Making a Correlation Between Amount of Precipitation and Escherichia coli Levels at

Anicinabe Beach, Kenora, Ontario

Work Term completed at the Northwestern Health Unit by Rebeca Deslauriers
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Faculty of Environmental Science
Co-operative Education Option, ENVR3910
University of Manitoba
Presented to Leslie Goodman, Faculty of Environment
March 1, 2015
ABSTRACT
The Northwestern Health Unit conducts testing and inspection activities of
recreational waters to determine the water quality. Escherichia coli is an indicator
bacterium that is not necessarily pathogenic itself, but when densities become elevated,
so do densities of other pathogenic organisms. The Northwestern Health Unit conducts
sampling of Escherichia coli to determine the safety of the waters for recreational use.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the levels of Escherichia coli of five
different sites at Anicinabe Beach, Kenora, Ontario, from 2010 to 2013. If a site or sites
show consistently elevated levels of Escherichia coli, then further explore possibilities of
the cause.

From 2010 to 2013, Escherichia coli densities occasionally exceeded the

Northwestern Health Units Recreational Water Quality Objective. Site 5 which is
located in a marshy corner of the beach and in the concavity of the area, with a drainage
point, showed consistently elevated levels of Escherichia coli but the cause was
inconclusive. No correlation between precipitation levels and Escherichia coli densities
could be made due to the lack of data recorded.
Information gaps still remain as to the cause of Escherichia coli elevated levels.
Recommendations include more frequent sampling and possibly weekly surveys to better
identify the factors contributing to observed spikes in populations; conducting a genetic
analysis of the Escherichia coli samples to better determine the sources of elevated
Escherichia coli levels; and create an early-warning predictive model for Escherichia
coli levels. This would help the Northwestern Health Unit to better protect the publics
health and safety, which is the primary goal and objective.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Introduction
Methods and Materials
Results
Discussion
Recommendations
Conclusion
Works Cited
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4

2
5
6
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
20
26

List of Figures
Figure 1: Birds-eye-view of Anicinabe Beach, located in Golf Course Bay. Page 8

Figure 2: Map depicting the location of the sampling sites, the out-flow sites, the
direction of run-off flow, and buildings surrounding the beach. Page 9
Figure 3: The comparison of precipitation levels and E. coli levels in July 2010. Page
10
Figure 4: Graph showing the comparison of precipitation levels and E. coli levels in July
2012 at Anicinabe Beach. Page 12INTRODUCTION
Recreational water quality generally falls under provincial and territorial
jurisdiction (Health Canada, 2012). Responsibility for the safe management of
recreational waters can be shared between the provincial-territorial authorities and the
beach managers or service providers (Health Canada, 2012). Recreational waters are
considered to be any natural fresh, marine or estuarine that is used for recreation;
including lakes, rivers and human-made constructions that are filled with untreated
natural waters. The principal health risk associated with exposure to recreational water
quality hazards causing infection as a result of contact with pathogenic microorganisms
(Williamson et al, 2004). Other risks include injury or illness due to the physical or
chemical properties of the water (Health Canada, 2012). The best approach to managing
recreational waters is based on a preventive risk management strategy that focuses on the
identification and control of water quality hazards and their associated risks before users
could be exposed (Health Canada, 2012).
The primary goal of the Northwestern Health Unit is the protection of public
health and safety (Northwestern Health Unit, n.d.). The Northwestern Health Unit
conducts testing and inspection activities to determine the quality of recreational water.
Public Health Inspectors and Environmental Health Students collect water samples from

