared among a
number of CAs. This team of technical experts will
need to be fully funded, and will need to be
focused solely on the Source Water Protection
project. It cannot be expected that current CA
staff can assume this new responsibility and retain
their former job duties. Because of their local
knowledge, CA staff may be the ideal staff to form
the source protection study team, but their
positions will need to be back-filled.
Based on the work undertaken in this pilot project,
it would seem that CAs have the capacity to do the
work as they have a strong history of partnering
and working together. In staffing this project,
strengths of each individual CA were drawn upon,
as well as staff's local expertise. Because not all
involved staff were dedicated solely to this project,
and at times had other priorities, there were times
when internal deadlines could not be met. This
may pose a significant problem in a large project
such as Source Water Protection. It cannot be
stressed enough that the source protection study
team must be dedicated solely to Source Water
Protection. While the capacity to undertake Source
Protection work is sufficient (in terms of staff
expertise and the ability to manage large projects
and technical staff), the resources (funding) are
lacking. Funding will also need to be in place to
maintain capacity for updating and implementing
Source Water Protection in the future.
71
An Assessment of
72
An Assessment of
7. STUDY FINDINGS
7
A number of data deficiencies and data related
issues were identified as a result of the data review
and assessments which were completed for this
project. These issues and data needs are
described below. They are not in any particular
order of priority. While cost savings would be
realized if these issues were addressed at the
provincial level, Source Water Protection teams
should be aware that the issues exist and that they
may need to be addressed locally.
7.1
Data Sets
Requiring Effort
A number of data deficiencies and data related
issues were identified as a result of the data review
and assessments. These are listed below and are
not in any particular order of priority. Cost savings
may be realized if these issues are able to be
addressed at the provincial level. Source Water
Protection teams should be aware that the issues
exist and that they may need to be addressed
locally.
7.1.1
Top Ten Data Sets
Resources and effort need to focus on the following
top 10 data sets (these are in no particular order):
Land Cover/Land Use
Accurate Land Cover/Land Use mapping is required.
The Southern Ontario Land Resource Information
System (SOLRIS) land cover mapping, when
completed by the Province, will address this need.
The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping
initiatives of the Conservation Authorities should be
linked with the SOLRIS work. SOLRIS is discussed
in more detail in section 7.1.3 of this report.
Surface Water Quality and Groundwater
Monitoring
Additional surface water quality and groundwater
monitoring stations are needed to provide the data
needed for modeling. Strategic densification of the
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network
(PWQMN) and Provincial Groundwater Monitoring
Network (PGMN) would help address these needs.

Stream flow monitoring
Additional stream gauge stations are needed to
provide the data required for modeling. Strategic
densification of the network of stream flow stations
would help fill this gap. A standard definition of
baseflow needs to be defined, which can be readily
adapted for measurement purposes.
MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS)
Source Water Protection teams should be aware
that the WWIS needs significant work including
quality checks and improvements to the data base
structure. Issues with the WWIS are discussed in
more detail in Section 7.1.3 of this report.
Identification of Abandoned Water Wells
Abandoned water wells need to be located to
identify potential short cuts that introduce
contaminants to aquifer.
Contaminated Site Inventory
A comprehensive digital database of contaminated
sites needs to be created identifying the location of
all brownfields.
Potential Contaminant Sources
Data corresponding to this theme are scattered
among different federal, provincial and private
databases. While amalgamation of all these data
within a comprehensive single database would
immensely benefit source protection studies,
that a comprehensive Potential Contaminant
Sources data set is not currently available.
Permits to Take Water (PTTW)
that the PTTW regulations do not currently require
recording of actual water use. Furthermore, the
data is not stored in a relational database.
Improvements to the system incorporating the
above issues would assist with Source Water
Protection (more detail in Section 7.1.3 of this
report).
73
An Assessment of
Parcel Fabric
The Terranet parcel fabric currently available through
OGDE does not include the attribute data (OASYS
data) relating to land use and ownership. It would
be helpful if these were made available for source
protection.
Paleozoic geology compilation of Southern
Ontario
Large-scale coverage of the Paleozoic geology
compilation (in 1:50,000 and other scales) of
southern Ontario is not currently available, but
would be helpful for Source Water Protection.
Tile/Municipal Drain mapping
Digital mapping of tile drains and municipal drains
is not currently available across the Province.
OMAF's digital compilation and mapping of
Municipal and Tile Drains is not completed
province-wide and does not include agricultural
drainage works that have been developed outside
of the Drainage Act. Linking this project with ongoing southern Ontario drainage classification
mapping undertaken by DFO, OMAF and CAs would
be beneficial.
Provincial Database containing the Municipal
Groundwater Studies Data
The products from the recently completed MOE
municipal groundwater studies should be
catalogued with OLID and stored in OLIW.
7.1.2
Other Data Sets/Databases Requiring Effort
Other Data Sets that are required for Source Water
Protection, but are not as critical or require less
effort (in no particular order) include:
Orthophotography
Orthophotography would be beneficial but is not
critical for Source Water Protection. Standards need
to be developed for orthophotography across the
Province; Conservation Authorities must ensure that
orthophotography projects meet acceptable
standards for Source Water Protection and other
resource management programs (see section
7.1.3).

