Report on the Stormwater drain sampling of Junction Creek
ABSTRACT
Stormwater pollution has become a growing ecological concern amongst many Ontario
and North American cities. Municipalities like Toronto, Hamilton, St.-Catherines,
Waterloo, Las Vegas and Los Angeles all have well established stormwater pollution
monitoring and managing divisions which are responsible for restricting stormwater
pollution to what would be considered an “acceptable” level. Stormwater pollution can
be held responsible for a variety of problems urban watersheds are faced with in this age
of continuing industrialization and urban growth. High sedimentation, the covering of
traditional spawning beds, high chemical concentration, invasive species colonization and
accelerated algae growth are all byproducts of unmanaged stormwater pollution. No
northern Ontario municipality has yet put forth a thorough stormwater management plan,
but with the growing trend towards preserving wetlands and preventing the infiltration of
invasive species it might be time the City of Greater Sudbury takes another step forward
in its role as an international leader in ecological sustainability.
The findings of this study reveal higher than expected conductivity in the upper reaches
of the creek with lower than expected conductivity in the Flour Mill area. Also, two
particular sources of industrial runoff near Kelly Lake have extremely high conductivity
readings and should be studied further.
INTRODUCTION
Started in 2006, the sampling of stormwater drains flowing into Junction Creek was
necessary in order to quantify existing damage and to identify stormwater pollution
hotspots on Junction Creek. Completed by Junction Creek Stewardship Committee
(JCSC) employees working in conjunction with volunteers the sampling covered reaches
of the creek ranging in the north from Garson to the mouth of Kelly Lake at the south end
of the creek’s main branch. Pipes were found by simply walking along or in the creek.
Many variables presented themselves as high rain incidents affected conductivity and
water temperature. Also, some drains were inaccessible due to a combination of their
location inside bridges and excessively high water. In total, 113 drains were found on
Junction Creek, excluding those that
might be entering the creek
underneath the downtown core of the
City of Sudbury and those that were
undoubtedly missed by the workers
due to high vegetation density. The
core of the drains were found in
reaches 11 (Flour Mill to
Downtown), 12 (Brady St. to Regent
St.), and 13 (Regent st. to Martindale
Rd.) with a total of 66 of the 113
drains found accounting for 58% of
the total tally (Fig. 1).
Figure one: Shows reaches of
Junction Creek.
DATA COLLECTION MATERIALS AND METHODS
The collection of data was made on paper and later transferred to electronic spreadsheets.
Data collection was started in Garson and continued downstream to Kelly Lake. Most of
the data collection was done by visual assessment however for some data fields,
equipment was necessary. A GPS unit, a conductivity meter/thermometer, a digital
camera, and a yardstick were all used at each pipe. The following data fields were used:
General Information
 Reach #: The creek is divided into 16 reaches as identified following the fish
population survey of 2004.
 Sample ID: Relates to “Reach #” and the order of the given drain pipe. i.e. R1-03
would relate to the third drain pipe of the first reach.
 Sampling date: Date when the sampling of that particular drain took place.
 Bank: Whether the pipe was found on the North or South bank of the Creek.
 Directions to site: Approximate location of pipe in relation to obvious landmarks.
 GPS Coordinates: UTM coordinates of drain found using Lowrance GPS unit.
 Photos taken: A checklist of the photos that were to be taken of each pipe.
Discharge Pipe Characteristics
 Diameter: Diameter in centimeters of the pipe opening determined with
yardstick.
 Hght above water: Height of the pipe above the level of the creek on that given
day determined with yardstick.
 Dist to stream: Distance of the pipe from the stream on that given day
determined with yardstick or estimated.
 Flow: Rate of water flow from the pipe on that given day determined by a visual
evaluation.
 Steady: Whether or not the “Flow” of water of the pipe is consistent determined
by a visual evaluation.
 Material: Pipe’s fabrication material.
 Source: Zoning at the origins of the stormwater, logically determined by location
of pipe on the creek and surrounding infrastructure.
 Condition: The physical condition of the pipe determined by a visual evaluation.
Water chemistry:
 Water Temp: Temperature of water in degrees Celsius at the point of the pipe’s
discharge’s entry into the creek (point of entry), 5 meters upstream of the entry
point, and 5m downstream of the entry point. A combination conductivity meter,
thermometer was used for this.
 Conductivity: Conductivity of the water in microSiemens/centimeter (uS/cm) at
the point of the pipe’s discharge’s entry into the creek, 5 meters upstream of the
entry point, and 5m downstream of the entry point. A combination conductivity
meter, thermometer was used for this.