municipally owned and operated beaches every second or third week from June to
September. Other beaches with public access may also be tested where the Medical
Officer of Health believes swimming may result in illness.
The recreational water is tested for Escherichia coli (E. coli) levels; E. coli are an
ideal indicator of fecal contamination in freshwater. According to the Ontario Guideline
for Water Quality (Public Health Division, 2014), any beach water sample (minimum five
samples per beach) over 100 E. coli Colony Forming Units (CFU) per 100mL of water is
an adverse sample, while the Canadian guideline is 200 E. coli CFU per 100mL (Health
Canada, 2012).
Guideline values for E. coli have been developed based on the analysis of
epidemiological evidence relating concentrations of E. coli to the incidence of
swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness (Health Canada, 2012). If there are high
levels of bacteria in the water, swimmers are at risk for ear, nose, eye and/or throat
irritations, and gastrointestinal issues; typical symptoms include mild fever, vomiting,
diarrhea, and stomach cramps. (Northwestern Health Unit, n.d.). E. coli itself does not
generally cause illness, but increases the risk of becoming ill from other organisms is
elevated when E. coli is present in large numbers (Williamson et al, 2004).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Every beach was sampled based on the schedule outlined in by the Medical
Officer of Health. The water sample was picked up on Tuesdays only, and beach
sampling was done on the morning of the pick-up day. Five samples were taken at beach,

every time, from the designated sample points indicated on the sampling map shown in
Figure 2: the location of the five sampling sites at Anicinabe Beach.
The beach sampling sites were clearly named and numbered 1 through 5 on the
Bacteriological Analysis of Water Form with attached barcodes from the corresponding
sampling bottle.
A separate Bacteriological Analysis of Water Form was used for each beach to
ensure all 5 results were on the same page and all 5 results would be easily faxed from
the Thunder Bay lab in the event of an adverse sample.
While at the beach the technician completed the Public Beach Routine
Surveillance Field Data Report (Appendix 1) according to the conditions present at the
time of sampling using a separate form for each beach.
Samples were taken at their designated point on the map, as shown in Figure 2, in
at least three feet depth of water and at least one foot below the surface of the water.
Samples that were off a dock were taken at a minimum of one foot below the surface of
the water.
When handling the sample bottle:
-

Remove the cap carefully, being sure not to touch the inside of the cap or the
inside neck of the bottle with your fingers as this may cause contamination to the

sample.
Do not place the cap down on the ground or on the dock, as it may cause

contamination and an adverse sample.

Do not rinse or pour out the white powder in the bottle.
Fill the bottle to the MAX FILL LINE printed outside of the bottle. It is

important to fill the bottle in order to have accurate amount for testing.
Twist the bottle cap on securely to ensure it is tightly sealed and does not leak.

Immediately place the filled bottle of water into the cooler with ice. Do not allow
the cooler or water bottles to be left in the direct sun, as increased temperatures
will affect the result.

When transporting the sample bottles:

-

Always keep and transport the water samples in the cooler with an ice pack.
Pack the water samples and the Bacteriological Analysis of Water Form in the

cooler. Tape the cooler shut.

Have the cooler full of samples sent to the Thunder Bay Public Health Lab on the
same day as they were collected.

For the purpose of this paper, the data collected is from Anicinabe Beach, Kenora,
Ontario. The data is from 2010-2013, the raw data is found on Appendix 3, and the
sampling locations are shown in Figure 2.

SITE DESCRIPTION
Anicinabe Beach is located in Kenora, Ontario, on Lake of the Woods. It is
situated in Golf Course Bay, and the current flows into the bay, towards the beach.

Figure 1: Birds-eye-view of Anicinabe Beach, located in Golf Course Bay; at the circle
stating Lake of the Woods. (Google Maps, 2012)

There is a sewage and wastewater line running underwater on the North side of
the dock. The land around the beach slopes downwards toward the beach and water,
causing runoff to move towards the water.

Figure 2: Map depicting the location of the sampling sites, the out-flow sites, the
direction of run-off flow, and buildings surrounding the beach. Site 1 is located in the
main swimming area of the beach. Site 2 is located off the dock and in the main
swimming area. Site 3 is located by a run-off drain, outside of the swimming area. Site 4
is located in the drop off area of the beach, Southwest of a run-off zone; the drop off area
has a small drop of about ten feet off the shoreline in the water. Site 5 is located in the
Northeast corner of the beach; this area is very weedy, rarely used by swimmers therefore
highly used by waterfowl, surrounded by multiple run-off zones, and in a concavity of the
area. (Northwestern Health Unit, 2014).

The main types of activity at Anicinabe Beach are recreational use including
swimming, boating, and camping. Waterfowl, domestic animals, and deer often frequent
the grassy areas surrounding the water, and the beach.
The precipitation data was collected from Weather Underground, as it was the
source used by the Northwestern Health Unit in 2014 and past years.