Provincial Data Model for the ArcHydro Tool
Arc Hydro's ability to store, manage and integrate
hydrologic and watershed based geospatial data, its
potential to create a framework to support several
linked hydrologic models, and its GIS based
visualization capability make for a strong case for
its application to Source Water Protection. Arc
Hydro can also be used to extract parameters (such
as length, area, perimeter, slope, CN values etc.)
required for modeling.
74

LIO Base feature updates
The Source Water Protection teams should be
aware that base features from the OBM series (e.g.
municipal boundaries, abandoned railroads,
annotation) are inaccurate and need to be updated.
The water layer needs to be updated to ensure
spatial accuracy for source water protection.
Problems associated with the OBM waterlines and
contours and potential solutions are detailed in
Appendix G: An Investigation into available
information on water features and associated valley
lands.
Seepage Areas and Springs
Seepage areas and springs have not been mapped
across the Province, but are important for source
protection.

Soils
Proper edge mapping and correlation between
OMAF's Agricultural Soils map sheets is needed.
The maps should also be reviewed to ensure that
they are correctly georeferenced with the current
base maps.
Stormwater Discharge/Infiltration Ponds and
Lagoons
A database of these features would be useful for
Source Water Protection.

Septic/Tile Beds
An Assessment of
Uncovered Road Salt Piles/Snow Dumps
Source Water Protection to help identify potential
threats.
community series level (with field checks) be used
to map land cover for source protection. Since ELC
is costly to undertake manually, a more costeffective approach is needed.
Health Boards well testing data
Local Health Boards well testing data should be
evaluated for their usefulness to contribute to
Source Water Protection. Freedom of Information
issues will need to be examined. It would be
beneficial to link these data records, as well as
OFA's recent initiative in compiling well water
quality records, to the WWIS.
The Southern Ontario Land Resource Information
System (SOLRIS) being developed by the Ministry
of Natural Resources (MNR) in partnership with
Ducks Unlimited (DU) will fill this gap. SOLRIS is a
series of GIS and image analysis protocols that
accurately map current land cover (e.g., forest,
wetland, agricultural, urban, etc.). Naturally
vegetated areas will be mapped and classified using
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario
(ELC) standards. Rural land use will be mapped and
classified using standards developed by Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Agricultural
Resource Inventory. Detailed technical descriptions
of the SOLRIS methodologies are available from the
Ministry of Natural Resources (Strobl, 2004).
Karsts and Outcrops
Regional karst area maps are not available. A map
series at a scale of 1:50,000 would be helpful.

A provincial database of wellhead protection areas
(from the Municipal Groundwater Studies and other
studies) is not currently available, but would be
useful for Source Water Protection.

Census Data
An agreement with Statistics Canada to procure
Census of Agriculture and Census of Population
data for use for Source Water Protection studies
(e.g. determination of agricultural land use,
estimates of concentrations of nutrients and
pesticides in run-off and infiltration, water usage
estimations, etc.)
7.1.3
Considerations on Select Data Sets
System (SOLRIS)
Based on the findings of this pilot project, land
cover is one of the critical data sets that will be
required for source protection. Presently there is
no up-to-date, complete, consistent land cover
inventory of required quality for Southern Ontario.
Data that does exist is often out-of-date and land
cover classes and scales are variable. The Project
Task Team recommends that the Ecological Land
Use Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC) at the
SOLRIS is more cost-effective than mapping efforts
based on traditional paper-based aerial
photography and field-based inventories because it
incorporates and supplements existing data with
information derived from remotely sensed imagery.
It also incorporates accuracy assessment and
validation at several steps in the process (Strobl,
2004). Incorporation of local ELC data (e.g. from
CAs) into the SOLRIS product will ensure that the
best available data is used to create a seamless
product across the Province.
MNR intends to make the SOLRIS data accessible
to Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange members
through the Land Information Ontario website
(Strobl, 2004).
MOE Well Records
The Ontario Water Well Information System (WWIS)
was established in 1972 to provide electronic
database storage for water well information
collected by the MOE under the provisions of the
Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The MOE
has attempted to geo-reference and maintain well
records in the database in recent years; however,
75
An Assessment of
this important data set needs to be reassessed and modernized (Credit Valley
Conservation, 2004).
The type of data contained in each record
of the WWIS includes location data,
including the address, UTM coordinates, a
simplified geologic log, water level, water
quality, well construction details and any
hydraulic test data (pumping test and well
yield results). Typically, the geological and
hydrogeological information contained in
individual well records is fairly simple and
sometimes of poor quality or lacking in
detail. However, the WWIS is still the
largest geological / hydrogeological database
in Canada; its value lies in the number of
well records. Regional geological and
hydrogeological trends are able to be
discerned, despite the lack of detail, due to
the large number of wells available (Credit
Valley Conservation, 2004).
The original WWIS was designed with
reliability coding associated with both
location and elevation data. Location
reliability coding was associated with the
methodology used in the collection of the
data and ranged from 1 to 9, with values of
1 representing the most reliable location
and values of 9 representing the least
reliable locations. In addition to the MOE's
location reliability coding, two additional
studies have more recently looked at and
updated the location of the MOE wells for
the Oak Ridges Moraine area (Hunter and
Associates, 1998 - 2000) and the York-PeelDurham-Toronto Groundwater study area
(Beatty and Associates, 2001, Credit Valley
Conservation, 2004, Kenny et al., 1997 and
Russell et al., 1998).