Stream characteristics at Discharge Entry
 Flow: Speed of the creek’s flow at the point of entry determined by a visual
evaluation.
 Riparian veg: Types of vegetation present in the stretch 5 meters upstream and 5
meters downstream of the point of entry estimated visually.




Canopy coverage: Visual approximation of percentage of vegetative overhead
creek cover present in the stretch 5 meters upstream and 5 meters downstream of
the point of entry.
Macrophyte coverage: Visual approximation of percentage of macrophyte
coverage in the creek in the stretch 5 meters upstream and 5 meters downstream
of the point of entry.
Sedimentation from pipe:
o Type: Type of sediment flowing into creek from pipe determined by
visual evaluation.
o Approx. area: Square meters of sedimentation coverage at the point of
entry measured with yardstick.
Other characteristics: Anything else deemed worthy of a mention.
See appendix 1.
Results
The following figures show the discrepancies between the data collected during the
storm drain sampling and that of a one day sampling operation (July 17th, 2007 – see
Appendix 2) at each reach. In Figure 1a), data in reaches 4,5, and 6 was collected in
early October, hence the lower than average temperatures.
Junction Creek temperatures by reach as per storm drain
sampling
Fig. 1 a)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Temperature (Celsius)
Temp. 5m upstrm (oC)
Temp. at point of entry (oC)
Temp. 5m dwnstrm (oC)
10.0
5.0
0.0
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
Reach #
11
12
13
14
15
Temperature of Junction Creek as per One Day Sampling
b)
20
18
16
14
12
Temperature in degrees
10
Celsius
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
Reach #
11
12
13
14
15
Figure one a) & b): The top graph shows the average temperature readings of each reach
at the effluent’s Point of Entry (POE) into the creek, 5m upstream from this point and 5m
downstream from this same point. The bottom graph shows temperature readings during
a one day sampling operation at one drain at each reach. It is important to note that
during the storm drain sampling, reaches 4,5, and 6 were sampled in mid-September,
possibly explaining the drop in water temperature.
Fig. 2 a)
Average Conductivity of Junction Creek water by Reach
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
Conductivity (uS)
Conduct. 5m upstrm (mS)
Conduct. at point of entry (mS)
Conduct. 5m dwnstrm (mS)
1000.0
500.0
0.0
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
Reach #
11
12
13
14
15
Conductivity of Junction Creek as per one day sampling
b)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Conductivity in
1000
microSiemens
800
600
400
200
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
Reach #
Figure two a) & b): The top graph shows the average conductivity readings of each
reach at the effluent’s Point of Entry into the creek, 5m upstream from this point, and 5m
15
downstream from this same point. The bottom graph on the right shows conductivity
readings during a one day sampling operation at one drain at each reach.
Fig. 3
Conductivity at POE sorted by Pipe Material
Conductivity (uS)
1050
993.5
1000
975.3
950
900
859.7
850
800
750
Metal
Cement
Plastic
Material
Figure three: Illustrates comparison of the conductivity at the effluent’s point of entry
for different pipe materials.
Fig. 4
Conductivity at Point of Entry by source
1400
1219.6
Conductivity (uS)
1200
1000
883.7
810.9
800
600
400
200
0
Industrial
Municipal
Residential
Source
Figure 4: Illustrates comparison of the conductivity at the effluent’s point of entry for
different runoff sources. All ‘Industrial’ pipes are in reaches 11 to 15. It is important to
not that the average conductivity in reaches 11-15 is 945.3 uS as opposed to 1219.6 uS
shown at industrial sources. Average conductivity in these reaches at municipal and
residential sources is 816.4 uS.
Fig. 5
Pipe Source Distribution of Storm Drain Pipes on
Junction Creek
19%
9%
Industrial
Municipal
7%
Residential
Unknow n
65%
Figure 5: Illustrates the distribution of the various sources of stormwater run-off into the
creek. “Industrial” refers to pipes which gather effluents from industrial yards and its
adjacent properties. These include lumber storage yards, construction company
properties, rail company properties and City storage properties. “Municipal” refers to
pipes with gather effluent from street and parking lot runoff outside of residential areas.
The best example of this would be the downtown area of Sudbury. “Residential” refers
to pipes which gather effluent from residential areas such as the Flour Mill or Garson.