RESULTS
A preliminary review of the data including E. coli levels and amount of
precipitation was done for the months of June, July and August, for the years 2010 to
2013. Please see Appendix 3 for the related charts that show the raw data of the sampling
days with the related E. coli data, and the amounts of precipitation for the months June to
August for the years 2010 to 2013.
For June 2010, the acceptable limit of E. coli was exceeded at site 5 in two
separate sampling events. All other sites were well below the acceptable limit of 100
CFU per 100mL of water.

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E. coli Levels in July 2010

100

Precipitation

80
Site 1

60
Precipitation (mm)

Site 2

40

Site 3

20

Site 4

Site 5

July 2010

Figure 3: The comparison of precipitation levels and E. coli levels in July 2010.

For July 2010, site 5 exceeded the acceptable limit at three different sampling
events, and at the end of the month, all sites exceeded the acceptable limit of E. coli.
This coincided with a sewage and wastewater pipe failure that potentially contaminated
the body of water but was not well documented (C. Deslauriers, personal communication,
December 2014). For August 2010, the beginning of the month showed E. coli levels that
exceeded the acceptable limit, which could also be due to the sewage and wastewater
pipe burst. In 2010, Anicinabe Beach was sampled an average of 5 times a month,
regardless of precipitation levels.
For June 2011, the data did not show any significant E.coli or precipitation levels;
all E. coli samples were well below the acceptable limit. For July 2011, there is one data
point at site 4 on July 18, which exceeded the acceptable limit and no rainfall reported
within three or more days of the sampling day. For August 2011, there was a fairly high
amount of rainfall on August 16, and on August 17, there were elevated E. coli counts at
sites 2, 3, and 5. For 2011, Anicinabe Beach was sampled 5 times a month, regardless of
precipitation levels.
For June 2012, there were elevated levels of E. coli above the acceptable level of
100 CFU per 100mL of water on June 11, which followed a high amount of precipitation
event. Site 5 showed two other elevated levels of E. coli, over the acceptable level, but
there are no elevated levels of precipitation around the dates of these events.

10

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in July 2012

30
25
20
15
Precipitation (mm) 10
5
0

Precipitation

200
150
100
50

Site 1
E.coli (CFU)

Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

July, 2012

Figure 4: Graph showing the comparison of precipitation levels and E. coli levels
in July 2012 at Anicinabe Beach.
For July 2012, site 4 and 5 showed two sampling events over the acceptable E.
coli level, on the same day. July 11 showed 4 out 5 sites had E. coli levels higher than the
acceptable 100 CFU level, but very little rain leading up the that day. In August 2012,
there was no significant data to report on. In 2012, Anicinabe Beach had the water
sampled only four times each month, regardless of precipitation levels.
For June 2013, there was one sample that had an E. coli level above the
acceptable level, and that was at site 5. For July and August 2013, there is no significant
data to report on. In 2013, the amount of sampling was cut in half; sampling was only
done two days a month, regardless of precipitation levels.

DISCUSSION
Guideline values for water quality parameters are one important component of the
overall risk management approach to safe recreational water quality. The Canadian
recreational water quality standard for E. coli concentration is less than or equal to 200 E.

11

coli CFU per 100mL for the geometric mean of the five samples (minimum), and a single
sample has a maximum concentration of less than or equal to 400 E. coli per 100 mL of
water (Health Canada, 2012). The Northwestern Health Unit surpasses this guideline by
declaring the geometric mean of five samples to be 100 E. coli CFU per 100 mL of water,
which is the same as the Ontario guideline as set by the Public Health Division (2014). If
the samples E. coli count exceeds the objective, the Northwestern Health Unit will close
the beach, by having announcements on their website, on the radio and in the local paper.
In previous years, the NWHU would put up signage at the beach declaring it closed, but
they have chosen to post permanent signage warning swimmers to use at their own risk.
According to Northwestern Health Unit (n.d.), some reasons E. coli levels
increase are following heavy rainfall and excessive run-off, and waterfowl feces. The
Health Unit is not as concerned about the cause or source of the high E. coli levels but
about protecting the public.
Throughout the years studied, sites 4 and 5 showed significantly higher E. coli
counts than the other sites. Sites 4 and 5 are both located close to significant surface
runoff and groundwater discharge sites; as seen on the map in Figure 2. As well, geese
often frequent the beach and grassy areas surrounding Anicinabe beach, making it likely
that waterfowl feces and run off are causes of higher E. coli counts in this area.
There is insufficient data to definitively correlate E. coli levels with precipitation
events. Studies conducted elsewhere have linked elevated E. coli levels in beach sand is
transferred to inshore bathing water when lake levels rise during strong wind events and
run-off (Williamson et al, 2004). Genetic analyses suggest that the largest known source
of E. coli in beach sand is from shorebirds and geese (Williamson et al, 2004). According