The functionality and integrity of the MOEWWIS has been questioned by a number of
hydrogeological and resource management
experts. Since the well records are a key
76
data input required for source water
assessments, it is widely recognized that the
WWIS needs to be upgraded. Key issues
relate to the need for a provincial
client/server relational database, a
systematic protocol for data capture, a
common, standardized protocol for the
verification and identification of all well
records, consistent application of sedimentrock coding protocols, and the need for
systematic internal database checking
(submission to the Expert Panel on Source
Water Protection, April 2004, D. Sharpe).
Additionally, the issue of data confidentiality
involving data fields such as names and
addresses has come under scrutiny in the
context of provincial groundwater studies.
Not having the name and address fields
would impede water managers from
checking the reliability of the well location
as well as from providing due notice to
neighbouring well users in emergency (such
as spill) situations.
If the recommendations to the Expert Panel
on Source Water Protection are
implemented, an up-to-date WWIS data
management system could be established
for Ontario (which would allow for updating
records on existing wells, ensure that the
required data for new wells is collected and
stored in an efficient manner, and ensure
the data is fully accessible).
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA),
as managers of the rural water quality
testing program, will be initiating a program
to collect and maintain a confidential
database designed for groundwater quality
sampling. OFA is taking steps to inform well
owners that sampling information may be
released on a condition that reporting will
occur in an aggregated fashion.
Unfortunately, aggregated results of water
sampling may be of limited use for source
protection, in that it may be difficult to pin-
An Assessment of
point the location of contaminant occurrence when
a contaminant is detected. Ideally, the OFA
database would have a relational connection to the
MOE WWIS.
Permits to Take Water
In order to protect source water, measures must be
put in place to ensure that water taking from
ground and surface water is well managed and well
documented. Decisions to grant permits to take
water should be based on a sound understanding of
the water budget for the area. MOE's current
Permit to Take Water (PTTW) program requires that
anyone taking more than a total of 50,000 litres per
day, with some exceptions, be required to obtain a
permit. The permit stipulates a maximum amount
of water which can be taken, but does not require
that the actual amount taken be monitored and
reported. This is a major shortfall in the program,
as the actual amount taken is required to develop a
water budget and good understanding of the
cumulative impacts of multiple water takings on a
given hydrological system.
A new regulation under the Ontario Water
Resources Act was posted on the Environmental Bill
of Rights Registry on June 18th, 2004. The new
regulation would ensure that stringent safeguards
are followed before granting large water takings.
The draft regulation requires annual reporting of
water takings to the Ministry of the Environment,
starting with municipal water supplies and major
industrial dischargers, and water takings that
remove water from the watershed. Over the longer
term, other water takers would also be required to
report.
A Conservation Ontario PTTW Pilot Study, funded
by the Ministry of the Environment, was completed
December 18, 2003 by XCG Consultants Ltd., in
association with Quinte Conservation and Long
Point Conservation Authority. This report made a
number of recommendations regarding the PTTW
program and database, and the need for monitoring
and reporting, required water resource studies and
an education program. Recommended follow up
studies include a water resource assessment pilot
study, extension of the field metering program in
the Quinte/Long Point pilot project, examination of
water taking estimation techniques, and
development work on the data base.
The details of these recommendations are included
in the report to Conservation Ontario. Additionally,
as per Conservation Ontario's submission on the
Source Protection White Paper, the opportunity
should be taken to build off existing database
models (e.g. Sitefx that have been developed for
the ORM /YPDT study). In terms of data
requirements for Source Water Protection, data on
water taking is a high priority. The current
information base is insufficient.
Orthophotography
Orthophotography (digital, georeferenced aerial
photography) has been identified as a useful tool
for Source Water Protection as it aids in
identification and verification of potential water
resource protection issues and in determining
geographical coordinates for geographical features.
It is also a valuable tool to use with landowners to
illustrate management practices that can be used
on private property to protect water resources.
Additional data sets included in the product such as
spot heights and vectors are useful in a number of
water resource applications such as watershed
boundary delineation and DEM production.
Provincial specifications for orthophotography are
needed to ensure that the photography and
products produced meet the required standards for
Source Water Protection and other resource
management programs such as flood plain mapping
exercises. Orthophotography, flown on a regular
basis (once every 5 or 10 years) would assist with
monitoring change and implementing Source
Protection Plans.
77
An Assessment of
7.2
Other
Data Issues
In addition to specific data sets and data bases,
other issues relating to data have been identified as
part of this project. These data management issues
are discussed briefly below.
7.2.1
Data Exchange Framework Model
A framework model is required for the exchange of
data between the provincial warehouse and the
Conservation Authorities and others undertaking
Source Water Protection. As CAs and others
involved in Source Water Protection monitor and
update data sets, there needs to be a mechanism
in place to quickly update the data in the provincial
warehouse. A suggested data feedback loop is
illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Data Feedback Loop
Å
Monitoring
Å
Æ
Æ
Å
Data
Warehousing
(OGDE)
Conservation Authorities
undertaking
Å
Æ
All others participating in
Source Protection
Implementation
Updates to waterline features is an example of
where the data feedback loop would be useful. An
Investigation into available information on water
features and associated valley lands was completed
(see Appendix G). In this analysis, it was noted
that a trail had been depicted as a stream in the
OBM layer. Another issue often occurring within
the OBM data set is that closed municipal drains
are depicted as open drains on the map. When
these types of errors are identified, there needs to
be a mechanism in place whereby the error can be
reported and corrected and incorporated into the
provincial data set.
