United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants
June 2002
-------
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Off ice of Water (4305T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
-------
Foreword
Our nation's beaches are a valuable recreational resource and one of the top vacation choices for
Americans. Whether we use them for swimming, boating, or simply relaxing and enjoying the
aesthetic qualities, beaches are important to most Americans. EPA estimates that each year
Americans take millions of trips to coastal areas and spend billions of dollars at beach
destinations and communities.
To help protect public health at the Nation's beaches, the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act was signed into law in October 2000. The BEACH Act
requires EPA to publish performance criteria for monitoring and assessing coastal recreation
waters and for promptly notifying the public when those waters exceed applicable water quality
standards. The act also authorizes EPA to award grants to help governments implement beach
monitoring and notification programs that are consistent with the performance criteria.
This document, the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants,
outlines the performance criteria that eligible coastal or Great Lakes state, tribal, or local
governments must meet to receive grants to implement coastal recreation water monitoring and
public notification programs under the BEACH Act. This document also provides useful
guidance for both coastal and inland beach monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH
Act, however, authorizes the award of grant funds to support monitoring and notification
programs for coastal recreation waters only.
EPA developed this document in a cooperative consultation process with a wide variety of
agencies and interested parties. The Agency hosted several regional workshops to identify
preliminary concepts and gather specific recommendations. Following the workshops, EPA
developed a draft guidance document, and several review teams provided detailed comments to
EPA for consideration. EPA published a draft document on July 31, 2001, and announced a 60-
day comment period that closed on October 1, 2001. During the comment period, EPA, the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and the Coastal
States Organization hosted five public forums throughout the United States to discuss the draft.
This final document incorporates responses to those comments and others that EPA received.
With the publication of the final National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants, we are taking an important step forward in implementing the BEACH Act. We look
forward to a continued cooperative effort with our partners to protect and improve the quality of
our nation's beaches.
G. Tracy Mrf
Assistant Acfaifiistrator for Water
-------
Acknowledgments
The National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants was prepared by
the Office of Science and Technology within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Water. Close cooperation with other EPA offices and other partners at the federal, state, and
local levels helped us fully develop and improve the document.
The principal coauthors are Thomas Armitage, Rick Hoffmann, and Charles Kovatch within
OST. EPA was supported in the development of the document by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax,
Virginia, under EPA Contract 68-C-169, with assistance from James Collins, Amy Cosgrove,
Esther Peters, Martha Martin, and Jonathan Simpson.
They were greatly assisted, from concept to completion of the document, by the internal Beach
Guidance Review Team members from EPA's headquarters, regional offices, and other offices.
Review team members from the Office of Water included Lisa Almodovar, Rod Frederick,
Latisha Parker, Jim Pendergast, Robert Shippen, Steve Schaub, Elizabeth Southerland, and
James Woodley. The individuals from the Office of General Counsel included Leslie Darman
and Carol Ann Siciliano. EPA regional beach coordinators included Terry Fleming, Helen
Grebe, Nancy Grundahl, Joel Hansel, Janet Hashimoto, Matt Liebman, Rob Petersen, Mike
Schaub, Holly Wirick, and Phil Woods. The representatives from the Office of Research and
Development included Kris Brenner, Mimi Dannel, and Alfred Dufour.
The authors especially acknowledge the many thoughtful comments received from the external
Beach Guidance Review Team. This group, composed of representatives from state and local
environmental and health agencies as well as various environmental groups (see appendix A),
contributed many hours and added significantly to the development and review of this document.
Members included James Alamillo, Fred Banach, Bart Bibler, Kathy Brohan, Sarah Chasis, Jody
Connor, Fred Earnhardt, Linda Eichmiller, Richard Eskin, Suzanne Giles, Mark Gold, Darryl
Hatheway, Catherine Hazelwood, Mark Horton, Ramesh Kapur, Kerry Kehoe, Virginia Loftin,
Bob Masanado, Robin McCraw, Ray Montgomery, Bruce Moulton, Judy Nelson, Jan Newton,
Jack Pingree, Debbie Rouse, Dave Rosenblatt, Nancy Ross, Fun Shimabukuro, Susan Sylvester,
Sol Sussman, Mitzy Taggart, Blake Traudt, and Leslie Williams.
-------
Executive Summary
This document, the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants,
outlines the performance criteria that eligible coastal or Great Lakes state, tribal, or local
governments must meet to receive grants to implement coastal recreation water monitoring and
public notification programs under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
Act (BEACH Act). This document also provides useful guidance for both coastal and inland
beach monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Act, however, authorizes the award of
grant funds to support monitoring and notification programs for coastal recreation waters only.
This document sets forth performance criteria for (1) monitoring and assessing coastal recreation
waters adjacent to beaches (or similar points of access used by the public) to determine
attainment of applicable water quality standards for pathogen indicators and (2) promptly
notifying the public of any exceedance or likelihood of exceedance of applicable water quality
standards for pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters. EPA is required to publish such
performance criteria under Clean Water Act section 406(a). Section 406(b) authorizes EPA to
award grants to states and tribes to implement monitoring and notification programs, but only if
the programs meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is that the monitoring and
notification programs must be consistent with EPA's performance criteria. The performance
criteria provide the basis for EPA's evaluation of grant applications when deciding whether to
award monitoring and notification program implementation grants under section 406(b). This
document is intended to be used by potential grant recipients to implement effective monitoring
and notification programs that will be eligible for grants under section 406. This document also
includes EPA's recommendations for implementing programs consistent with the performance
criteria. The general requirements of the nine performance criteria are summarized below;
specific requirements are discussed in the relevant chapters.
Category
Evaluation and
Classification
Monitoring
Public Notification and
Prompt Risk
Communication
Public Evaluation
Performance
Criterion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
General Requirements
Develop risk-based beach evaluation and
classification plan
Develop tiered monitoring plan
Monitoring report submission and delegation
Methods and assessment procedures
Public notification and risk communication plan
Measures to notify EPA and local governments
Measures to notify the public
Notification report submission and delegation
Public evaluation of program
Chapter
Where Discussed
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
-------
In addition, this document also can serve as a reference guide for how and when to conduct
preliminary beach assessments because it outlines protocols for water sample collection, sample
handling, and laboratory analysis. It also provides information about using predictive models to
estimate indicator levels and includes procedures for notifying the public about beach advisories,
closings, and openings.
The document contains five chapters and accompanying appendices. Chapter 1 describes the
BEACH Act and summarizes human health concerns related to microbial contamination of
recreation waters. Chapter 2 outlines the performance criteria. Chapter 3 introduces the risk-
based beach evaluation and classification process for prioritizing waters for monitoring and
notification. Chapter 4 gives the methodology for monitoring and assessing recreation waters,
and Chapter 5 explains risk communication and the process for notifying the public of health
hazards due to bacterial contamination.
For more information on the performance criteria or implementation grants, please contact: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, BEACH Program (4305T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. (See appendix B or the BEACH Watch
web site athttp://www.epa.gov/waterscience^eaches/contact.html).
-------
Contents
Tables xii
Figures xii
Acronyms xiii
1. Introduction
1.1 Program and Document Overview 1-1
1.1.1 BEACH Act 1-2
1.1.2 How This Document Should Be Used 1-3
1.1.3 Organization of Document 1-3
1.2 Pathogen Groups 1-4
1.3 Health Concerns 1-5
1.4 Indicator Organisms 1-8
1.5 Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Bacteria 1-9
1.6 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris 1-10
1.7 References 1-11
2. Grants and Performance Criteria
2.1 BEACH Act Conditions and Requirements Applicable to Section 406 Grants 2-1
2.2 Performance Criteria 2-3
2.2.1 Develop Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Plan (1) 2-4
2.2.2 Develop Tiered Monitoring Plan (2) 2-4
2.2.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation (3) 2-5
2.2.4 Methods and Assessment Procedures (4) 2-5
2.2.5 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan (5) 2-5
2.2.6 Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments (6) 2-5
2.2.7 Measures to Notify the Public (7) 2-6
2.2.8 Notification Report Submission and Delegation (8) 2-6
2.2.9 Public Evaluation of Program (9) 2-6
2.3 Additional Grant Information 2-7
2.3.1 Grant Program Phases 2-7
2.3.2 Eligibility for Grants 2-8
2.3.3 Funding 2-8
2.3.4 Selection Process 2-9
2.3.5 Application Procedure 2-9
2.4 References 2-10
IX
-------
3. Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Process
3.1 Performance Criterion 3-1
3.2 Step 1: Identify Coastal Recreation Waters 3-2
3.2.1 Designated Uses of Waterbodies 3-3
3.2.2 Recreational Uses of Waterbodies 3-3
3.2.3 Coastal Recreation Waters 3-4
3.3 Step 2: Identify Bathing Beaches or Similar Points of Access Used by the Public
for Swimming, Bathing, Surfing, or Similar Water Contact Activities 3-4
3.4 Step 3: Review of Available Information 3-6
3.4.1 Factors That Indicate the Potential for Fecal Contamination 3-7
3.4.2 Use of the Beach 3-11
3.4.3 Other Factors 3-12
3.5 Step 4: Rank Beaches 3-12
3.6 References 3-14
4. Beach Monitoring and Assessment
4.1 Performance Criteria 4-1
4.2 Tiered Monitoring Plan 4-2
4.2.1 Monitoring Design 4-3
4.2.2 Other Elements of a Monitoring Plan 4-10
4.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation 4-13
4.4 Assessment Methods and Procedures 4-13
4.4.1 Laboratory Analysis 4-14
4.4.2 Analytical Procedures 4-16
4.4.3 Recommended Sample Collection Techniques 4-19
4.4.4 Data Verification and Validation 4-20
4.5 Use of Predictive Tools in Beach Monitoring Programs 4-21
4.6 References 4-24
5. Public Notification and Risk Communication
5.1 Performance Criteria 5-1
5.2 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan 5-3
5.3 Measures to Notify the Public, EPA and Local Governments 5-4
5.3.1 Problem Assessment and Audience Identification 5-4
5.3.2 Types of Notification 5-4
5.3.3 When to Notify 5-7
5.3.4 How to Notify 5-9
5.3.5 When to Remove Notification 5-12
5.3.6 Evaluation of Notification Program Effectiveness 5-13
5.4 Notification Report Submission and Delegation 5-15
5.5 References 5-17
-------
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Beach Guidance Review Team
EPA Grant Coordinators
BEACH Act and Fact Sheet
Indicator Organisms
Data Elements
Beach Evaluation and Classification List
Conducting a Sanitary Survey
Data Quality and Sampling Design Considerations
Training
Sample Collection
Predictive Tools
XI
-------
Tables
Table 1-1 Waterborne Pathogens 1-6
Table 2-1 Summary of BEACH Act Performance Criteria 2-4
Table 3-1 Summary of Risk-Based Evaluation and Classification Process 3-1
Performance Criterion 3-1
Table 4-1 Summary of Monitoring Performance Criteria 4-1
Table 4-2 EPA Recommended Tiered Sampling Design for Beach Managers 4-6
Table 5-1 Summary of Public Notification and Risk Communication Performance 5-9
Criteria 5-1
Table 5-2 Recommended Content for Advisories and Closings 5-8
Table B-l Regional Grant Coordinators B-l
Table D-l Summary of Research Conducted Since 1986 D-3
Table E-l Beaches Program Tracking Draft Data Element List E-l
Table F-l Information to Consider When Ranking and Classifying Your Beaches F-l
Table J-l Chain of Custody Review List J-5
Table J-2 Sample Handling, Preparation, and Analysis List J-6
Table K-l Evaluation of Model Capabilities and Applicability K-4
Table K-2 Watershed-scale Loading Models K-8
Table K-3 Potential Pathogen Fate and Transport Models K-10
Figures
Figure 1-1 Relationship between bacterial indicator organisms 1-9
Figure 3-1 Step 1: Identify recreation waters 3-2
Figure 3-2 Examples of coastal and noncoastal recreation waters 3-4
Figure 3-3 Step 2: Identify beaches and similar points of access 3-5
Figure 3-4 Step 3: Review available information 3-7
Figure 3-5 Step 4: Rank beaches 3-13
Figure H-l Graphical representation of the relationship between bias and precision, and
accuracy H-l5
Figure K-l Predictive tool summary K-7
Xll
-------
Acronyms
AFO Animal feeding operation
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists International
APHA American Public Health Association
ASQC American Society for Quality Control
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
ATP Alternate Test Procedure
AWWA American Water Works Association
BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
CAFO Concentrated animal feeding operation
CPU Colony-forming units
COC Chain of custody
CSO Combined sewer overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
MF Membrane filtration
mL Milliliter
MPN Most probable number
MTF Multiple-tube fermentation
NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC National Research Council
ORD Office of Research and Development
PBMS Performance-based measurement system
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QMP Quality management plan
SOP Standard operating procedure
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USGS United States Geological Survey
WEF Water Environment Federation
Xlll
-------
Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
This document outlines the performance criteria that an eligible coastal or Great Lakes state,
tribal, or local government must meet to receive grants to implement coastal recreation water
monitoring and public notification programs under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act. The coastal recreation waters covered under the grant program are
defined in section 3.2.3 of this document. This document also provides useful guidance for both
coastal and inland beach monitoring and notification programs. The BEACH Act, however,
authorizes the award of grant funds to support monitoring and notification programs for coastal
recreation waters only.