12

to a study done by Dale Wiebe, P. Eng., Environmental Engineer (2009), municipal

beaches in the (Lake of the Woods) area experience closures over the summer due
primarily to urban runoff and municipal sewer overflow associated with rain events,
though a few may be due to waterfowl gatherings or have no obvious cause. This may
assist to explain the spikes in E. coli observed in the previous years along the beach.

Sampling of Anicinabe Beach, and the other recreational waters in Kenora, by the
NWHU is pre-determined prior to the swimming season. This means the sampling is
done regardless of precipitation amount or weather events. The data shows a decrease in
the number of times the beach is sampled, starting at five times a month in 2010 down to
twice a month in 2013. In order to compensate for the decreased frequency of sampling,
the NWHU had to post permanent signage warning the public of the possibility of
contamination by E. coli. The number of times a beach must be sampled is determined by
a risk assessment, more frequent sampling may be carried out for public beaches that are
prone to changes due to variations in environmental conditions (Public Health Division,
2014), which is shown to important in the case of Lake Winnipeg. If such an assessment
of Anicinabe Beach was done, it has not been made available to the public.
Recommendations

The Northwestern Health Unit should sample more frequently through the
swimming season to better monitor the E. coli levels and protect the publics
health. Even with the permanent signage, it makes the public more comfortable

knowing when it is and is not safe to swim.

A site-specific hydrological survey would allow the NWHU to better understand
the relationship between surface and groundwater dynamics, which could lead to

13

an increase in E. coli counts, and ensure a better understanding of the run-off

processes of the area. A large-scale hydrologic survey has been done on Lake of
the Woods, which has allowed researchers and governments an increased ability
to predict and manage problems surrounding health and water quality (Oblak,
2009). Based on the analysis of past records of the system, the future behavior of
the system is estimated statistically (Li, n.d.). This approach considers land use,
climate, vegetation, soil conditions, and other factors to be static (Li, n.d.). As
well, a mathematical model can be used to simulate the hydrologic processes
directly (Li, n.d.). It transforms the inputs such as rainfall to output such as runoff

or stream-flow (Li, n.d.).

Public recreational water quality samples are collected and sent away for the
analysis of E. coli and there is generally a three-day turn-around period before
results are available. This lag time has been identified as too long to address
immediate health concerns (Health Canada, 2012), I suggest using ecological
models (i.e. forecasting conditions using various weather patterns and sources of
local bacterial contamination) based on historic information to identify when
certain beaches may have high contamination levels. This would allow the
NWHU to respond in a proactive manner to potential health threats at beaches,

and follow-up with on-site testing.

The NWHU should collect data to better determine the cause of the increased E.
coli levels, which could include sampling after heavy rains and flooding at nontraditional times such as in summer washes as increased E. coli levels are
expected during and after these events, and genetic analysis testing the E. coli

14

samples to determine the cause of origin. This would allow the Medical Officer
of Health to better determine how frequent the beaches should be sampled.

In contrast, Lake Winnipeg has the beaches monitored once a week, with a
minimum of five samples taken from each beach, and posts advisory signage (Manitoba
Water Stewardship, 2011). This allows for any changes in E. coli levels to be
documented, and in the case of adverse samples for the beach to be closed. Sampling
frequently allowed Manitoba Water Stewardship to develop an early-warning predictive
model for E. coli levels, as the lake is very sensitive to changes in environmental
conditions (Manitoba Water Stewardship, 2011). This has shown that Manitoba Water
Stewardship is able to better protect the publics health (Manitoba Water Stewardship,
2011).