78
Whenever any organization compiles useful data
sets, other groups will be interested in these data
sets for many purposes other than those originally
anticipated (e.g. DEMs). This will likely be the case
for the data sets assembled for Source Water
Protection and there will be numerous requests for
all kinds of groups to obtain data or maps.
Furthermore, many of these groups may want to
map information over different geographical extents
than watershed boundaries (e.g. municipal or
regional governments). Therefore, it will be very
important to ensure that all data are both
standardized and compiled provincially. This data
exchange framework model is therefore very
important, especially the ability to update the data
in the data warehouse. The framework will be
necessary to make full use of the compiled data.
The development of standards for data collection is
critical in providing consistency for Source Water
Protection across the Province. Standard data
formats and standard protocols for collecting water
and land information are required and these need
to be followed rigorously by practitioners collecting,
compiling, and uploading data. SOLRIS is a good
example of a provincial initiative that will provide a
standard land use classification for Southern
Ontario.
7.2.2
New Data Compilation
In addition to ensuring that existing data are properly
managed, data management for new data arising
from current and future studies should be considered
now. These data will be needed in the future for
source protection mapping and modeling updates
and improvements. Relevant new data (e.g. pump
test results, water quality sampling, etc.) that are
being collected as part of Source Water Protection or
other studies (many of those at public expense)
needs to be compiled using consistent data
standards. Otherwise, there is the possibility that
these data will be lost, lack related quality control
information or simply be too expensive to compile at
a later date. Similarly, some data sets (e.g.
groundwater quality) will need to be supplemented
by compiling past information published in
An Assessment of
consultant reports, scientific studies, etc. These
would also require data and metadata standards.
7.2.3
of Reference developed for Source Water Protection
must be created with a clear understanding of the
rules around data access.
Accessibility of Data Sets
In investigating the various data sets for this
project, some critical data sets were noted
(particularly those dealing with potential
contaminant sources) to have become privatized.
The decision to privatize these data sets was made
a number of years ago, when provincial ministry
budgets were severely cut. These management
decisions fundamentally challenge the ability of
Source Water Protection Committees to complete
their assignments.
The maintenance of provincial data in private
databases raises a number of issues:
1. there is significant cost for users to buy the data
back
2. there are restrictions on using the data in public
maps and reports
3. data base accuracy/standards are not
provincially prescribed or maintained
4. data is stored and maintained outside of the
Provincial data warehouse, with corresponding
limitation in updating the database
Source Water Protection teams should be aware of
the potential issues and costs associated with
acquiring these databases.
Free and open access to data must be a principle of
Source Water Protection. Consultants completing
elements of Source Water Protection cannot be
permitted to retain the ownership of any original,
interpreted or modelled data. All the input and
output files from the modeling should be compiled
by the CA's (and any hired consultants) and
included in a provincial data warehouse. Having the
files accessible to the public will: a) allow more
professional and public scrutiny of the models (with
the many assumptions that are implicit to the
models), b) allow easier improvements or updates
of the models, and c) prevent private ownership of
the model input/output data sets that were
assembled at considerable public expense. Terms
7.2.4
Arc Hydro Data Model
The Arc Hydro model and accompanying tools are
designed to provide the user with an integrated and
systematic approach to managing surface water
resource information. The model incorporates not
only drainage features such as watercourses, water
bodies, and catchments, but it also integrates with
hydrographic features (dams, bridges, monitoring
sites, and water budget related features), network
features (or schema), channel features (crosssections and profiles), and time series data
(Maidment 2002).
This data model has been developed, tested and
implemented broadly in the United States through
the GIS for Water Resources Consortium, which has
representatives from industry, government and
academia. Some major contributors include: ESRI
in Redlands, California; the Center for Research in
Water Resources (CRWR) of the University of Texas;
U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
and several other organizations.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is
evaluating the feasibility of adopting this surface
water data model. Several Conservation Authorities
have started testing and implementing the data
structure on both the provincial 1:10,000 base
(Ganaraska, Crowe and Lower Trent) and on local
1:2,000 mapping (Niagara CA). Arc Hydro not only
has the potential to manage and integrate
geospatial data related to water resources, but it
also creates a framework to support several linked
hydrologic models for the purpose of assessing
water quality, quantity and facilitating floodplain
management strategies across the Province.
The benefits of implementing a common data
model are many-fold. It provides a reliable and
efficient mechanism for the transfer and
dissemination of water-related data and resources
79
An Assessment of
across the Land Resource Cluster. A standardized
approach to structuring and storing data is critical
for meeting the demands of and improving the
response time to clients. Coupling this framework
with the Land Information Ontario (LIO) Warehouse
provides a vehicle for distributing this model and
associated data across all jurisdictions and
members of the Ontario GeoSpatial Data Exchange
(OGDE).
MNR is working on several base data refinement
projects to increase the utility of this data model
and associated tools. The largest of these projects
is developing a new Enhanced Flow Direction
(EFDIR) grid data for the Province that will be a
companion piece to the DEM and also accessible
via the LIO warehouse (Kenny and Matthews 2004).