1.1 Program and Document Overview
Fecal contamination of our nation's recreation waters originates from many sources, including
coastal and shoreline development, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, septic tanks,
urban runoff, disposal of human waste from boats, bathers themselves, animal feeding
operations, and natural animal sources such as wildlife. People who swim and recreate in water
contaminated with fecal pollution are at an increased risk of becoming ill because of pathogens
from the fecal matter. For example, people could contract gastrointestinal diseases;
nongastrointestinal diseases, such as respiratory, ear, eye, and skin infections; or other illnesses
such as meningitis or hepatitis (Rose et al., 1999).
In response to these concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its
BEACH Program in 1997. The goal of the program was to assist states, tribes, and local
government environmental and public health officials in reducing the risk of disease to users of
U.S. recreation waters. The BEACH Program focused on four key objectives:
• Strengthening water quality standards for bathing beaches
• Improving state, tribal, and local government beach programs
• Providing better information regarding beach water quality to the public
• Promoting scientific research to better protect the health of beach users
EPA also started its annual voluntary survey of state and local agencies that monitor water
quality at beaches. The National Health Protection Survey of Beaches collects information to
determine which local beaches are monitored and what agencies are responsible for beach
programs. The survey also collects detailed information about advisories and closures at specific
beaches. In March 1999 EPA published the Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters
(Beach Action Plan), a multiyear strategy that describes the Agency's programmatic and
scientific research efforts to improve beach programs and research. The Beach Action Plan was
published jointly by EPA's Office of Water and Office of Research and Development (ORD),
and it can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/beaches. Printed copies of the
document (EPA 600/R-98-079) can be ordered through the National Service Center for
June 2002 1-1
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Environmental Publications (NSCEP), at http://www.epa.gov/ncepi or by telephone at 1-800-
490-9198.
1.1.1 BEACH Act
The BEACH Act was passed on October 10, 2000, and amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) by
adding section 406. The BEACH Act addresses pathogens and pathogen indicators in coastal
recreation waters and contains three significant provisions, summarized as follows:
1. The BEACH Act amended the CWA to add section 303(i), which requires states and tribes
that have coastal recreation waters to adopt new or revised water quality standards by
April 10, 2004, for pathogens and pathogen indicators for which EPA has published criteria
under CWA section 304(a). The BEACH Act amendments further direct EPA to promulgate
standards for states and tribes that fail to adopt such standards for such pathogens and
pathogen indicators.
2. The BEACH Act amended the CWA to include section 104(v), which requires EPA to study
issues associated with pathogens and human health and to publish (by 2005) new or revised
CWA section 304(a) criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on that study.
Within 3 years after EPA's publication of the new or revised section 304(a) criteria, states
and tribes that have coastal recreation waters must adopt new or revised water quality
standards for all pathogens and pathogen indicators to which EPA's new or revised section
304(a) criteria apply.
3. The BEACH Act amended the CWA to add section 406, which authorizes EPA to award
grants to states and tribes to develop and implement a program to monitor and assess, for
pathogens and pathogen indicators, coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar
points of access that are used by the public and to notify the public if applicable water quality
standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators are exceeded. EPA may award an
implementation grant only if the applicant meets all of the statutory requirements for
implementation grants. One of these requirements is that the applicant must implement a
monitoring and public notification program that is consistent with performance criteria
published by EPA under the act. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to implement a
monitoring and notification program for coastal recreation waters for states and tribes that do
not have a program consistent with EPA's performance criteria, using grant funds that would
otherwise have been available to those states and tribes. The BEACH Act and an associated
fact sheet are included in appendix C. In addition, a complete copy of the BEACH Act can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/technical.html.
1-2 June 2002
-------
Chapter 1
1.1.2 How This Document Should Be Used
This document sets forth performance criteria for (1) monitoring and assessing coastal recreation
waters adjacent to beaches (or similar points of access used by the public) to determine
attainment of applicable water quality standards for pathogen indicators and (2) promptly
notifying the public of any exceedance or likelihood of exceedance of applicable water quality
standards for pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters. EPA is required to publish such
performance criteria under CWA section 406(a). Section 406(b) authorizes EPA to award grants
to states and tribes to implement a monitoring and notification program, but only if the program
meets certain requirements. (See CWA section 406(b)(2)(A)(i)-(v).) One of these requirements is
that the monitoring and notification programs must be consistent with EPA's performance
criteria. Excerpts from section 406(b)(2)(A) are included in chapter 2.
The performance criteria provide the basis for EPA's evaluation of grant applications when
deciding whether to award monitoring and notification program implementation grants under
section 406(b). This document is intended to be used by potential grant recipients to implement
effective monitoring and notification programs that will be eligible for grants under section 406.
This document also includes EPA's recommendations for implementing programs consistent
with the performance criteria. In addition, this document can serve as a reference guide for how
and when to conduct preliminary beach assessments because it outlines protocols for water
sample collection, sample handling, and laboratory analysis. It also provides information about
using predictive models to estimate indicator levels and includes procedures for notifying the
public about beach advisories, closings, and openings.
1.1.3 Organization of Document
The chapters in this document cover the following topics:
• Chapter 1 discusses human health concerns associated with exposure to pathogens and
discusses the establishment of water quality standards for bacteria.
Chapter 2 summarizes the basic requirements that an applicant must meet to receive a
program implementation grant. The chapter identifies relevant sections of the BEACH Act,
briefly describes the corresponding performance criteria that EPA has developed, and
provides additional grant-related information.
• Chapter 3 describes the risk-based evaluation process that EPA recommends for states and
tribes to classify and prioritize their recreation beaches. This step-by-step approach allows
states and tribes to assess the relative human health risks and usage of their beaches and to
assign an appropriate management ranking to each of them.
June 2002 1-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Chapter 4 discusses the performance criteria related to monitoring and assessment and
provides detailed technical guidance.
• Chapter 5 describes the performance criteria and technical guidance related to the public
notification and risk communication portions of a beach program.
The appendices include detailed technical information associated with the topics discussed in the
five chapters:
• Appendix A: Beach Guidance Review Team
• Appendix B: EPA Grant Coordinators
• Appendix C: BEACH Act and Fact Sheet
• Appendix D: Indicator Organisms
• Appendix E: Data Elements
• Appendix F: Beach Evaluation and Classification List
• Appendix G: Conducting a Sanitary Survey
• Appendix H: Data Quality and Sampling Design Considerations
• Appendix I: Training
• Appendix J: Sample Collection
• Appendix K: Predictive Tools
1.2 Pathogen Groups
Pathogens are defined as disease-causing microorganisms. Microorganisms are ever-present in
all terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Many types are beneficial, functioning as agents for
chemical decomposition, food sources for larger animals, and essential components of the
nitrogen cycle and other biogeochemical cycles. Some microorganisms reside in the bodies of
animals and aid in the digestion of food; others are used for medical purposes such as providing
antibiotics. The small subset of microorganisms that cause human diseases are known as human
pathogens. If taken into the body, such pathogens can cause gastrointestinal illness or even death.
The source of these microorganisms is usually the feces of humans and other warm-blooded
animals. The pathogens most commonly identified and associated with waterborne diseases can
be grouped into three general categories: bacteria, protozoans, and viruses.
Bacteria are unicellular organisms that lack an organized nucleus and contain no chlorophyll.