Storm Drain Pipe Material Distribution on
Junction Creek
24%
41%
Metal
Cement
Plastic
35%
Fig. 6
Figure 6: Illustrates the distribution of pipe fabrication materials in pipes draining into
Junction Creek.
DISCUSSION
1. Temperature
The results of the water sampling project would suggest water temperatures to be
relatively steady throughout the creek except for reaches 4,5, and 6 which were
substantially cooler than other reaches that contained pipes. However, given that
sampling occurred anytime between early July and early October, it is fathomable that
seasonal timing of the sampling impacted results. Also, daily temperature variations of
upwards of approximately 10 degrees Celsius have been observed on the creek during
other field activities. In response to the seasonal timing variations, a one day condensed
sampling effort was undertaken where one pipe in each piped reach was sampled for
temperature and conductivity. The results obtained showed a more even creek wide
temperature with slightly lower water temperatures near the source. However, this
operation did not account for variations in daily temperature variations. Furthermore,
high precipitation events influenced water temperature, adding to the doubtfulness of the
data’s accuracy.
Also, brook trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis), the most distinguished species to inhabit
Junction Creek, generally does not thrive in temperatures above 20ºC.
“Warm water temperatures appear to be the single most important factor limiting brook
trout distribution and production
(http://wfs.sdstate.edu/sdgap/fish/Fish%20hab%20affin/brook%20trout.pdf.)”
Creek temperatures for the most part, even in the upper reaches of the creek, those
regarded as being the coolest, are mostly above that 20 degree mark or hovering just
below it. Given the evidence that trout are surviving in Junction Creek, we can assume
that:
 some microsites, with cooler water are present on the creek and/or,
 some individual trout have adapted to the high water temperature,
 and/or, some of the trout released are genetically better conditioned to higher
water temperatures.
2. Conductivity
“Conductivity is the ability of water to conduct electricity through inorganic dissolved
solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions and sodium, magnesium,
calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (United States Environmental Protection Agency).”
Given that, conductivity measurements are made to establish the cumulative
concentrations of the aforementioned dissolved minerals without pinpointing which of
the conductors is present. Being composed of sodium and chloride (NaCl) road salt is an
excellent conductor and could be a cause of a high conductivity in any circumstance.
Given the concerns about excessive salinity in Junction Creek, conductivity was
measured during the storm drain sampling and was to be used to identify potentially
saline parts of the creek. However, given that Sudbury is a very mineral rich area; other
conductive dissolved solids can be the cause of high conductivity readings during the
sampling. Areas where high conductivity was the norm should be reexamined and the
specific mineral or minerals causing the high conductivity should be identified.
Conductivity varied greatly on Junction Creek. An almost perfect horseshoe pattern was
observed during the drain sampling activity with peaks in the Garson and Kelly Lake
regions and a valley in the Flour Mill. These findings are somewhat surprising as the
Garson area was generally thought to be host to the best water quality and the Flour Mill
host to the worst. The one day sampling operation yielded similar results with noticeable
discrepancies in reaches 1 and 7. Otherwise, it conforms to the drain sampling data
collection model.
As with the temperature data, high precipitation events influenced these readings as the
added water volume diluted salts and minerals, hence reducing conductivity. However,
taking into consideration that the one day sampling was completed under clear conditions
and three days following the last rainfall, lower than average readings can be ignored, and
the drain sampling data can be considered the definitive source of Junction Creek
conductivity data. Also, only one pipe at each reach was sampled. Some reaches
contained upwards of 20 pipes.
Conductivity, an indirect measurement of salinity does not seem to be an important
limiting factor in the survival and reproduction of brook trout. Obviously, excessive
amounts of salt could have negative effects on trout population but when exposed to
gradually increasing salt concentrations in water, trout survival is near 100%, even when
directly exposed to 30 parts per thousands salt water brook trout survival is 50% (Journal
of Experimental Biology 210, 1015-1024 (2007) Junya Hiroi and Stephen D.
McCormick).
One possible explanation for the peak in conductivity in the Garson area is the fact that
the creek’s source is effluent from a mine and an elevated level of metal content in the
water at that point could increase the conductivity.
A possible explanation for the decline in conductivity in the Flour Mill is the fact that at
that point, the water is exiting the Ponderosa wetland and has been naturally filtered.
3. Pipe Material
Three types of material are used in the fabrication of pipes draining into Junction Creek.