It is expected that this new EFDIR will be
incorporated seamlessly within Arc Hydro.
In addition, it is expected that over time numerous
applications and models will be developed directly
on the Arc Hydro Data Model. Some examples
include the following: the regional nutrient loading
regression model called SPARROW, which stands
for "SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed
attributes" (Goodall and Whiteaker 2003); channel
flow modeling software such as U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS applications;
and Danish Hydrologic Institute's (DHI) suite of
software products including MIKE 11/21/3, MIKE
BASIN, MIKE SHE, and various other modules.
These modules have been designed to
accommodate the Arc Hydro framework, and DHI
has built tools like the TimeSeries Manager for
ArcGIS™ to manipulate the Arc Hydro data
structure directly. More information is available
from the following web site:
http://www.dhisoftware.com/mikeobjects/TS_Manag
er/archydro.htm.
With ArcHydro's ability to store and manage
hydrologic and watershed based data, it can be
used as a source of data to support model
operations required for specific Source Water
Protection tasks. It can also be used to extract
80
parameters (such as length, area, perimeter, slope,
CN values etc.) required for modeling. Finally,
ArcHydro's GIS based visualization capability makes
for a strong case for its potential for application in
It is recommended that the ArcHydro Data Model
be further investigated as a tool for storing and
managing data for Source Water Protection.
7.2.5
Computer/Software Requirements
Advanced Geographical Information Systems will be
the key to the development of Source Protection
Plans. The GIS software needs to be capable of
analysis, modeling and data editing (not just basic
mapping). Standardization of GIS technology for
Source Water Protection would be beneficial for
sharing data and information.
The ESRI ArcGIS 8.x platform was used in this
project, including its components and modules:
ArcView, Spatial Analyst, Arc Editor, ArcInfo, and Arc
Hydro. The Province and a number of CAs have
been using ESRI based products. MOE has required
that products of the Municipal Groundwater Studies
be in ESRI format; therefore, it is conceivable that
MOE may have a similar requirement for Source
Water Protection. However, GIS software,
including ESRI products is quite costly, exceeding
$20,000.00. MNR's ESRI licence currently enables
them to provide use of the software to other
provincial ministries. The possibility of extending
this licence to Conservation Authorities for Source
Water Protection should be investigated.
The agencies responsible for developing Source
Protection Plans will need to have computers
capable of running advanced GIS and modeling
programs. MNR's Information Technology
department has developed computer specifications
for the ministry; these are provided in Appendix F.
The minimum suggested configuration for GIS
would be a Level 2 system, although a Level 3
configuration is highly recommended because of its
dual processing capability and the DVD writer
option.
An Assessment of
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) will be required
for Source Water Protection work. Such uses
include: locating cross-sections for modeling,
updating positional accuracy of wells (e.g. within
the WWIS), identification of springs and seepage
areas, contaminant sources, etc. A standard is
required to define the required accuracy of GPS
units. A high accuracy unit may not be required
unless survey grade (e.g. cross-sections)
information is needed.
7.2.6
Scale and Projections
The scale of data required for Source Water
Protection will likely vary with the issues. It is
conceivable that broad scale mapping (1:50,000)
will be initially required. The White Paper on
Watershed-Based Source Water Protection suggests
1:50,000 scale maps for land use.
Once issues are identified, finer scale maps may be
required.
Much of the existing base data is available at
1:10,000 (in the case of Southern Ontario), but
some are only at the 1:50,000 scale (e.g. geology).
As new data is collected, 1:10,000 scale, or finer, is
recommended. Point data should be accurate to
+/- 10 m. Effort should be placed on obtaining
high levels of accuracy, as this will give more
flexibility in the range of scales of digital mapping
that can be produced.
Regarding projections and datum, provincial
mapping is based on horizontal (NAD83) and
vertical (CGVD28) datum points maintained by the
Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS). The
UTM coordinate system is the provincial standard
for regional-scale mapping, while the Lambert
Conformal Conic projection is commonly used for
mapping on the provincial scale. Source Water
Protection mapping should be based on these
standards. It is important to note that the
Geographic Coordinate System (Latitude/Longitude)
continues to serve as a common avenue for data
exchange, but it should not be utilized as a
mapping standard.
7.2.7
Data Suitability
While certain data sets may be available, they may
not be suitable for the intended purpose. Data
suitability is a particularly important issue in rural
areas where data coverage is sparse. For example,
meterological or streamflow data may be readily
available from Environment Canada, but there may
not be sufficient data in rural area (spatial and
temporal wise) for modeling purposes (i.e. for
calibration and verification of the hydrologic and
water quality models). This lack of data density has
been noted for surface and ground water quality
and quantity, but should be investigated for other
data sets as well.
The report has dealt primarily with data needs for
mapping, and to a lesser extent, data needs for
modeling. A major task for each Source Water
Protection team will be to pull together suitable
data sets for model parameterization or calibration
(e.g. CN values, hydraulic conductivity values,
stream baseflow data, etc.) Model uncertainties or
inaccuracies due to poor model input or calibration
data would likely have a greater impact on the
recommendations for Source Water Protection than
uncertainties or errors in data sets required for
mapping. Further evaluation of the data sets for the
purpose of model parameterization is therefore
recommended.