CONCLUSION
Recreational waters are tested for Escherichia coli. Escherichia coli are indicator
bacteria, which indicate densities of pathogenic bacteria. E. coli are not necessarily
pathogenic themselves but can lead to gastrointestinal discomfort. The Northwestern
Health Unit considers any beach water sample over 100 E. coli per 100 mL to be an
adverse sample. If there are high levels of bacteria in the water, the NWHU will close the
beach. Data from Anicinabe Beach, 2010 to 2013, was used for the purpose of this paper.
The data showed E. coli densities that exceeded the acceptable limit, but there was

15

insufficient data to determine the elevated levels of E. coli levels and to make a
correlation between precipitation and E. coli levels.
There are many improvements that can be made to the sampling program to assist
in this monitoring effort. My analysis suggests more frequent sampling, sampling after
heavy rains and flooding at non-traditional times, a site-specific hydrological
assessment, the development of ecological models to decrease lag time and genetic
analysis of the E. coli to determine its source.

WORKS CITED
Google Maps. (2012). Golf Course Bay, Kenora, Ontario. Retrieved January 29, 2015,
from https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.7499845,-94.4714172,2525m/data=!3m1!1e3
Health Canada (2012). Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality, Third
Edition. Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer
Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. (Catalogue No H129-15/2012E).
Li, J. (n.d.). A Holistic Approach to Stormwater Management. Ryerson University.
Retrieved February 1, 2015, from
http://www.civil.ryerson.ca/Stormwater/menu_4/index.htm
Manitoba Water Stewardship. (2011) State of Lake Winnipeg: 1997 to 2007. Environment
Canada. Manitoba Water Stewardship.
Public Health Division (2014). Beach Management Guidance Document, 2014. Public
Health Policy and Programs Branch. Public Health Division. Ministry of Health and
Long-term Care. Retrieved January 29, 2015, from
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/guidance/
guide_beach.pdf.
Northwestern Health Unit (2014). Map of Sampling Points at Anicinabe Beach.
Northwestern Health Unit. (n.d.). Beach Monitoring. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from
https://www.nwhu.on.ca/ourservices/EnvironmentalHealth/Pages/Beach-Monitoring.aspx
Oblak, J.A. (2014). Water and Health In Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basins.
Health Professionals Task Force International Joint Commission. Accessed February 1,
2015.

16

Weather Underground. (2015). Kenora, Ontario. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from
http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/zmw:00000.1.71850
Wiebe, D. (2009) P.Eng.,Environmental Engineer, Northwestern Health Unit comm.
Williamson, D.A., W.E. Ralley, A. Bourne, N. Armstrong, R. Fortin, and C.E. Hughes.
2004. Principal factors affecting Escherichia coli densities at Lake Winnipeg beaches.
Water Quality Management Section. Manitoba Water Stewardship. Manitoba Water
Stewardship Report No. 2004-01.

Appendix1:PublicBeachRoutineSurveillanceFieldDataReport,
NorthwesternHealthUnit(n.d.).

17

Appe
ndix2:Data:E.colicountsfromAnicinabeBeachfrom2010to2013,
providedbytheNorthwesternHealthUnit(20102013).
18

Anicinab
e
2010
1

20

10

10

30

20

08-Jun

10

10

20

20

10

15-Jun

10

20

50

30

360

22-Jun

30

10

10

10

730

29-Jun

10

10

10

10

40

06-Jul

40

10

10

50

850

13-Jul

10

10

100

10

50

20-Jul

240

90

20

130

100

27-Jul

250

280

640

1000

660

29-Jul

250

300

70

450

210

29-Jul

300

690

180

980

90

03-Aug

280

130

110

430

170

03-Aug

330

80

240

130

140

05-Aug

110

60

20

10

100

05-Aug

150

90

60

400

20

09-Aug

160

110

240

200

210

11-Aug

160

80

10

130

20

11-Aug
17-Aug

320
120

10
10

60
30

40
150

50
110

24-Aug

30

90

30

40

30

01-Sep

90

10

240

60

70

16.4375183
13.1950791
1
40.4282321
7
29.3825052
9
13.1950791
1
44.2679880
7
21.8672414
8
89.1015829
9
494.497829
8
218.332416
9
318.670812
1
196.463686
6
163.071216
6
42.0837843
3
91.6885281
5
177.743873
4
50.6333501
7
52.1034216
9
56.8535109
39.5852373
2
61.8786183
9