They contain a single chromosome and typically reproduce by binary fission, during which a
single cell divides to form two new cells. A primary source of concern to EPA is feces from
warm-blooded animals, including fecal waste associated with farming and the discharge of
domestic sewage. Feces can contain many types of bacteria found in waterbodies, including the
coliform group, streptococcus, lactobacillus, staphylococcus, and clostridia. It is important to
note, however, that most bacteria are not pathogenic.
1-4 June 2002
-------
Chapter 1
Protozoans are unicellular organisms that reproduce by fission and occur primarily in the aquatic
environment. Pathogenic protozoans, which constitute almost 30 percent of the 35,000 known
species of protozoans, originate in the feces of warm-blooded animals. They can exist in the
environment as cysts that hatch, grow, and multiply after ingestion, causing associated illness.
Encystation of protozoans facilitates their survival by protecting them from harsh conditions like
high temperature and salinity. Two protozoan species of major concern as waterborne pathogens
are Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidiumparvum.
Viruses are a group of infectious agents that require a host in which to live. They are composed
of a sequence of nucleic acids—either DNA or RNA, depending on the virus—that is covered by
a protein shell for protection. The most significant virus group affecting water quality and human
health grows and reproduces in cells of the gastrointestinal tract of infected animals. These
enteric viruses are excreted in feces and include hepatitis A, rotaviruses, caliciviruses (Norwalk-
like viruses), adenoviruses, enteroviruses, and reoviruses.
1.3 Health Concerns
The main route of exposure to disease-causing organisms in recreation waters is contact with
polluted water while swimming, including accidental ingestion of contaminated water. In waters
that contain fecal contamination, potentially all the waterborne diseases spread by the fecal-oral
route could be contracted by bathers. These illnesses include diseases resulting from the
following:
• Bacterial infection (such as cholera, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and gastroenteritis).
• Viral infection (such as infectious hepatitis, gastroenteritis, and intestinal diseases caused by
enteroviruses).
• Protozoan infections (such as amoebic dysentery and giardiasis).
Swimming in contaminated water most frequently causes gastroenteritis. Gastroenteritis is the
inflamation of the gastrointestinal tract, usually caused by a microorganism. Symptoms include
chills, nausea, diarrhea, and fever.
Although bathing in contaminated water most often results in contracting diseases that affect the
gastrointestinal tract, diseases affecting the eye, ear, skin, and upper respiratory tract can be
contracted as well. Infection often results when pathogenic microorganisms come into contact
with small breaks and tears in the skin or ruptures in delicate membranes in the ear or nose
resulting from the trauma associated with diving into the water. Table 1-1 provides a list of
diseases that can result from contact with water contaminated with anthropogenically introduced
or naturally occurring bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens.
June 2002 1-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table 1-1. Waterborne Pathogens
Pathogen
Bacteria
Protozoans
Viruses
Escherichia coli
(enteropathogenic)
Helicobacter pylori
Legionella pneumophila
Leptospira
Pseudomonas
Salmonella typhi
Salmonella
Shigella
Vibrio cholerae
Yersinia enterolitica
Balantidium coli
Crypto sporidium
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia lamblia
Naegleriafowleri
Adenovirus (3 1 types)
Astroviruses
Enteroviruses (67 types,
e.g., polio, echo, and
Coxsackie viruses)
Hepatitis A and E
Caliciviruses (Norwalk- and
Sapporo-like viruses)
Reovirus
Rotavirus
Disease
Gastroenteritis
Gastritis
Legionellosis
Leptospirosis
Infections in
immunocompromised
individuals
Typhoid fever
Salmonellosis
Shigellosis
Cholera
Yersinosis
Balantidiasis
Cryptosporidiosis
Ameobiasis (amoebic
dysentery)
Giardiasis
Amoebic
meningoencephalitis
Respiratory disease
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Infectious hepatitis
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Effects
Vomiting, diarrhea, death in susceptible populations
Diarrhea. Peptic ulcers are a long-term sequela.
Acute respiratory illness
Jaundice, fever (Weil's disease)
Urinary tract infections, respiratory system infections,
dermatitis, soft tissue infections, bacteremia, and a variety
of systemic infections
High fever, diarrhea, ulceration of the small intestine
Diarrhea, dehydration
Bacillary dysentery
Extremely heavy diarrhea, dehydration
Diarrhea
Diarrhea, dysentery
Diarrhea
Prolonged diarrhea with bleeding, abscesses of the liver
and small intestine
Mild to severe diarrhea, nausea, indigestion
Fatal disease; inflammation of the brain
Eye infections, diarrhea
Vomiting, diarrhea
Diarrhea. Heart anomalies and meningitis are long-term
sequela and are very rare.
Jaundice, fever
Vomiting, diarrhea
Vomiting, diarrhea
Vomiting, diarrhea
Source: USEPA, 2001.
1-6
June 2002
-------
Chapter 1
People who acquire an illness from bathing in contaminated water do not always associate their
illness with swimming. As a result, disease outbreaks often are inconsistently recognized.
Because disease surveillance cannot determine the incidence of disease among bathers, several
studies have attempted to establish a link between the concentration of indicators of fecal
contamination in bathing waters and the incidence of swimming-associated disease symptoms.
Even at properly monitored beaches that have very low concentrations of fecal indicators, there is
a risk of contracting a swimming-related illness.
EPA began to study the relationship between the quality of bathing water and the resultant health
effects in 1972. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s examined the differences in symptomatic illness
between swimming and nonswimming beachgoers at marine and freshwater bathing beaches. The
studies found the following (USEPA, 1999):
• Swimmers who bathe in water contaminated with sewage are at greater risk than
nonswimmers of contracting gastroenteritis.
The swimming-associated illness rate increases as the quality of the bathing water degrades.
• The illness rate in marine swimmers is greater than that in freshwater swimmers when
indicator densities are equivalent in marine and fresh waters.
• Most swimmer-related illnesses are of undetermined etiology (cause).
In 1995 researchers launched a large-scale study in the Santa Monica Bay area to assess both the
effectiveness of bacterial indicators in predicting health risks to bathers and the relative health
risk associated with bathing near storm drains. In this study approximately 15,000 beachgoers
who bathed and immersed their heads were interviewed. Approximately 13,000 of the
beachgoers were contacted for follow-up interviews designed to assess the occurrence of
symptoms such as fever, chills, nausea, and diarrhea. The major findings of the study suggest that
there is a significant correlation between swimming in water with high densities of indicator
bacteria and the incidence of adverse health effects. In addition, the study confirmed that people
who swim in front of flowing storm drains are twice as likely to exhibit adverse health effects as
people who swim 400 yards away from storm drains (Haile et al., 1996).
June 2002 1-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
A review of studies conducted during the past several decades has provided the following overall
conclusions (Pruess, 1998):
• A causal dose-response relationship exists between bacterial indicator counts in recreational
waters and gastrointestinal symptoms in bathers.
• A strong relationship between bacterial indicator counts and symptoms not related to the
gastrointestinal tract could not be established.
• The relative risk of swimming in contaminated versus uncontaminated waters ranged from
one to three times above the risk associated with swimming in uncontaminated water.
• Symptom rates were usually higher in individuals with compromised immune systems.
• The indicators showing the best correlation with adverse health effects were enterococci
(marine and fresh water) and Escherichia coli (fresh water).
1.4 Indicator Organisms
Indicator organisms are a fundamental monitoring tool used to measure both changes in
environmental (water) quality or conditions and the potential presence of hard-to-detect target
pathogenic organisms. An indicator organism provides evidence of the presence or absence of a
pathogenic organism that survives under similar physical, chemical, and nutrient conditions.
Indicator organisms should have the following characteristics (Sloat and Ziel, 1992; Thomann
and Mueller, 1987):
• Be easily detected using simple laboratory tests.
• Generally not be present in unpolluted waters.
• Appear in concentrations that can be correlated with the extent of contamination.
• Have a die-off rate that is not faster than the die-off rate of the pathogens of concern.
Because it is difficult to directly detect the many different pathogens or parasites that may be
present in surface waters, the presence of fecal bacteria has long been used as an indicator of the
possible presence of disease-causing organisms.
This document discusses the bacterial indicators that are used in current water quality criteria and
standards. The term "pathogens and pathogen indicators" (from the BEACH Act) can refer to
individual pathogens and a broad range of indicators. However, because bacterial indicators are
the only indicators adopted as water quality standards, this document generally refers to bacterial
indicators.
1-8 June 2002
-------
Chapter 1
Other potential indicators are the subject of ongoing research and will be addressed in future
updates to this guidance.
Figure 1-1 provides a summary of the relationships between bacterial indicator organisms for
fecal contamination. Appendix D provides additional information on the organisms that can
indicate fecal contamination and EPA's review of epidemiology studies.
Indicator Organisms
3_
Fecal Enterococci/
Streptococci
E.faecalis E.faecium
E. avium
S. bovis
S. equinus
Figure 1-1. Relationship between bacterial indicator organisms.
1.5 Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Bacteria
Water quality standards define a designated use for a waterbody (e.g., primary contact recreation)
and set specific water quality criteria to achieve that use. They are the foundation of the nation's
water quality management program and are the goals by which success is ultimately measured for
a given waterbody or watershed.
EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986 was developed for the protection of
waters designated for recreational uses. Under CWA section 304(a), EPA is required to publish
water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge for the protection of
human health and aquatic life. The scientific foundation of the 1986 criteria is studies conducted
by EPA demonstrating that for fresh water, E. coli and enterococci are best suited for predicting
the presence of pathogens that cause illness, and that for marine waters, enterococci are most
appropriate. The transition ioE. coli and enterococci bacterial indicators (from total and fecal
coliforms) continues to be an Agency priority for states' triennial reviews of their water quality
standards. Further, the BEACH Act requires coastal and Great Lakes states to adopt, by April
June 2002
1-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
2004, EPA's recommended water quality criteria for bacteria or other criteria demonstrated to be
as protective as EPA's recommended water quality criteria for Great Lakes, marine, and estuarine
waters. The BEACH Act amendments further direct EPA to propose and promulgate such
standards for states that fail to do so.
