2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards

• 1.1 Introduction & 1.2 The Process

• 1.3 Water Quality

• 1.4 Forest Conditions

• 1.5 Watershed Features, Action Plan and Highlights of Progress

• 1.6 References

Back to the 2007 Report Card homepage.

1.3.4 Surface Water Quality Results

Table 3 lists the final grades and point scores for each of the 28 watersheds. Table 4 summarizes the watersheds by grade. Map 5 shows the distribution of grades by watershed.

Table 3. Surface Water Quality Grades (Avon - Mud)

* Final grade is determined by adding the points for each indicator and dividing by three.
**Status Abbreviations:

• i = Improving

• s = Steady

• d = Declining

Table 3. Surface Water Quality Grades (North Mitchell - Wye)

* Final grade is determined by adding the points for each indicator and dividing by three.
**Status Abbreviations:

• i = Improving

• s = Steady

• d = Declining

Table 4. Summary of Surface Water Quality Grades and Scores

General Surface Water Quality Trends

Of the 28 watersheds, 20 scored a C grade for water quality, with seven B grades and one D. Overall, the poorest water quality conditions were found in the Cedar Creek watershed, with the Forks, Pottersburg Creek, and South Thames watersheds scoring low as well. The Black Creek, Gregory Creek, and Plover Mills watersheds have the best water quality scores, with Dingman Creek, Komoka Creek, North Woodstock, and Oxbow Creek also having higher scores. Since the 2001 report cards, eight watersheds have shown overall improved conditions, including Avon River, Black Creek, Dingman Creek, the Forks, Gregory Creek, North Woodstock, River Bend, and Stoney Creek. The scores for the majority of the watersheds (19) have remained steady. One watershed, Pottersburg Creek, shows overall declining conditions since 2001. As seen in Table 3, there are a number of instances where different indicators show different trends for a watershed. For example, in Whirl Creek benthic conditions improved since 2001 but phosphorus conditions declined. Many variables, including weather (rainfall, temperature) or point source pollution, can impact indicators differently.

The Dingman Creek watershed showed the largest improvement. In 2001, this watershed received a C grade and was the lowest scoring watershed overall. In 2007, Dingman receives a B grade, with all three indicators (bacteria, phosphorous, benthic) showing improvement since the 2001 report card.

1.3.5 Groundwater

The 2007 report cards include a section on groundwater that provides a description of drinking water sources (such as municipal or private wells), contamination risks (including abandoned wells, such as the one pictured here, that are not decommissioned), and local sources of groundwater information. The current Drinking Water Source Protection process is highlighted.

The Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) was developed in 2001 in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The program was designed to collect ambient groundwater quality and quantity data. The UTRCA has 23 wells at 19 different sites. Water quality testing is done once a year. Water level (i.e. quantity) data is collected hourly by a continuous monitoring device installed in each of the PGMN wells. Currently, there is not enough data to include an assessment or grading of groundwater quality in the 2007 report cards.

Some initial findings from the water quality testing of the UTRCA/PGMN wells have identified very few issues, with fluoride and arsenic being the only ones of concern. A large portion of Oxford and Perth Counties has fluoride in the bedrock aquifers at levels above the provincial drinking water standard. Fluoride and, to a lesser extent, arsenic are naturally occurring in some of the bedrock formations and are found in local aquifers. The Thames-Sydenham & Region Draft Watershed Characterization Reports (available in 2008 from the UTRCA) summarize local groundwater quality data as monitored for municipal well sources.

• 1.1 Introduction & 1.2 The Process

• 1.3 Water Quality

• 1.4 Forest Conditions

• 1.5 Watershed Features, Action Plan and Highlights of Progress

• 1.6 References

Back to the 2007 Report Card homepage.

TOP