Metal pipes accounted for 41% of the total pipe count, with cement pipes coming in at
35% and plastic at 24%. The conductivity at the Point of Entry (POE) was highest at
those made of metal, followed by cement and plastic. The POE is defined as the spot
where effluent leaching from the pipe enters Junction Creek. Conductivity variation
between metal and cement was 13.5% and 11.9% between metal and plastic.
4. Pipe Source
Pipes draining into Junction Creek were categorized as coming from Industrial,
Municipal, Residential, or Unknown sources. The vast majority (65%) of pipes were of a
Municipal origin with 19% of sources Unknown, 9% Industrial and 7% Residential.
Water at the POE of industrial sources was by far the most conductive on average;
however, this can be attributed to two extremely high readings and the fact that there
were only a total of 9 industrial pipes tallied. These two high readings were both taken in
reach 14 between Martindale Road and Kelly Lake Road. The source of these pipes’
effluent should be identified as well as the mineral causing the high conductivity.
5. Difficulties
Most difficulties associated to this project can be categorized as being
“inconsistencies” of various types that could affect the scientific viability of the data
collected. In some cases the high amount of pipes sampled should counterbalance
these inconsistencies but in others, it may be necessary to disregard the data collected.
Listed below are the types of “inconsistencies” that affect the data collected.
a. Meteorological
High rain incidents during the sampling of the pipes affected conductivity and
temperature readings. When sampling the day following heavy rainfall, conductivity
readings were much lower than usual as the increased water volume diluted solids in the
water. Temperature readings were also affected as the cool rainwater lowered the creek’s
temperature. On the opposite side of the spectrum, hot and dry conditions caused
elevated conductivity and temperature readings. Given that the sampling was done
during two field seasons, anytime between early July, and early October, the two extreme
meteorological conditions (excessively dry, and wet) were encountered hence making
temperature and conductivity data viability questionable. In response to the variability, a
one day sampling activity was completed, however, to maintain scientific credibility; all
samples had to be taken in a very short time frame. It is for this reason that only one pipe
per reach was sampled. This procedure gave adequate data for some reaches which had
very few pipes, but is questionable for reaches like 11 or 12 which both contain upwards
of 20 pipes.
b. Daily temperature variations
Sampling operations generally ran from approximately 9:00am-10:00am to 1:00pm3:00pm. Temperatures on Junction Creek have been shown to vary up to 10 degrees in a
single day on a same area. In this light, the relative accuracy of the temperature should
be questioned as a temperature reading taken on spot X at 9:00am would vary from a
reading on the same spot taken at 2:00pm. Some reaches required multi-day sampling
resulting in readings that are not relative to other readings in that same reach. Also,
reaches with few pipes that were done in a relatively short period of time may not be
relative to similar reaches as they would have been completed at different times of the
day.
c. Seasonal variations
As mentioned, sampling was done between early July and early October during two field
seasons. Undoubtedly, temperature readings taken later in the season will be much
cooler than those taken in July and hence irrelative to each other. Also, the last two
summers were very different with the summer of 2006 being unseasonable wet and the
summer of 2007 being more stereotypical of a regional summer. For this reason, data
collected on similar dates in both seasons may not be acceptable for comparison.
d. Change in personnel
During the first season of field sampling (summer 2006) the data was collected by Jen
Davidson along with two World Youth interns, Maxime Fortin and John Mungai. During
the second field season, data was collected by Yannick Loranger and volunteer Russ
Pollack. Given that some of the data fields involved visual estimates of creek attributes,
consistency in these fields can be questioned as interpretation of the field values could
have varied between the two teams. Furthermore, no protocol for measuring temperature
and conductivity was established, hence it is possible that one team may have for
example taken the measurements on the creek bed as the other may have assessed values
halfway in the water column.
6. General
The results of the project would imply potentially serious conductivity problems in very
specific areas of the creek. These areas should be studied further to identify the dissolved
solids which are causing the elevated conductivity. There is a chance that these dissolved
solids are harmless to the creek’s biological health, however if elevated sodium,
phosphates, nitrates, or sulfates concentrations are found to be the culprit of this elevated
conductivity, then extra efforts should be invested in attempting to limit effluent entering
the creek in the affected areas. High sodium levels could be an indication of excessive
road salt entering the creek and killing vegetation. Elevated levels of phosphates,
nitrates, or sulfates would indicate that soaps, detergents, or fertilizers are possibly
entering the creek hence encouraging an excessive amount of vegetation growth.