Implementation Guidance
It is beyond the scope of this document to provide an in-depth discussion of water quality
standards and associated technical issues. However, EPA has released the document
Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986 regarding the
implementation of EPA's recommended bacteriological criteria. The implementation guidance
provides extensive information about the 1986 criteria document and associated issues. It should
assist states, territories, and authorized tribes in adopting the most recent Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria (1986) and making the transition to monitoring for EPA's recommended
E. coli and enterococci indicators, rather than total or fecal coliforms.
Readers are strongly encouraged to review this document because it addresses several issues that
are important to beach managers. Issues addressed in the guidance document include calculating
geometric mean densities from small data sets; implementing the geometric mean and
single-sample maximum in various contexts, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and CWA section 303(d) listing; options for application of criteria in
waters contaminated by human sources; and beach public notification. This document can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience.
1.6 Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris
The BEACH Act also directs EPA to provide technical assistance to states, tribes, and local
governments in assessing and monitoring their floatable debris. It is beyond the scope of this
document to provide an in-depth discussion of these issues. To address this requirement,
however, EPA has published the guidance document Assessing and Monitoring Floatable
Debris. For more information on the document, please contact: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (4504T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, or visit
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/debris/floatingdebris/.
1-10 June 2002
-------
Chapter 1
1.7 References
Haile, R. 1996. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA.
Pruess, A. 1998. Review of epidemiological studies on health effects from exposure to
recreational water. InternationalJournal of Epidemiology 27:1-9.
Rose, J.B., R.M. Atlas, C.P. Gerba, M.R. Gilchrist, M.W. LeChevallier, M.D. Sobsey, M.V.
Yates, G.H. Cassell, and J.M. Tiedje. 1999. MicrobialPollutants in Our Nation's Water:
Environmental and Public Health Issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Sloat, S., and C. Ziel. 1992. The Use of Indicator Organisms to Assess Public Water Safety. Hach
Company, Loveland, CO.
Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and
Control. Harper and Row, New York.
USEPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and
Toxicology Division and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1999. Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA 600/R-98-079. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria 1986. Draft. January 2000. EPA 823/D-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. January 2001. EPA 84/R-00-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
June 2002 1-11
-------
Chapter 2
Chapter 2: Grants and Performance Criteria
This chapter addresses the basic requirements that an applicant must meet to receive a program
implementation grant. The chapter identifies relevant sections of the BEACH Act, briefly
describes the corresponding performance criteria that EPA has developed, and provides
additional grant-related information.
2.1 BEACH Act Conditions and Requirements Applicable to Section 406 Grants
The BEACH Act establishes a series of conditions and requirements related to grants for
developing and implementing a BEACH monitoring and notification program. Section 406(c),
which addresses the content of state and local programs, applies to all grants awarded to states,
tribes, and local governments under the authority of section 406 regardless of whether the grant is
for development or implementation of a beach monitoring program. Section 406(b)(3)(A), which
addresses reporting, applies to all development and implementation grants awarded to states and
tribes under the authority of section 406. Section 406(b)(3)(B), which addresses delegation to
local governments, applies to development and implementation grants awarded to states only.
The requirements set forth at section 406(b)(2)(A) apply only to implementation grants to states,
tribes, and local governments. Sections 406(a), (b), and (c) have been reproduced below:
• Section 406(a) Monitoring and Notification
(1)...the Administrator shall publish performance criteria for -
(A) monitoring and assessment (including specifying available methods for monitoring) of coastal
recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public for
attainment of applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and
(B) the prompt notification of the public, local governments, and the Administrator of any
exceeding, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable coastal recreation water quality standards
described in subparagraph (A).
• Section 406(b) Program Development and Implementation Grants
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may make grants to States and local governments to develop and
implement programs for monitoring and notification for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or
similar points of access that are used by the public.
(2) Limitations
(A) In General The Administrator may make grants to States and local governments to implement
a monitoring and notification program if -
(i) the program is consistent with the performance criteria published by the Administrator
under subsection (a);
June 2002 2-1
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
(ii) the State or local government prioritizes the use of grant funds for particular coastal
recreation waters based on the use of the water and the risk to human health presented
by pathogens or pathogen indicators;
(iii) the State or local government makes available to the Administrator the factors used to
prioritize the use of funds under clause (ii);
(iv) The State or local government provides a list of discrete areas of coastal recreation
waters that are subject to the program for monitoring and notification for which the grant is
provided that specifies any coastal recreation waters for which fiscal constraints will
prevent consistency with the performance criteria under subsection (a); and
(v) the public is provided an opportunity to review the program through a process that
provides for public notice and an opportunity for comment.
(2)(B) Grants to Local Governments ^The Administrator may make a grant to a local government
under this subsection for implementation of a monitoring and notification program only if, after the
1-year beginning on the date of publication of performance criteria under subsection (a)(1), the
Administrator determines that the State is not implementing a program that meets the
requirements of this subsection, regardless of whether the State has received a grant under this
subsection.
(3) Other Requirements
(A) REPORT -A State recipient of a grant under this subsection shall submit to the Administrator,
in such format and at such intervals as the Administrator determines to be appropriate, a report
that describes -
(i) data collected as part of the program for monitoring and notification as described in
subsection (c); and
(ii) actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded.
(B) DELEGATION A State recipient of a grant under this subsection shall identify each local
government to which the State has delegated or intends to delegate responsibility for
implementing a monitoring and notification program consistent with the performance criteria under
subsection (a).
• Section 406(c) Content of State and Local Government Programs
As a condition of receipt of a grant under subsection (b), a State or local government program shall
identify:
1. lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public;
2. in the case of a State program for monitoring and notification, the process by which the State may
delegate to local governments responsibility for implementing the monitoring and notification
program;
3. the frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters based on^
2-2 June 2002
-------
Chapter 2
(A) the periods of recreational use of the waters;
(B) the nature and extent of use during certain periods;
(C) the proximity of the waters to known point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution; and
(D) any effect of storm events on the waters;
4. (A) the methods to be used for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are
harmful to human health; and
(B) the assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen
indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation waters (including increases in
relation to storm events);
5. measures for prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and
extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for
pathogens and pathogen indicators to -
(A) the Administrator, in such form as the Administrator determines to be appropriate; and
(B) a designated official of the local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal
recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is identified;
6. measures for the posting of signs at beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent
communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation
waters are not meeting or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards for
pathogens and pathogen indicators; and
7. measures that inform the public of the potential risks associated with water contact activities in the
coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards.
2.2 Performance Criteria
EPA has developed nine performance criteria for the implementation of monitoring, assessment,
and notification programs. To be eligible for a grant to implement a monitoring and notification
program, the state, tribal, or local government's program must be consistent with these
performance criteria. The performance criteria also apply to federal agency programs and
programs directly implemented by EPA. These performance criteria are based on and incorporate
other requirements of the sections of the BEACH Act provided above.
The general requirements of the performance criteria are listed in table 2-1 and summarized in
sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.9. The specific requirements associated with each of the performance
criteria, as well as more detailed discussions, are provided in subsequent chapters.
June 2002 2-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table 2-1. Summary of BEACH Act Performance Criteria
Category
Evaluation and
Classification
Monitoring
Public Notification and
Prompt Risk
Communication
Public Evaluation
Performance
Criterion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
General Requirements
Develop risk-based beach evaluation and
classification plan
Develop tiered monitoring plan
Monitoring report submission and delegation
Methods and assessment procedures
Public notification and risk communication
plan
Measures to notify EPA and local
governments
Measures to notify the public
Notification report submission and delegation
Public evaluation of program
Chapter
Where
Discussed
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
2.2.1 Develop Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Plan (Performance
Criterion 1)
This performance criterion requires a state or tribe to develop a risk-based beach evaluation and
classification plan and apply it to state or tribal coastal recreation waters. A state or tribal
government program must describe the factors used in its evaluation and classification process
and explain how its coastal recreation waters are ranked as a result of the process. This process
must result in the identification of a list of coastal recreation waters, including coastal recreation
waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public. General and specific
requirements for this performance criterion are discussed in more detail in chapter 3.
2.2.2 Develop Tiered Monitoring Plan (Performance Criterion 2)
The second performance criterion requires development of an adequate tiered monitoring plan.
This plan must adequately address the frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of
coastal recreation waters based on the periods of recreational use of the waters, the nature and
extent of use during certain periods, the proximity of the waters to known point sources and
nonpoint sources of pollution, and any effect of storm events on the waters. General and specific
requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
2-4
June 2002
-------
Chapter 2
2.2.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation (Performance Criterion 3)
Performance Criterion 3 requires states, tribes, and local governments to develop a mechanism to
collect and report their monitoring data in timely reports and, in the case of states, to document
any delegation of monitoring responsibilities that might have been made to local governments.
General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Report Submission. States, tribes, and local governments must report their monitoring data to
the public, EPA, and other agencies in a timely manner. States are encouraged to coordinate
closely with local governments to ensure that monitoring information is submitted in a consistent
manner. Reported data must be consistent with the list of required data elements in appendix E
Delegation. If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local governments, the state grant
recipient must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local governments
responsibility for implementing the monitoring program.
2.2.4 Methods and Assessment Procedures (Performance Criterion 4)
Performance Criterion 4 requires the development of detailed methods and assessment
procedures. States, tribes, or local governments must adequately address and submit to EPA
methods for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human
health in coastal recreation areas; provide documentation to support the validity of methods other
than those currently recommended or approved by EPA; and identify and submit to EPA
assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators
that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation areas. General and specific requirements
for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
2.2.5 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan (Performance Criterion 5)
The state, tribe, or local government must develop an overall public notification and risk
communication plan. The plan must describe the state's, tribe's, or local government's public
notification efforts and measures to inform the public of the potential risks associated with water
contact activities in the coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality
standards. General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in
Chapters.
2.2.6 Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments (Performance Criterion 6)
The state, tribe, or local government must adequately identify measures for prompt
communication of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any
exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for pathogens and
June 2002 2-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
pathogen indicators. The state, tribe, or local government must identify how this information will
be promptly communicated to EPA. States only must identify how this information will be
promptly communicated to a designated official of the local government for the area adjoining
the coastal recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is identified.
General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
2.2.7 Measures to Notify the Public (Performance Criterion 7)
A state, tribe, or local government program must adequately address the posting of signs at
beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent communication measures that are
sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not
expected to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators.
General and specific requirements for this criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
2.2.8 Notification Report Submission and Delegation (Performance Criterion 8)
States, tribes, and local governments must compile their notification plans in timely reports and,
in the case of states, describe any delegation of notification responsibilities that has been made,
or the state intends to make, to local governments. General and specific requirements for this
criterion are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
Report Submission. The mechanism must provide that the states, tribes, and local governments
will report to EPA the actions they have taken to notify the public when water quality standards
are exceeded.