Anicinab
e
2011
1

GeoMean

Beach Name:
Year:
Sample Number:
Date:
01-Jun

Beach Name:
Year:
Sample Number:

GeoMean

19

Date:
30-May
06-Jun
14-Jun
20-Jun
28-Jun
05-Jul

10
10
30
10
10
20

10
10
10
10
10
40

20
30
10
10
10
40

10
10
10
10
10
80

20
10
10
10
10
80

18-Jul

30

10

10

140

10

11-Jul

10

10

10

20

10

18-Jul

30

10

10

140

10

25-Jul

10

10

20

40

10

02-Aug

10

20

50

50

60

09-Aug

20

110

10

40

50

17-Aug
22-Aug

60
10

100
10

90
10

40
10

110
30

13.1950791
1
12.4573094
12.4573094
10
10
45.9479342
21.1178576
5
11.4869835
5
21.1178576
5
15.1571656
7
31.2913464
5
33.7824027
6
75.0186573
8
12.4573094

Anicinab
e
2012
1

GeoMean

04-Jun

10

10

10

10

40

11-Jun
19-Jun

160
30

80
30

160
10

130
50

150
140

25-Jun

110

10

10

100

180

03-Jul
09-Jul
17-Jul
24-Jul

10
10
30
10

10
10
20
10

10
10
50
10

10
10
490
10

40
10
710
10

30-Jul

100

40

60

150

90

07-Aug
13-Aug

10
10

10
10

10
10

20
20

30
80

20-Aug
28-Aug

20
10

10
10

50
10

10
10

60
10

Beach Name:
Year:
Sample Number:
Date:

13.1950791
1
131.908539
8
36.2967809
45.6386761
3
13.1950791
1
10
100.8591112
10
79.8194998
3
14.3096908
1
17.41101127
22.6793315
5
10

20

Anicinab
e
2013
1

GeoMean

10

10

10

10

10

11-Jun
25-Jun

80
10

50
10

70
10

10
10

150
10

09-Jul
30-Jul
13-Aug
27-Aug

20
10
10
10

10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10

10
10
10
40

10
10
10
30

10
53.0456600
9
10
11.4869835
5
10
10
16.4375183

Beach Name:

Year:
Sample Number:
Date:
28-May

Appendix3:ChartscomparingprecipitationlevelsandE.colicountsateach
ofthefivesitesatAnicinabeBeach.

Comparing Precipitation and E. coli Levels in June 2010

25

800

20

600

15

400

Precipitation (mm) 10
5

200

Precipitation
Site 1
E. coli (CFU)

Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

June 2010

Figure 1: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in June, 2010.

21

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E. coli Levels in July 2010

100

1200

80

1000
Site 1

800

60
Precipitation (mm)

Precipitation

600

40

E. Coli (CFU)

400

20
0

Site 2
Site 3

200

Site 4

Site 5

July 2010

Figure 2: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in July, 2010.

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E. coli Levels in August 2010

25

500

20

400

15

300

Site 1

200 E. coli (CFU)

Site 2

Precipitation (mm) 10
5

100

Precipitation

Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

August 2010

Figure 3: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in August, 2010.

22

Comparing Precipication Levels and E. coli Levels in June 2011

20
18
16
14
12
10
Precipitation (mm) 8
6
4
2
0

35
30
25
20
15 E. coli (CFU)
10
5

Precipitation
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

June 2011

Figure 4: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in June, 2011.

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E. coli Levels for July 2011

50

160
140
120
100
80
60 E. coli (CFU)
40
20
0

40
30
Precipitation (mm) 20
10
0

Precipitation
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

July 2011

Figure 5: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in July, 2011.

23

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in August 2011

45
40
35
30
Precipitation (mm)

25
20
15
10
5
0

120

Precipitation

100

Site 1
Site 2

80
60
40

E.coli (CFU)

Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

20
0

Figure 6: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in August, 2011.

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in June 2012

Precipitation
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

June 2012

Figure 7: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in June, 2012.