7.2.8
Northern Ontario
This project dealt with data requirements and
availability for Source Water Protection in rural
portions of Southern Ontario. However, as work
proceeded on this project it became apparent that
some data sets were lacking or required significant
work for the north, including land cover mapping,
geology, and soils. It should be recognized that
Northern Ontario will have its own unique needs for
Source Water Protection. These needs need to be
systematically investigated, using an approach
similar to that used in this project.
81
An Assessment of
82
An Assessment of
8. CONCLUSION
8
Source Water Protection is a critical element of
resource management and will continue to be in
the future as it is necessary to ensure the health of
Ontarians' drinking water. It is incumbent that data
management strategies consider not only present
needs, but those of future plan update and
implementation needs. This Pilot Project has
identified some of the key issues related to data
requirements and management that need to be
addressed, especially with respect to rural Ontario.
As recognized by the Province, significant funding
will be required to address these issues.
As part of this project, a review of existing data was
conducted for the pilot subwatersheds. The data
sheets that were developed (see Appendix C) will
be a useful starting point for CAs and others as they
prepare Source Protection Plans. Minimum data
standards have been suggested for some data sets
(see section 5.2); however, it will be important to
assess any locally available data as it may be more
accurate than provincial data sets and may be
superior to the minimum data standards. The
simple overlay analysis, used in this project, and
comparison with orthophotography or satellite
imagery, could be used to assess the accuracy of
any additional data sets.
The Source Water Protection exercise represents a
major opportunity to bring water data management
issues forward and move towards bringing solutions
to many water data challenges. These challenges
are fundamentally due to the inconsistency and
variety of data management systems that hold key
data sets for Source Water Protection.
Conservation Authorities should look to the
Province to take a lead role in developing and
managing a comprehensive, accessible data
management system and in setting standards for
acquiring, compiling, and updating water and land
data, and should work with the Province to ensure
that data is accessible and current so that the best
information is available for Source Water Protection.
The quality and utility of the completed Source
Protection Plans will depend on the full utilization
of data holdings from the provincial ministries,
Conservation Authorities, municipalities and the
private sector.
A number of critical data sets that need immediate
attention have been identified in section 7.1 of this
report. If these data sets/enhanced data sets are
not provided for Source Water Protection, each
Source Water Protection team will need to decide
how they will acquire this data and build the costs
into their budget for Source Water Protection.
83
An Assessment of
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Watershed-based Source Water
Protection, "Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water: Toward a
Watershed-based Source Water Protection Framework",
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, 2003.
Clancy, Rhonda, personal communication (verbal) re: septic
fields and storm sewers, 2004.
Credit Valley Conservation, Groundwater Resource Inventory
Project, draft, 2004.
Drinking Water Source Protection Act, 2004 (Draft), Published
in Ministry of the Environments' EBR Registry for Public
Consultation, 2004.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, "Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan", Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, Toronto, Ontario, 2002.
Russell, H.A.J., Brennand, T.A., Logan, C., and Sharpe, D.R.,
"Standardization and Assessment of Geological Descriptions
from Water Well Records, Greater Toronto and Oak Ridges
Moraine Areas, Southern Ontario", Current Research 1998-E,
pp. 89-102, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, 1998.
XCG Consultants Ltd., "Permit to Take Water Monitoring and
Reporting Pilot Study", Conservation Ontario, Newmarket,
Ontario, 2003.
Evans, B.M. et al., "A Comprehensive GIS-based Modeling
Approach for Predicting Nutrient Loads in Watersheds", J. of
Spatial Hydrology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2002
Ministry of Natural Resources, Digital Ortho-Photography
Covering ORM Area, Compiled by JD Barnes from Aerial
Photos, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough,
Ontario, 2002.
GIS in Water Resources Consortium, Arc Hydro: GIS for Water
Resources, David R.Maidment, editor, ESRI Press, Redlands,
California, 2003.
Ministry of Natural Resources, IRS 1998 Satellite Imagery,
Contact: Richard Mussakowski at Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, 1999.
Goodall, Jon and Whiteaker, Tim., "Water Quality Modeling in
GIS", Center for Research in Water Resources, The University
of Texas, Austin, Texas, 2003.
Ministry of Natural Resources, "Technical Reference Guide for
End-Users of Ontario Digital Geospatial Database", Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, 2002.
Cumming Cockburn Limited, "Water Budget Manual on a
Watershed Basis", Ontario Ministry of the Environment and
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, May 2002.
Strategic Policy Branch, "White Paper on Watershed-based
Source Water Protection", Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Toronto, Ontario, 2004.
Justice O'Connor, "Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry",
Ontario, 2002.
Strobl, Silvia, personal communication (e-mail) re: SOLRIS,
2004.
Kenny, F.M., Hunter, G., and Chan, P., "Geo-referencing Quality
Control of Ontario's Water Well Database for the Greater
Toronto and Oak Ridges Moraine Areas of Southern Ontario",
Proceedings of the Canadian Geomatics Conference GER'97,
Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, 1997.
Trent Conservation Coalition, Municipal Groundwater Study Volume 1 (Aquifer Characterization) & Volume 2 (Wellhead
Protection), Draft Report, Morrison Environmental Limited,
Ontario, 2004.
Kenny, F.M., and Matthews, B.C., "A Methodology for Aligning
Raster Flow Direction Data with Photogrammetrically Mapped
Hydrology", Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Peterborough, Ontario, 2004.