Delegation. In the case of a state, if notification responsibilities are delegated to local
governments, the state must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local
governments responsibility for implementing the notification program.
2.2.9 Public Evaluation of Program (Performance Criterion 9)
The ninth performance criterion is to provide the public with an opportunity to review the
program through public notice, review, and an opportunity to comment.
2-6 June 2002
-------
Performance Criteria
General requirement
Specific requirements
Chapter 2
Chapter
Section
Public Evaluation of Program (Performance
Criterion 9): This performance criterion
requires a state, tribe, or local government to
provide the public with an opportunity to review
the program through public notice, review, and an
opportunity to comment.
Provide an opportunity for the public to
comment on the following components of a
beach monitoring and public notification
program:
1. Beach evaluation and classification
process, including a list of waters to be
monitored and beach ranking.
2. Sampling design and monitoring plan,
including sampling location and
sampling frequency.
3. Public notification and risk
communication plan, including methods
to notify the public of a swimming
advisory.
3.5
4.2
5.2
The public evaluation can be accomplished through public comments, meetings, forums, or
workshops. For example, when classifying and ranking beaches, it is beneficial to gather input
from members of the community regarding the recreation waters they would like to see
monitored. Annual public or community meetings, surveys of the users at the beach, local
newspaper articles, or other sources can provide insight into public opinion about the beach,
including why the beach is or is not used (e.g., for sunning, running, swimming, or surfing),
perceptions of water quality and health problems, and whether beach users desire a monitoring
and notification program (if none exists) or how satisfied they are with the program that has been
implemented.
2.3 Additional Grant Information
2.3.1 Grant Program Phases
The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to award grants for both developing and implementing
monitoring and notification programs. Accordingly, EPA has established a two-phase grant
program—an initial program development phase followed by a program implementation phase.
The initial phase of the grant program focuses on development of a state or tribal beach
monitoring and notification program. The second phase of the grant program focuses on
implementation of a state or tribal beach monitoring and notification program.
June 2002
2-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
2.3.2 Eligibility for Grants
State Governments
Coastal and Great Lakes states are eligible to apply for grants to develop and implement
monitoring and notification programs. For the purposes of the BEACH Act, the term "state"
applies to 30 coastal and Great Lakes states and includes six coastal territories defined in CWA
section 502: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, however, no longer exists. The Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which were previously entities in the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands, have entered into Compacts of Free Association with the Government of
the United States. As a result, each is now a sovereign, self-governing entity and, as such, is no
longer eligible to receive grants as a territory or possession of the United States.
Local Governments
The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to make grants to local governments for developing and
implementing a monitoring and notification program only if, after the 1-year period beginning on
the date of publication of this document, EPA determines that the state or tribe is not
implementing a program that meets the requirements of the statute.
Tribal Governments
Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as
states for the purpose of section 406. To receive BEACH Act grant funds, a tribe must have
coastal recreation waters for which water quality standards have been established under the
CWA. To date, no tribes have met this requirement.
2.3.3 Funding
CWA section 406(i) authorizes appropriations of up to $30 million per year through fiscal year
2005 to develop and implement beach programs. The actual amount of funding available to
individual states and tribes will depend on congressional appropriation levels and an allotment
formula for allocating funds among eligible entities. The BEACH Act grants are not intended to
replace a state's or tribe's funding for its beach monitoring and notification program. The grants
are intended to supplement existing funds and encourage states and tribes to invest in and support
their beach monitoring and notification program.
2-8 June 2002
-------
Chapter 2
2.3.4 Selection Process
The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to award BEACH Act program development
and implementation grants to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water and to the EPA
Regional Administrators. The EPA regional offices will award program development and
implementation grants through a noncompetitive process.
EPA expects to award grants to all eligible state, territory, tribal, and local government applicants
that meet the performance criteria specified in this document and other applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements.
2.3.5 Application Procedure
BEACH Act grants will be awarded and administered according to the regulations at 40 CFR
Part 31 ("Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State
and Local Governments"). The EPA regional offices have the lead responsibility for providing
grant application packages and advice. Refer to appendix B for a list of the current EPA Regional
Grant Coordinators or visit the BEACH Watch web site for information on specific grants, grant
coordinators, or other pertinent information at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches.
June 2002 2-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
2.4 References
USEPA. 2001. Notice of Availability of Grants for Development of Coastal Recreation Water
Monitoring and Public Notification under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Federal Register, May 30,
2001, 66(104):29308-29310.
2-10 June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
Chapter 3: Risk-Based Beach Evaluation and Classification Process
This chapter describes the risk-based beach evaluation and classification process, including the
evaluation steps and recommended information that a state or tribe should consider when ranking
beaches.
3.1 Performance Criterion
Performance Criterion 1 addresses the risk-based beach evaluation process. The general and
specific requirements associated with this criterion are included in table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Summary of Risk-Based Evaluation and Classification Process Performance
Criterion
Performance Criteria
General Requirements
Specific Requirements
Chapter
Section
Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification
(Performance Criterion 1). This performance
criterion requires a state or tribe to develop a risk-
based beach evaluation and classification plan and
apply it to state or tribal coastal recreation waters. A
state or tribal government program must describe the
factors used in its evaluation and classification process
and explain how its coastal recreation waters are
ranked as a result of the process. This process must
result in the identification of a list of coastal recreation
waters, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches or similar points of access used by the public.
Identification of factors used to
evaluate and rank beaches.
Identification of coastal recreation
waters in the state or tribe.
Identification of beaches, or similar
points of access used by the public for
swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar
water contact activities, adjacent to
coastal recreation waters.
Identification and review of available
information describing (1) the
potential risk to human health
presented by pathogens and (2) the use
of the beach.
Notification of EPA annually when
the ranking of beaches changes and
alters the sampling frequency at
beaches.
3.2-3.5
Risk-based beach evaluation and classification is a means to identify the potential risk of disease
to swimmers and to protect public health. Although a state or tribe may develop its own risk-
based approach, it must address both the general and specific requirements summarized in table
3-1.
The goal of the evaluation process is for a grant recipient to use these requirements to evaluate its
coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access and classify those waters
in an appropriate tier based on the potential risk to human health presented by pathogens and the
use of the waters. EPA recommends establishing an evaluation and classification process that uses
June 2002
3-1
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
a three-tiered process because this approach will enable beach managers to efficiently allocate
monitoring and public notification resources to waters on the basis of use and potential disease
risk. A classification of Tier 1, for example, could indicate that waters are of such high risk
and/or receive such high usage that significant resources should be devoted to more intensive
monitoring and public notification efforts for that area. EPA recommends this three-tiered model
program; however, it is recognized that state or tribal programs will vary. The program must,
however, ultimately result in a risk-based ranking. This classification can then be used to direct
appropriate resources toward monitoring and notification programs for coastal recreation waters
adjacent to beaches or similar points of access (see chapters 4 and 5).
3.2 Step 1: Identify Coastal Recreation Waters
According to the BEACH Act, coastal recreation waters are defined as the Great Lakes and
marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) designated under CWA section 303(c) by a
state or tribe for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities. The
BEACH Act explicitly excludes from the definition of coastal recreation waters both inland
waters and waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream that has an unimpaired natural
connection with the open sea. The first step in evaluating and classifying coastal recreation
waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access is to make a list of all coastal recreation
waters (figure 3-1).
Identify Recreation Waters
Step 1
Noncoastal
recreation
waters (e.g.,
freshwater
exclusive of
Great
Lakes)
Shoreline adjacent to
coastal recreation
waters that is not
beach area or is not
used by the public for
swimming, bathing,
surfing, or similar
water contact
activities
Beaches that are
adjacent to coastal
recreation waters and
that are used by the
public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact
activities (bathing
beaches or similar
points of access)
Available information
• Factors that indicate
the potential risk to
human health
presented by
pathogens
• Use of the beach
• Other factors
Figure 3-1. Step 1: Identify recreation waters.
3-2
June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
3.2.1 Designated Uses of Waterbodies
Properly identifying coastal recreation waters requires identifying the designated use of a
waterbody. Under CWA section 303(c)(2)(A), each water quality standard adopted by a state
must consist of "designated uses" for the water to which the standard applies and criteria to
protect these uses. The state or tribe must then submit the new or revised water quality standards
to EPA for review. If EPA disapproves a water quality standard submission or if the EPA
Administrator determines that new or revised water quality standards are necessary to meet the
requirements of the CWA, EPA must adopt a new or revised water quality standard itself,
including designated uses, when appropriate. In other words, the applicable water quality
standards (including, in this instance, designated uses for the purpose of the BEACH Act) may be
adopted by states, tribes, or EPA, depending on the circumstances.
Most states and some tribes have established designations for their primary contact waters.
Assigning a designated use to a waterbody is a means of identifying and classifying that
waterbody's intended use (e.g., aquatic life support, fish consumption, shellfish harvesting,
drinking water supply, primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation). Any change to
the designated use of a waterbody must be submitted to EPA for the Agency's review and
approval or disapproval. Typically, states and tribes review their water quality standards every
three years and revise the standards as appropriate.
In designating a use for a waterbody and setting the appropriate water quality criteria to protect
that use, the state or tribe also must take downstream water quality into consideration and ensure
that its water quality standards provide for attaining and maintaining the water quality standards
for downstream waters.
3.2.2 Recreational Uses of Waterbodies
Recreation occurs in many forms throughout the United States and frequently centers around
waterbodies and activities that take place in and on the water. Waters where people engage in or
are likely to engage in activities that could result in ingestion of the water or immersion are
designated for use in state and tribal water quality standards as "primary contact recreation"
waters. A primary contact recreation use should be adopted for any waterbody where people
engage in or are likely to engage in activities that could result in ingestion of the water or
immersion. These activities include swimming, water skiing, and kayaking.
Often a state or tribe will designate most or all of its surface waters for primary contact
recreation. Those waters adjacent to bathing beaches typically constitute a subset of the waters
designated for primary contact recreation.