The temperature data collected offered no true insight as to the effects of stormwater
runoff on the creek’s temperature. Some temperature variations between the POE and the
downstream temperature were detectable but no clear pattern was detected as
temperatures at the POE were at times above that of the upstream temperature and
sometimes below.
Conclusion
As a whole, this study has been fruitful in identifying conductivity hotspots and general
trends in creek conductivity. Given the limited human resources available for this
project, personnel issues were to be expected and a two season operation was most likely
inevitable. The two season approach however did yield some important snags in the
analysis of this data. To ensure the total viability of any study, there is a need for
comparing “apples to apples” so to speak. In this case, in comparing 2006 data with 2007
data, and July data with October data, there are certainly discrepancies in data’s relativity,
especially when it comes to temperature readings. Conductivity was mostly affected by
heavy rainfall events or drought as higher or lower than average water volumes modified
what could be considered “average” or “true” conductivity readings. Also, a lack of
protocols made it difficult to ensure a smooth transition between the season 1 crew and
season 2 crew.
In order to authenticate the data collected, and to eliminate meteorological variables in
data, follow-up sampling of Junction Creek should be completed. When equipment and
personnel becomes available, a larger scale single day conductivity sampling activity
should be done in order to confirm conductivity hotspots, eventhough the drain sampling
data has been proven to be fairly accurate following the single day sampling activity. A
similar activity should be completed for temperature readings but in a much shorter
timeframe as temperature readings can vary greatly at different times of day. A one hour
sampling activity would be more appropriate for this assessment. However, given the
logistical challenges that this would entail, it may be impossible to complete such a
process.
Due to equipment failure, pH measurements were not taken during the drain sampling.
However, it would be primordial to have solid pH values data of Junction Creek
especially at stormdrain hotspots to compliment the “Water Quality and Thermal
Conditions in Upper Junction Creek and its Tributaries (Gunn, Oman, Houle, 2007”
study as fish survival notably that of brook trout is linked more narrowly with acidity
than it is with conductivity. In future sampling, it would be important to identify pH
hotspots as a compliment to the current conductivity hotspots. This data could be used to
pinpoint the most important sources of pollution as well as the best areas for public
awareness activities such as door to door campaigns and public clean-ups. It could also
help isolate sources of industrial pollution.
For future sampling, control sites should be established as we have no means of
comparison for our current conductivity data. A site perhaps near Rotary Park, away
from sources of stormwater pollution could be used as a reference as well as other sites
along the creek which are also not particularly affected by stormwater runoff. By doing
this, it would be possible to establish a norm and hence create goals for the improvement
of salinity levels in Junction Creek. These goals could be presented to City of Greater
Sudbury (CGS) officials as part of a proposal by the Junction Creek Stewardship
Committee to encourage CGS to adopt a Stormwater run off Management Plan.
The results of this study are somewhat of an eye opener as the northern reaches of the
creek, which were thought to be by far the most healthy show elevated levels of salinity
(conductivity) and may be not be ideal trout habitat after all. Also, parts of the creek
running through the Flour Mill area of Sudbury show lower than expected conductivity.
A surprise as this part of the creek is generally thought to be one of the most polluted.
Also, it would seem that there is a serious problem with two particular sources of
industrial runoff in reach 15 of the creek near Kelly Lake with two readings of over 2000
uS. As a whole, this study has succeeded in its main goal of identifying stormwater
pollution hotspots, but to maximize its credibility and value, more conductivity and
temperature sampling must be completed and pH values must be assessed creek-wide.
Appendix 1.
TO BE SCANNED SOON.
Appendix 2
Conductivity data compiled July 17th, in light of discrepencies in
previous data related to heavy rainfall events preceeding sampling.
Reach
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
Pipe ID
R1-01
R2-01
R4-01
R5-02
R6-08
R7-01
R8-01
R11-13
R12-01
R13-21
R14-02
R15-04
Conductivity Temperature Conditions
502
13.9 Sunny
1910
18.4 Sunny
1166
17.5 Sunny
455
18.6 Shaded
226
18.9 Sunny
604
18.9 Sunny
430
19.1 Sunny
265
19.1 Sunny
294
18.7 Sunny
304
18.7 Sunny
680
15.9 Sunny
1189
19.4 Sunny
REFERENCES
1. Water Quality and Thermal Conditions in Upper Junction Creek and its
Tributaries (Gunn, Oman, Houle, 2007)
2. http://wfs.sdstate.edu/sdgap/fish/Fish%20hab%20affin/brook%20trout.pdf.
(unknown author)