Lee, H. et al., Ecological Land Classification for Southern
Ontario: First Approximation and its Application, SCSS Field
Guide FG-02, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1998.
Ministry of the Environment, "Groundwater Studies
2001/2002: Technical Terms of Reference", Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, 2002.
84
An Assessment of
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAFC - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
AMIS - Abandoned Mines Information System
ANSIs - Areas of Natural and Scientific Interests
ARA - Aquatic Resources Area
ARI - Agricultural Resource Inventory
ARIP - Aggregate Resource Inventory Papers
ARN - Assessment Roll Number
AVGWLF - Arc View Generalized Watershed
Loadings Function
AVI - Aquifer Vulnerability Index
BIM - Basic Index Mapping
BQRAP - Bay of Quinte Remediation Action Plan
C - Conversion Constant
CA - Conservation Area
CA - Conservation Authority
CA - Census Agglomeration
CAMC - Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition
CANWET - Canada Arcview Nutrient & Water
Evaluation Tool
CAR - Census Agricultural Region
CAs - Conservation Authorities
CCS - Census Consolidation Subdivision
CD - Census Division
CDAL - CGDI Data Alignment Layer
CGD - Canadian Geodetic Datum
CGDI - Canadian Geo-spatial Data Infrastructure
CGVD - Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum
CLI - Canadian Land Inventory
CMA - Census Metropolitan Area
CMAS - Circular Map Accuracy Standards
CMC - Canadian Meteorological Centre
CN-Curve Number
CO - Conservation Ontario
CofA - Certificate of Approval
COSINE - COntrol Survey INformation Exchange
CR - Conservation Reserves
CRWR - Center for Research in Water Resources
CSD - Census Sub-Division
CSRS - Canadian Spatial Reference System
CT - Census Tract
CURB - Clean Up Rural Beaches
CVCA - Crowe Valley Conservation Authority
DA - Dissemination Area
DBF - Data Base Format (dBase)
DEM - Digital Elevation Model
DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans
DGPS - Differential GPS
DHI - Danish Hydraulic Institute
DTM - Digital Terrain Model
DU - Ducks Unlimited
DVD - Digital Video Disc/Digital Versatile Disc
DWIS - Drinking Water Information System
DWSP - Drinking Water Surveillance Program
EA - Enumeration Area
EBR - Environmental Bill of Rights
EC - Environment Canada
EFDIR - Enhanced Flow DIRection
ELC - Ecological Land Classification
EPA - Environmental Protection Act
ERIS - Environmental Risks Information Services
ESA - Environmentally Sensitive Area
FDIR - Flow DIRection grid
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FRI - Forest Resources Inventory
FTP - File Transfer Protocol
GCS - Geographic Coordinate System
GDT - Geographic Data Technology
GIS - Geographic Information System
GPS - Global Positioning System
GanRCA - Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
GRIPS - Groundwater Resource Inventory Project
GSC - Geological Survey of Canada
GTA - Greater Toronto Area
GUT - Geographic Unit Type
GW - Groundwater
HEC - Hydrologic Engineering Center
HEC-DSS - Hydrologic Engineering Center-Data
Storage System
HEC-HMS - Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-RAS - Hydrologic Engineering Center - River
Analysis System
HSG - Hydrologic Soil Group
HTML - Hyper Text Mark-up Language
HVCN - Horizontal and Vertical Control Network
HWIS - Hazardous Waste Information System
HYDAT - HYdrometric DATa
IA - Initial Abstraction
IDS - Integrated Divisional System
IHD - International Hydrologic Decade
ISI - Intrinsic Susceptibility Index
ISU - Information Service Unit
85
An Assessment of
IT - Information Technology
JPEG - Joint Photographic Experts Group
LANDSAT - LAND SATellite
LIDAR - LIght Detection And Ranging
LIO - Land Information Ontario
LTC - Lower Trent Conservation
MA - Municipal Affairs
MDI - Mineral Deposit Inventory
MIKE - Danish acronym for Micro-computer based
Modeling System (Danish Hydraulic Institute)
MIKE 11 - 1D River/Channel Flow Model of DHI
MIKE 12 - 2-Layer Stratified Flow Model of DHI
MIKE 21 - 2D Free Surface Flow Model of DHI
MIKE 3 - 3D Free Surface Flow Model of DHI
MIKE BASIN - Better Assessment Science for
Integrating point & Non-point sources
MIKE SHE - System Hydrologic European
MINE - Acronym given by MNR for the metadata
sheet for Mine Site
MISA - Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement
MMAH - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
MNDM - Ministry of Northern Development and
Mines
MNR - Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE - Ministry of Environment
MOE-WWIS - Ministry of Environments' Water Well
Information System
MPAC - Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation
MSC - Meteorological Service of Canada
MTM - Modified (3o) Transverse Mercator
MTO - Ontario Ministry of Transportation
MUD - Municipal water-Use Database
NAD - North American Datum
NAICS - North American Industrial Classification
System
NATMAP - NATional MApping Program
NCC - Nature Conservancy of Canada
NGO - Non-Governmental Organization
NPRI - National Pollutant Release Inventory