Although most recreation waters are designated for year-round primary contact recreation to
protect people engaged in primary contact activities, for some waters a primary contact recreation
June 2002 3-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
use is designated on only a seasonal basis. These uses can include the designation of intermittent,
secondary, or seasonal recreation uses. For example, a state or tribe might choose to designate
waters for primary contact recreation use only during certain months of the year if climate
precludes such use at other times. Similarly, a state or tribe might designate waters for
nonprimary contact recreational use, often known as secondary contact use. Subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 131.10, secondary contact recreation uses might be appropriate on a year-
round basis, for example, where waters have been irreversibly affected by wet weather events or
where protecting a primary contact recreation use at all times would result in substantial and
widespread social and economic impact.
3.2.3 Coastal Recreation Waters
The requirements of the BEACH Act apply only to states and tribes that have "coastal recreation
waters." As amended by the BEACH Act, CWA section 502(21) defines coastal recreation
waters as the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are
designated under section 303(c) by a state or tribe for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact activities. Coastal recreation waters do not include either inland waters or
waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream
having an unimpaired natural connection with the
open sea. Figure 3-2 illustrates what beaches and
similar points of access may or may not be
considered adjacent to coastal recreation waters
under the BEACH Act. The heavy lines indicate
areas that would be designated coastal recreation
waters; the thin lines indicate areas that would not be
designated coastal recreation waters. The decision to
identify and classify waters as coastal or noncoastal
should be made by an individual state or tribe in
consultation with EPA, taking site-specific
conditions into consideration.
Ocean
3.3 Step 2: Identify Beaches or Similar Points
of Access Used by the Public for
Swimming, Bathing, Surfing, or Similar
Water Contact Activities
The second step in evaluating and classifying
beaches is to identify beaches and similar points of
access that are adjacent to coastal recreation waters
and used by the public for swimming, bathing,
surfing, or similar water contact activities (figure 3-3). After beaches and similar points of access
and adjacent waters used by the public are identified, the waters can be evaluated using the Beach
Figure 3-2. Examples of coastal and noncoastal
recreation waters.
3-4
June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
Evaluation and Classification List (appendix F). Typically, waters used by the public for
swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities are:
• Not contained within a man-made structure or building.
• Under the control of a state, tribe, or local government.
• Used for swimming or other contact recreational activity (partial body contact with the
water).
Identify Beaches and Similar Points of Access
Step 2
Noncoastal
recreation
waters (e.g.,
freshwater
exclusive of
Great
Lakes)
Shoreline adjacent to
coastal recreation
waters that is not
beach area or is not
used by the public for
swimming, bathing,
surfing, or similar
water contact
activities
Beaches that are
adjacent to coastal
recreation waters and
that are used by the
public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact
activities (bathing
beaches or similar
points of access)
Available information
• Factors that indicate
the potential risk to
human health
presented by
pathogens
• Use of the beach
• Other factors
Figure 3-3. Step 2: Identify beaches and similar points of access.
Beaches and similar points of access adjacent to these waters can include seashores, oceanfronts,
and shorelines associated with estuaries and bays. They also can include shorelines associated
with natural lakes, reservoirs, impoundments, ponds, rivers, streams, and creeks, but (except for
the Great Lakes) those beaches and similar points of access are not covered by the BEACH Act.
Beaches and similar points of access can be located in rural or urban areas. Privately owned
beaches and similar points of access adjacent to waters used by the public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities are covered by the BEACH Act and therefore
must be included in the identification, evaluation, and classification of beaches to meet this
performance criterion.
June 2002
3-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Factors to consider when defining beaches and similar points of access include geography,
geology, the type of recreational use, and the type of access these areas provide.
Geography. A beach or similar point of access may be described by a jurisdictional boundary
(e.g., nation, state, region, county, township, municipality) or by location on an ocean, a
sound, a bay, an estuary, an inlet, or one of the Great Lakes.
Geology. A beach or similar point of access may be defined as a gently sloping waterfront
area or the shoreline of an ocean, a sea, or a lake, covered by sand, gravel, or larger rock
fragments, possibly accompanied by mud.
• Access. Access to the waterbody might be from a shoreline structure, or the beach might be
adjacent to a recreational waterbody.
• Designateduse. (See section 3.2.1.)
3.4 Step 3: Review Available Information
The third step in evaluating and classifying a beach is to review all available information about
the beach, including historical knowledge of the beach, its uses, and possible sources of
microbial pathogens (figure 3-4). This information should help identify the most important issues
and data gaps. Source information may be located in state, tribal, or local government agency
files; literature and records in local libraries; beach management reports; community association
reports; public health records; papers and journals available at colleges and universities; and
work performed by local nonprofit organizations. The following factors must be used to rank
beaches:
• Factors that indicate the potential risk to human health presented by pathogens
• Use of the beach
Other factors, such as importance to the local economy or community, also can be considered,
but the BEACH Act requires state, tribal, and local governments to prioritize the use of grant
funds for particular coastal recreation waters based on the use of the water and the risk to human
health presented by pathogens or pathogen indicators. Sources that might provide this
information are listed below under each factor in a suggested order of relevant importance. EPA
recognizes that some sources might be more important than others, depending on the conditions
and availability of information. Appendix F provides an additional list of information that might
help in classifying and ranking beaches.
3-6 June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
Noncoastal
recreation
waters (e.g.,
freshwater
exclusive of
Great
Lakes)
Review Available Information
Shoreline adjacent to
coastal recreation
waters that is not
beach area or is not
used by the public for
swimming, bathing,
surfing, or similar
water contact
activities
Step 3
Beaches that are
adjacent to coastal
recreation waters and
that are used by the
public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact
activities (bathing
beaches or similar
points of access)
Available information
• Factors that indicate
the potential risk to
human health
presented by
pathogens
• Use of the beach
• Other factors
Figure 3-4. Step 3: Review available information.
3.4.1 Factors That Indicate the Potential for Fecal Contamination
Part of the process of evaluating potential health risks related to exposure to pathogens during
bathing or swimming activities is to compile available information about each beach indicating
the potential for contamination by microbial pathogens. This information can be found in reports
that include information on waterbodies that are or are not in attainment of their designated uses,
lists of impaired waterbodies, medical records, past advisory and closure reports, planning
reports, and actual discharge data. The following reports can be used to help classify and rank
beaches.
Water Quality Monitoring Reports
Previous monitoring reports that contain actual bacterial concentrations might be helpful in
evaluating and classifying beaches. In addition, state or tribal water quality monitoring reports
that contain temperature, flow, and turbidity data might be helpful in identifying water quality
patterns. For example, Francy and Darner (1998) found a relationship between turbidity and
concentrations of E. coli at three Lake Erie beaches; as turbidity increased, E. coli concentrations
also increased. In that study, other environmental and water quality variables also were shown to
be related to E. coli concentrations.
June 2002
3-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Advisory Reports and Closings
Previously recorded advisories and closings can provide insight into problems associated with
maintaining beach water quality, links to closings caused by rain events, the frequency of
closings during the swimming season, causes of closings (preemptive, outfalls, increased
sampling, rain), and the number of swimming days affected by an advisory or a closing.
Water Quality Modeling Reports
Water quality models also can assist in evaluating and classifying beaches. Models that predict
bacterial contamination during rainfall events can help reduce the risk of swimmer exposure to
contaminants between normal sampling periods (USEPA, 1999). Chapter 4 provides additional
information on these types of models.
Sanitary Surveys
A sanitary survey can be used to evaluate and document sources of contaminants that might
adversely affect public health. Although sanitary surveys are frequently associated with water
supply systems, they can be used to identify sources of pollution and to provide information on
source controls and identification, persistent problems such as exceeding of water quality
standards, magnitude of pollution from sources, and management actions and links to controls. A
Registered Sanitarian or professional with experience in these areas should perform the survey. A
sanitary survey can be an effective tool for protecting human health at bathing beaches and can
provide information that helps in designing monitoring programs and selecting sampling
locations, times, and frequencies.
Additional information on sanitary surveys is provided in appendix G. The sanitary survey list
can be used to evaluate and identify the potential and existing microbiological hazards that could
affect the safe use of a particular stretch of recreational water or bathing beach.
Point Source Discharge Data
Facilities authorized to discharge wastewater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program, including combined sewer overflows (CSOs), concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs), and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), provide
information on the contents and locations of their point source discharges.
CSOs
CSOs consist of mixtures of domestic sewage, industrial and commercial wastewaters, and storm
water runoff. Untreated CSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic
microorganisms, toxic pollutants, organic compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants that
can cause water quality standards to be exceeded, posing risks to human health (USEPA, 1994).
3-8 June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
CAFOs
CAFOs and other animal feeding operations (AFOs) can pose a number of risks to water quality
and public health, mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate
(USEPA, 1998). Manure and wastewater from AFOs and CAFOs have the potential to contribute
pollutants such as nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), sediment, pathogens, heavy metals,
hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment.
POTWs
POTWs are waste treatment works owned by a state, unit of local government, or tribe; they are
usually designed to treat predominantly domestic wastewaters.
State Water Quality Report (CWA Section 305(b) Report)
A state's or tribe's 305(b) report identifies assessed waterbodies that are in full attainment,
partial attainment, or nonattainment of their designated uses. One purpose of the report is to help
determine pollution control and management priorities at the state, tribal, and national levels. The
report indicates how the state or tribe measures waterbodies against its standards and lists known
problems, known or suspected causes, and proposed corrective actions. The 305(b) report is a
good source of information for locating potential problem areas in recreational waterbodies. EPA
also uses the reports to compile the National Water Quality Inventory (USEPA, 1998), a national
assessment of progress toward the nation's clean water goals. The National Water Quality
Inventory state reports are available through state or tribal water quality management agencies or
at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/305b/.
List of Impaired Waters (CWA Section 303(d) List)
A state or tribe's 303(d) list is a list of impaired waters that have been identified as not meeting
water quality standards and require Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Each state or tribe
must develop TMDLs for each waterbody listed. A TMDL presents the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and it includes an
allocation of that amount to the point and nonpoint sources. The 303(d) lists include a priority
ranking of the waters and an identification of the pollutant(s) causing the impairment.
Waterbodies on the 303(d) list must be reexamined periodically. Monitoring or sampling
performed by the state or tribe in support of its section 303(d) listing activities can sometimes
support monitoring or sampling efforts being conducted for beach programs; however, an
advisory or a closing should not be issued for a particular waterbody simply because it has been
placed on the 303(d) list. The BEACH Act addresses concerns about the health risks associated
with microbial pathogens. Section 303(d) lists, by contrast, reflect concerns about all types of
pollutants that might impair any designated use. Therefore, it is quite possible that a waterbody
might be listed for a pollutant or stressor that is harmful to aquatic species but does not threaten
public health. The 303(d) list for a state or tribe can be obtained from its water quality
management agency. Links to these agencies are provided at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.
