Preliminary Database

Preliminary Database
 Preliminary Database
Existing databases provided by the Client were compiled to form a preliminary
Groundwater Use
Database for the Annapolis Valley. Creation of this database allowed for the
identification of
approximately 400 recorded points of water extraction in the Valley. The majority of
these locations
were drawn from the GW Sites database provided by NSDNR. Information from the
GW Sites
database was cross-referenced with the NSE Provincial Well Logs, NSE Pumping Test,
NSE Approved
Water Withdrawals, and Municipal Utilities databases to supplement existing records or
create new
records. Where more than one source of data was available for a given field and
record, the data were
drawn from the database with the highest assigned priority. Priority was assigned to
databases in the
following order: Municipal Utilities, NSE Water Withdrawals, GW Sites, NSE Pumping
Test Database,
NSE Provincial Well Logs.
 The fields to be included in the database were selected in consultation with the Client, and are listed
in
Table A1. The first twelve fields provide a description of the record. Each record was assigned a
unique
Facility Code, which serves as an index number for each record. Facilities with more than one well
were generally grouped under a single Facility Code. Wells for municipal utilities were not grouped,
but
were each assigned a unique Facility Code. Municipal wells for a single utility were each assigned a
unique Facility Code, but were assigned a common Group Code to allow for rapid grouping of
records
in a single well field.
The next ten fields are related to the record location, coordinates, method and source of coordinate
determination, and approximate accuracy. The third grouping of twelve fields covers water use
information. These fields include extraction rates, volumes, and the nature of the operation. The final
grouping (6 fields) summarizes available well and aquifer information.
The preliminary database served as a starting point for collection of new data. Existing location and
contact data were used in an attempt to complete the mailing address field for each record, with an
emphasis on non-agricultural users. Contact information and facility names were also used to
allocate
 The fields to be included in the database were selected in consultation with the Client, and are listed
in
Table A1. The first twelve fields provide a description of the record. Each record was assigned a
unique
Facility Code, which serves as an index number for each record. Facilities with more than one well
were generally grouped under a single Facility Code. Wells for municipal utilities were not grouped,
but
were each assigned a unique Facility Code. Municipal wells for a single utility were each assigned a
unique Facility Code, but were assigned a common Group Code to allow for rapid grouping of
records
in a single well field.
The next ten fields are related to the record location, coordinates, method and source of coordinate
determination, and approximate accuracy. The third grouping of twelve fields covers water use
information. These fields include extraction rates, volumes, and the nature of the operation. The final
grouping (6 fields) summarizes available well and aquifer information.
The preliminary database served as a starting point for collection of new data. Existing location and
contact data were used in an attempt to complete the mailing address field for each record, with an
emphasis on non-agricultural users. Contact information and facility names were also used to
allocate
 The fields to be included in the database were selected in consultation with the Client, and are listed in
Table A1. The first twelve fields provide a description of the record. Each record was assigned a unique
Facility Code, which serves as an index number for each record. Facilities with more than one well
were generally grouped under a single Facility Code. Wells for municipal utilities were not grouped, but
were each assigned a unique Facility Code. Municipal wells for a single utility were each assigned a
unique Facility Code, but were assigned a common Group Code to allow for rapid grouping of records
in a single well field.
The next ten fields are related to the record location, coordinates, method and source of coordinate
determination, and approximate accuracy. The third grouping of twelve fields covers water use
information. These fields include extraction rates, volumes, and the nature of the operation. The final
grouping (6 fields) summarizes available well and aquifer information.
The preliminary database served as a starting point for collection of new data. Existing location and
contact data were used in an attempt to complete the mailing address field for each record, with an
emphasis on non-agricultural users. Contact information and facility names were also used to allocateThe fields to be included in the
database were selected in consultation with the Client, and are listed in
Table A1. The first twelve fields provide a description of the record. Each record was assigned a unique
Facility Code, which serves as an index number for each record. Facilities with more than one well
were generally grouped under a single Facility Code. Wells for municipal utilities were not grouped, but
were each assigned a unique Facility Code. Municipal wells for a single utility were each assigned a
unique Facility Code, but were assigned a common Group Code to allow for rapid grouping of records
in a single well field.
The next ten fields are related to the record location, coordinates, method and source of coordinate
determination, and approximate accuracy. The third grouping of twelve fields covers water use
information. These fields include extraction rates, volumes, and the nature of the operation. The final
grouping (6 fields) summarizes available well and aquifer information.
The preliminary database served as a starting point for collection of new data. Existing location and
contact data were used in an attempt to complete the mailing address field for each record, with an
emphasis on non-agricultural users. Contact information and facility names were also used to allocate