NRCAN - Natural Resources Canada
NRN - National Road Network
NRVIS - Natural Resources and Values Information
System
NTDB - National Topographic Data Base
NTS - National Topographic Series
86
OASYS - Ontario Assessment System
OBM - Ontario Base Mapping
OFA - Ontario Federation of Agriculture
OFAT - Ontario Flow Assessment Technique
OGDE - Ontario Geo-spatial Data Exchange
OGS - Ontario Geological Survey
OLID - Ontario Land Information Directory
OLIW - Ontario Land Information Warehouse
OMAF - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
OMNR - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
OP - Official Plan
ORIS - Occurrence Reporting Information System
ORM - Oak Ridges Moraine
ORMCP - Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
OSAP - Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol
OTTHYMO - OTTawa Hydrologic MOdel
OWRA - Ontario Water Resource Act
PCB - Polychlorinates Biphenyls
PDF - Post-script Data Format
PGMN - Provincial Groundwater Monitoring
Network
PIN - Property Identification Number
PLC - Provincial Land Cover
POLRIS - Province of Ontario Land Registration
Information System
PTTW - Permit to Take Water
PUC - Public Utilities Commission
PWQMN - Provincial Water Quality Monitoring
Network
RSC - Record of Site Condition
SNA - Significant Natural Area
SOLRIS - Southern Ontario Land Resource
Information System
SPARROW - SPAtially Referenced Regressions On
Watershed attributes
SWP - Source Water Protection
STP - Sewage Treatment Plant
SWMM - Storm Water Management Model
TCC - Trent Conservation Coalition
TCC GW - Trent Conservation Coalition
Groundwater Study
TOT - Time of Travel
TSSA - Technical Standard and Safety Authority
USA - United States of America
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection
Agency
An Assessment of
USGS - United States Geological Survey
UTM - Universal Transverse Mercator
VCP - Vertical Control Point
WHPA - Well Head Protection Area
WRIP - Water Resource Information Project
WRIS - Water Resources Information System
WSC - Water Survey of Canada
WSIS - Waste Site Information System
WTP - Water Treatment Plant
WWIS - Water Well Information System
WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant
TAWG - Threats Assessment Working Group
TEC - Technical Experts Committee
YPDT - York-Peel-Durham-Toronto
ZOI - Zone of Influence
Common Errors in Watershed Boundary Delineation
Acronyms
BCW - Boundary Crosses Water
FA - Flat Area
IDA - Internally Drained Areas
IR - Isolated Ridge
IS - Impact of Shoreline
MSA - Missing Stream Arcs
MSP - Missing Spot Heights
NRA - Not at Right Angles
OB - Overlapping Boundary
ON - Outflow Node
S - Subjectivity
SB - Shared Boundary not matching
USW - Urban Storm Water
Ecological Land Classification Acronyms
AHP - ARI-Unimproved Hay/Pasture
AMC - ARI-Monoculture
AMD - ARI-Mixed
AML - ARI-Marginal Land
CUM - Cultural Meadow
CUS - Cultural Savannah
CUW - Cultural Woodlot
FOM - Mixed Forest
IAG - Intensive Agriculture
MAM - Meadow Marsh
MAS - Shallow Marsh
NAG - Non-Intensive Agriculture
SWM - Mixed Swamp
SWT - Thicket Swamp
TPO - Tall grass Open
TPS - Tall grass Savannah
TPW - Tall grass Woodland
87
An Assessment of
LIST OF APPENDICES
A.
a.
b.
c.
B.
C.
Abandoned Wells
Aggregate Resources
Agricultural Lands
Annotation
Aquifer Distribution-Thickness
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)
Areas of Water Contamination
Areas with Contaminated Groundwater
Bedrock Geology
Bedrock Topography
Brownfields & Contaminated Sites
Buildings
Cemeteries
Contours
Dams
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Enhanced Flow Direction (EFDIR) Grid
Fisheries Data
Geodetic Datum
Groundwater Elevation
Groundwater Quality
Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI)
Land Cover
Land Use-existing
Land Use-future (uncontrolled)
Lot and Concession
Meteorological Data
Mining Areas
Municipal Boundaries
Natural Grasslands
Non Government Organization (NGO) Nature
Reserves
Overburden thickness
Parcel Fabric
Physiography
Potential Contaminant Sources
Public Lands
Railway
Recharge & Discharge Areas
88
Roads
Sensitive/Natural Areas
Septic Fields (tile beds)
Significant Water Withdrawals Soils
Soils
Spot Heights
Springs and Seepage Areas
Storm and/or Combined Sewers and Overflows
Stream Flow Data (Continuous)
Stream Flow Data (Instantaneous)
Structures (Bridges & Culverts)
Surface Water Intakes
Surface Water Quality
Surficial Geology
Thermal Classification of Streams and
Waterbodies
Tile Drains/Municipal Drains
Trail
Utility Lines
Vegetated Buffers
Water Well Records
Waterbodies & Streams
Watershed Boundary
Wellhead Protection Areas (Wellhead Capture
Zones)
Wetlands
Woodlands
Water Treatment Plants (WTP) & Sewage
Treatment Plants (STP)
List of Participants
Project Task Team
Additional Resources
Peer Review Committee
Methods (Simple Overlay Analysis)
Data sheets
D.
E.
F.
G.
Comparison Maps
Source Protection Maps
Computer Specifications from the MNR
Information Technology Department
Investigation into available information on
water features and associated valley land