June 2002 3-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Microbial Analysis of Storm Water
Coliforms, pathogenic bacteria, and viruses were detected
in both combined sewer flows and storm sewer flows in
Baltimore, Maryland. The levels of fecal conforms found
in storm flows ranged from 200 to more than 2,000 most
probable number (MPN) per 100 milliliters (mL), and 123
of the 136 samples had fecal conform bacteria counts of
greater than 2,000 MPN/100 mL. Of those 123 samples, 95
percent were positive for Salmonella. Six storm water
flows were examined for viruses, and all six tested positive
(USEPA, 1977).
Nonpoint Source (CWA Section 319)
Reports
In 1987 Congress enacted CWA section
319, which requires states to develop
management programs to reduce and
control nonpoint sources of pollution.
Nonpoint source pollution can be caused
by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
through the ground and carrying natural
and human-made pollutants into lakes,
rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
other coastal waters, and ground water.
Nonpoint source pollution also can
result from resuspension of bacteria-laden beach sands and hydrological modification. Section
319(h)(l 1) of the CWA requires states and tribes to report annually on their progress in meeting
nonpoint source management program milestones. They must also report available information
on reductions in nonpoint source pollution and on improvements in water quality resulting from
program implementation. States and tribes may wish to include a list of further actions necessary
to achieve CWA goals, including any recommendations for future EPA programs to control
nonpoint source pollution, as well as brief case studies of any particularly successful nonpoint
source control efforts.
Swimmer Reports or Hospital Records
Medical records and epidemiological studies can provide information related to the historical risk
of swimming at a particular beach. Swimmer illness reports or complaints to a state or tribal
agency are also valuable sources of information and can answer the following questions: Have
any swimmers complained to the agency about illnesses believed to be related to the water
quality or debris at the beach? Have any hospitals or other medical facilities documented such
reports of illness? Have any epidemiological studies been conducted at the beach (Ferley et al.,
1989; Fleischer et al., 1996; Haile, 1996)? Have other government agencies described health
problems at this beach or adjacent shoreline areas? Approximately how many reports of illness
have occurred? How many have occurred within the past year? The frequency and severity of
reports of swimming-associated illnesses can provide important insights into the risks of bathing
at a particular beach. In many cases, however, people who contract diseases as a result of bathing
in contaminated water do not always associate their illness symptoms with swimming. As a
result, disease outbreaks are often inconsistently reported. On the other hand, people might
associate illnesses caused by other sources with contaminated water. Caution should therefore be
used in determining the significance of such data. Because interpretation of medical records and
epidemiological information can be a complex process, professionals trained in data
interpretation should perform this function.
3-10 June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
Development Planning Reports
Previous management plans or inspection reports can provide information on sewer lines,
outfalls, trash collection areas, septic systems, and other infrastructure and can help to answer
questions concerning the identification of potential sources of human pathogens at a beach (e.g.,
bathrooms, shower facilities). The types of bathroom facilities in the area should be known, as
well as any threats of sewage contamination nearby. Potential sources of microbiological
contamination of recreational waters might be associated with system failures in municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, leaking sewer lines, or rainfall and runoff. Other sources include
releases from boat and recreational vehicle holding tanks, pumping stations, portable toilets, and
leachate from poorly maintained or flooding septic systems (CADHS, 1998). The sources of
contamination listed in the example Beach Evaluation and Classification List (appendix F) could
increase the human health risk of using nearby recreational waters.
Although these plans and reports are useful, it is important to keep in mind other factors affecting
contamination. For example, a study conducted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission found that the density and variability of fecal coliform bacteria appeared to be
strongly influenced by storm water runoff. Summer sampling over one 30-day period at six
stations (five or six samples were collected) demonstrated that substantial changes in density
were observed within as little as 24 to 48 hours. The range of densities around each station's
geometric mean varied from 765 to 18,840 colony-forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of water.
Thus, infrequent sample collection did not provide an adequate measure of fecal coliform density
and variability, particularly in waters affected by storm events (McGinnis and Mummert, 1996).
Environmental Group Reports
Many environmental groups conduct studies and publish reports on local beaches and recreation
waters. These reports can be helpful in classifying beaches because they might evaluate levels of
pathogen indicators and identify potential sources of pollution that could pose a health risk to
swimmers. These environmental reports also might include historical information and report how
water quality conditions have changed over time.
3.4.2 Use of the Beach
The frequency of use and thus exposure to pathogens can be measured by determining how many
people use a beach and when the peak periods of use occur. Exposure estimates can be refined by
considering the percentage of people visiting the beach who actually enter the water, beach use
during holidays, the length of the swimming season, and a number of other factors.
The frequency of beach use can vary considerably from day to day or season to season. States and
tribes should consider this variability in assessing the frequency of use. When people who have a
June 2002 3-11
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
compromised immune system or otherwise are at high risk become infected with pathogens,
severe, life-threatening illness can occur (Ahmed, 1991). Thus, children, senior citizens, and
people with weakened immune systems (such as persons with AIDS or other immune system
diseases, cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and organ transplant recipients) are more likely
to become ill when they come into contact with contaminated water. Fattal et al. (1987) observed
a significant association between enteric disease symptoms and recreation waters with high levels
of bacterial indicators in children ages birth to 4 years. Alexander et al. (1992) found that
children between the ages of 6 and 11 who came into contact with seawater contaminated with
sewage were likely to suffer from vomiting, diarrhea, itchy skin, fever, lack of energy, and loss of
appetite. These effects can be more significant in waterbodies with restricted circulation.
This increased risk is of particular significance during high-frequency use periods because
bacterial densities and the potential presence of pathogens are directly related to the number of
swimmers. Studies have demonstrated an association between high swimmer densities and an
increase in bacterial densities. Therefore, swimmers should pay special attention when swimming
during peak bathing hours, especially if they are immunocompromised or otherwise at high risk.
3.4.3 Other Factors
Additional factors, such as the importance to the local economy and community input, may be
used as secondary considerations in evaluating and classifying beaches. While the state, tribe, or
local government must prioritize its use of grant funds for particular coastal recreation waters
based on the use of the water and the risk to human health presented by pathogens or pathogen
indicator, there could be a need for a further ranking of beaches. For example, if there are more
beaches that present an equal level of risk to the same number of people than a state can monitor,
the state may use other considerations to determine which of those beaches to include in its
grant-funded monitoring and notification program. If available, other beach characterization data
describing such factors as nearshore flow dynamics, the presence of marinas and moored boats,
and surrounding land uses can be used to evaluate potential risk and rank beaches.
Chambers of Commerce and other government agencies often publish reports on the economic
value of natural resources or beach recreation. These reports can be a resource for considering
how beaches and recreational waters contribute to the local economy. For example, NRDC
(1997) found that tourists spend billions of dollars annually visiting coastal and Great Lakes
counties and their beaches. California, Florida, and South Carolina estimated the value of their
coastal tourism to be more than $37 billion, $23 billion, and $4 billion, respectively (NRDC,
1997; 1999).
3.5 Step 4: Rank Beaches
The final step in evaluating and classifying beaches is to rank the beaches (figure 3-5). The beach
ranking must be based on factors indicating the potential risk to human health presented by
3-12 June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
pathogens, and use of the beach. Other factors such as importance to the local economy or
community also can be used when ranking beaches, but risk and use must be given the highest
priority.
Rank Beaches
Step 4
Noncoastal
recreation
waters (e.
freshwater
exclusive of
Great
Lakes)
Shoreline adjacent to
coastal recreation
waters that is not
beach area or is not
used by the public for
swimming, bathing,
surfing, or similar
water contact
activities
Beaches that are
adjacent to coastal
recreation waters and
that are used by the
public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact
activities (bathing
beaches or similar
points of access)
Available information
• Factors that indicate
the potential risk to
human health
presented by
pathogens
• Use of the beach
• Other factors
Figure 3-5. Step 4: Rank beaches.
Public Comments
The BEACH Act requires that the public be provided an opportunity to review the ranking
program through a process that provides for public notice and an opportunity to comment (see
performance criterion 9, section 2.2.9). In particular, states and tribes should seek to gather input
from the community regarding the ranking of coastal recreation waters. An annual public or
community meeting, surveys of the users at the beach, local newspaper articles, or other sources
can provide insight into public opinion about the beach, including why the beach is or is not used
(e.g., for sunning, running, swimming, or surfing), perceptions of water quality and health
problems, and whether beach users desire a monitoring and notification program (if none exists)
or how satisfied they are with the program that has been implemented.
June 2002
3-13
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
3.6 References
Ahmed, F.E. 1991. Seafood Safety. Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fishery Products,
Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Alexander, L.M., A. Heaven, A. Tennant, and R. Morris. 1992. Symptomatology of children in
contact with sea water contaminated with sewage. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health 46:340-344.
CADHS. 1998. Beach Sanitation Guidance for Saltwater Beaches. California Department of
Health Services, .
Fattal, B., E. Peleg-Olevsky, T. Agursky, and H.I. Shuval. 1987. The association between
seawater pollution as measured by bacterial indicators and morbidity among bathers
at Mediterranean bathing beaches of Israel. Chemosphere 16:565-570.
Ferley, J.P., D. Zmirou, F. Balducci, B. Baleux, P. Fera, G. Larbaigt, E. Jacq, B. Moissonnier,
A. Blineau, and J. Boudot. 1989. Epidemiological significance of microbiological pollution
criteria for river recreational waters. InternationalJournal of Epidemiology 18(1): 198-205.
Fleishcer, J.M., D. Kay, R.L. Salmon, F. Jones, M.D. Wyer, and A.F. Godfree. 1996. Marine
waters contaminated with domestic sewage: Nonenteric illnesses associated with bather exposure
in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health 86(9): 1228-1234.
Francy, D.S., and R. A. Darner. 1998. Factors affecting Escherichia coll concentrations at Lake
Erie public bathing beaches. Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4241. U. S. Geological
Survey, Columbus, OH.
Haile, R. 1996. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay. October 1996.
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA.