24

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in July 2012

Precipitation
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

Figure 8: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in July, 2012.

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in August 2012

16
14
12
10
8
Precipitation (mm) 6
4
2
0

100

Precipitation

80
Site 1

60
40

E.coli (CFU)

Site 2
Site 3

20

Site 4

Site 5

August, 2012

Figure 9: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in August, 2012.

25

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in June, 2013

12

160

10

140
120

8
Precipitation (mm)

Precipitation

100
80

60

40
20

Site 1
E.coli (CFU)

Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5

June, 2013

Figure 10: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in June, 2013.

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in July, 2013

60

25

50

20

40
Precipitation (mm)

30
20

Precipitation

15

Site 1

10 E.coli (CFU)

Site 3

10

Site 2
Site 4
Site 5

July, 2013

Figure 11: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in July, 2013.

26

Comparing Precipitation Levels and E.coli Levels in August, 2013

14
12
10
8
Precipitation (mm) 6
4
2
0

50

Precipitation

40
30
20 E.coli (CFU)

Site 1
Site 2
Site 3

10

Site 4

Site 5

August, 2013

Figure 12: Showing the comparison between precipitation and E. coli

levels in August, 2013.
Appendix 4: Precipitation data from Weather Underground.
Weather Underground. (2015). Kenora, Ontario. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from
http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/zmw:00000.1.71850
Table 1: Precipitation levels for June to August 2010
Year

Month
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010

Day
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Precipitati
on (mm)
2.2
0
0
20
0
0
0
17
4
2.2
4.2
1.8
1.2
0
0
0
4

27

2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2

19.8
0.4
0.8
0.4
9.4
0
0
0
6.2
2.7
0
0
0
3.6
0
87.8
0.6
0
0.8
0
0
0.4
10.2
0
0
2
9.4
0
0.4
2.8
0
0
1.2
0
59.4
0.4
0
0
23.6
16.6
0
0
1.8
10.4
1.6
3.6

28

2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

1.4
0.4
2.6
0
0
14.6
0
0.4
0.9
0
0
7
12.2
0.6
2
0
0
0
1.6
0
3.6
3.6
0
0
0
0
4.4
19.4
0.6

Table 2: Precipitation levels for June to August 2011

Year

Month
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011

Day
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Precipitati
on (mm)
4.4
3
12
0.2
2.8
0
2.4
7.8
0
0
0

29

2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

0
1.2
0
0
0
0.2
18.6
0.2
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
10.4
3.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
42.2
0
0
10.2
0
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.2
0
0
0
1.2
0
0
0.4

30

2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011

7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

0
0
0
0
0.4
26.8
0
3
0
0
0
2.2
0.4
0.4
1.4
0
0
0
0
41.2
0.2
5.8
1
7
0.2
0
0
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
9.8
2.8

Table 3: Precipitation levels for June to August 2012

Year

Month
2012
2012
2012

Day
6
6
6

1
2
3

Precipitati
on (mm)
0
0
0

31

2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

0
0
0
0
1.8
0
82.2
4.2
1.6
6.6
0
0
11.4
0
7
2
7.6
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.6
0
5.8
1.8
0
0
0
0
22.8
0
0
5.2
27.8
0
0
0

32

2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3

0
0
7.2
0
0
0.8
25.4
0
0
11.2
0
0
5.4
0
14.2
3.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.8
0
0
10.8
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
2.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0

33

2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012

9
9
9
9
9
9
9

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.6
0.2
2.6
1
1
0
0

Table 4: 2013 Precipitation Levels (mm)

Year

Month
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013

Day
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3

Precipitati
on (mm)
5.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.06
9.91
0
0
0
6.1
2.03
1.02
0
0
2.03
0
0
0
5.08
0
0
5.08
2.03
7.87
0
0
0
0
0

34

2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

0
5.08
0.51
0
0
11.94
0
0
3.05
0
0
0
6.1
0
6.1
0
0
7.11
49.02
0
0.51
9.91
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.05
0
0
2.03
2.03
0.51
0
6.1
0.51
0
0.76
0.76
0
0
0
0
0
0.51

35

2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

0
0
0
0
0
7.87
0
0
0
0
6.1
0
11.94

36