Haile, R.W., J.S. White, M. Gold, R. Cressey, C. McGee, R.C. Millikan, A. Glasser, N. Harawa,
C. Ervin, P. Harmon, J. Harper, J. Dermand, J. Alamillo, K. Barrett, M. Nides, and G. Wang.
1999. The health effects of swimming in ocean water contaminated by storm drain runoff.
Epidemiology 10(4): 3 5 5-3 63.
McGinnis, A.E., and J.R. Mummert. 1996. Effect of Sampling Frequency on the Assessment of
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Densities in Streams. Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission, Field Operations Division, Region 4, Duncanville, TX.
NRDC. 1997. Testing the Waters Volume VII: How Does Your Vacation Beach Rate?
Natural Resources Defense Council, New York.
3-14 June 2002
-------
Chapter 3
NRDC. 1999. Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. Natural
Resources Defense Council, New York.
USEPA. 1977. Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater. EPA 600/2-77-087. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
USEPA. 1994. Combined sewer overflows control program. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Federal Register, 59(75), April 19, 1994.
USEPA. 1998. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA 841/R-97-
008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1999. Review of Potential Modeling Tools and Approaches to Support the BEACH
Program. Final draft. March 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology, Washington, DC.
June 2002 3-15
-------
Chapter 4
Chapter 4: Beach Monitoring and Assessment
This chapter describes the performance criteria and technical guidance related to monitoring and
assessment.
4.1 Performance Criteria
Table 4-1 summarizes the general and specific requirements of three performance criteria (2
through 4) related to monitoring and assessment activities.
Table 4-1. Summary of Monitoring Performance Criteria
General Requirements
Performance Criteria
Specific Requirements
Chapter
Section
Develop Tiered Monitoring
Plan (Performance
Criterion 2). Performance
Criterion 2 requires
development of an adequate
tiered monitoring plan.
In the monitoring plan, address frequency and location of
monitoring and assessment of coastal water, based on a variety
of factors:
Periods of recreational use of the waters
Nature and extent of use during certain periods
The proximity to known point and nonpoint sources of
pollution
Any effect of storm events on the waters
In the monitoring plan, adequately address required
monitoring elements: public health; number of beaches;
existing monitoring data; public review; adaptive monitoring
approach; and quality control. Develop appropriate quality
control policies and procedures and submit adequate quality
management plans and quality assurance plans to EPA for
approval.
4.2
June 2002
4-1
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table 4-1. (continued)
Performance Criteria
General Requirements
Monitoring Report
Submission and Delegation
(Performance Criterion 3).
Performance Criterion 3
requires states, tribes, and
local governments to develop
a mechanism to collect and
report their monitoring data in
timely reports and, in the case
of states, to document any
delegation of monitoring
responsibilities that might
have been made to local
governments.
Assessment Methods and
Procedures (Performance
Criterion 4). Performance
Criterion 4 requires the
development of detailed
methods and assessment
procedures.
Specific Requirements
States, tribes, and local governments must report their
monitoring data to the public, EPA, and other agencies in a
timely manner. States should coordinate closely with local
governments to ensure that monitoring information is
submitted in a consistent fashion.
States, tribes, and local governments must report their
monitoring data annually to EPA. Reported data must be
consistent with the list of required data elements in appendix
E.
If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local
governments, the state grant recipient must describe the
process by which the state may delegate to local governments
responsibility for implementing the monitoring program.
States, tribes, or local governments must:
- Adequately address and submit to EPA methods for
detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that
are harmful to human health in coastal recreation areas.
- Provide documentation to support the validity of methods
other than those currently recommended or approved by
EPA.
- Identify and submit to EPA assessment procedures for
identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen
indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal
recreation areas.
Chapter
Section
4.3
4.4
4.2 Tiered Monitoring Plan
Once states and tribes have ranked their beaches, they are required to develop and submit an
adequate tiered monitoring plan. They can follow the requirements and recommendations in this
chapter to develop and implement the tiered monitoring plan based on the beach classification.
This section includes an example of a three-tiered plan as the recommended approach. A state,
tribe, or local government may develop a tiered approach different from that recommended, but it
must demonstrate how the plan meets the performance criterion for an adequate tiered
monitoring plan.
4-2
June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
4.2.1 Monitoring Design
An adequate monitoring plan must address the required monitoring elements discussed below.
Other aspects discussed in this section also should be considered.
Required Monitoring Elements
EPA recognizes that variation in bacterial densities is one of the main technical challenges that
beach managers face when designing effective monitoring programs and interpreting sampling
results. There is substantial site-specific variability (both spatial and temporal) in bacterial
counts. Accordingly, monitoring plans should be tailored to individual circumstances.
The monitoring plan must adequately address the following elements:
• Public health. Protection of public health is the primary objective in designing a beach
monitoring program.
• Maximum number of beaches. As noted earlier, the BEACH Act requires states and tribes to
identify their beaches ("list of waters") that may be subject to the program and identify the
factors used in prioritizing their monitoring and notification efforts. EPA's strongly
encourages states and tribes to include the maximum number of beaches in their list of waters
and their monitoring program. Because of this, EPA recommends a tiered monitoring
approach. This policy allows flexibility to states and tribes, recognizing that there might not
be uniform monitoring requirements for all beaches. EPA believes this approach is preferable
to setting strict minimum requirements and risking omission of a large number of beaches
from the program.
• Public review. As a prerequisite for receiving an implementation grant, the BEACH Act
requires states, tribes, and local governments to provide the public with an opportunity to
review the monitoring and notification program through a process that provides for public
notice and an opportunity to comment. The monitoring plan is one aspect that must be
reviewed as part of the performance criterion for public review that is explained in section
2.2.9.
• Existing monitoring data. EPA recognizes that there is significant site-specific variability in
bacterial densities. Many states, tribes, and local governments have a well-established
monitoring program with detailed understanding of their water quality conditions. If reliable
monitoring information exists, it should be documented and used during the development of
the monitoring program.
June 2002 4-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
• Adaptive sampling approach. Monitoring programs should be flexible enough to allow states
and tribes to increase their sampling frequency, locations, and other factors to accommodate
demands for new information as the need arises.
Quality Control. States, tribes, and local governments must develop appropriate quality
control policies and procedures and submit adequate quality management plans and quality
assurance plans to EPA for approval. This section describes data quality requirements for the
BEACHES program.
Quality Control
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 31.45 governing grants to states, tribes, and local governments
provide as follows:
If the grantee's project involves environmentally related measurements or data generation,
the grantee shall develop and implement quality assurance practices consisting of policies,
procedures, specifications, standards, and documentation sufficient to produce data of quality
adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of data due to out-of-control
conditions or malfunctions.
The work performed under the BEACH grants involves environmentally related measurements
and data generation. To comply with 40 CFR 31.45, states, tribes, and local governments must
develop and implement a quality management system that is sufficient to produce data of a quality
adequate to meet the Beaches project objectives.
EPA is committed to ensuring the quality of environmental data used in its decision-making
process and in activities supported by EPA. As a result, EPA has developed an Agency-wide
quality system to ensure that environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support
the data's intended use. The Office of Water has in turn developed a Quality Management Plan for
OW activities (the OW QMP) that is consistent with the EPA quality system (USEPA, 200Ic).
Three specific requirements must be met to comply with Performance Criterion 2:
1. States, tribes, and local governments must submit quality system documentation that describes
the quality system implemented by the state, tribe, or local government. It may be in the form
of a QMP or equivalent documentation.
2. States, tribes, and local governments must submit a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) or
equivalent documentation. A QAPP is a commonly used form of documentation for primary
data collection. It is a technical planning document that defines the objectives of a project or
continuing operation, as well as the methods, organization, and quality management activities
necessary to meet the goals of the project or operation. It serves as the blueprint for
4-4 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
implementing the data collection activity to ensure that the technical and quality goals of the
operation are met. It also provides the necessary link between the required data quality
constraints and the sampling and analysis activities to be conducted.
3. States, tribes, and local governments are responsible for submitting documentation of the
quality system and the QAPP for review and approval by the Quality Assurance Officer or his
designee before environmental measurements (primary or secondary) are taken.
Each of these components is based on requirements previously established in the OW QMP.
Additional quality control information is available in Appendix H. Applicants should contact the
EPA Regional Quality Assurance Officer for more detailed guidance.
Specific Monitoring Guidelines and Examples
The following sections provide EPA's current recommended guidelines and examples that a state,
tribe, or local government should consider in its monitoring plan. (The letters A, B, C, and D
correspond to the parts of table 4-2 that summarize these recommendations.)
A. When to Conduct Basic Sampling
To evaluate compliance with water quality standards, EPA recommends that samples be taken at
least once per week during the swimming season. Sampling should begin 1 month before the start
of the swimming season. These sampling frequencies may be altered depending on the
circumstances.
For Tier 1 beaches, EPA recommends that water quality samples be taken one or more times per
week during the swimming season. Many agencies sample more frequently to minimize the
uncertainty in their sampling; EPA recommends more frequent sampling where circumstances
warrant. For Tier 2 beaches, EPA recommends that water quality samples be taken once per week
during the swimming season. However, less frequent sampling might be possible depending on
proximity to suspected pollution sources, beach use, historical water quality data, and other risk
factors. For Tier 3 beaches, a minimum sampling frequency consistent with other ambient water
quality sampling programs could be conducted for a limited time (one to two years). However,
these areas should be sampled to determine whether they should be reclassified as Tier 1 or Tier 2
beaches or dropped from the program.
B. When to Conduct Additional Sampling
This section provides examples of some sampling approaches that could be used to address
several typical scenarios.
June 2002 4-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table 4-2. EPA Recommended Tiered Sampling Design for Beach Managers
A. When to Conduct Basic
Sampling
B. When to
Conduct
Additional
Sampling
After a water
quality standard
is exceeded
After a sewage
spill or pollution
event
Reopening after
advisory or
closure
After a heavy
rainfall event
C. Where to Collect Samples
D. What Depth to Sample
Tierl
At least 1 month before start of
swimming season until end of
swimming season.
Recommended sampling frequency
is one or more times per week
during the swimming season.
Tierl
At least 1 month before start of
swimming season until end of
swimming season.
Recommended sampling frequency
is one time per week during the
swimming season. However, less
frequent sampling might be
adequate depending on proximity to
suspected sources, beach use,
historical water quality data, and
other risk factors.
Tier3
At least 1 month before start of
swimming season until end of
swimming season.
A minimum sampling
frequency, consistent with
other ambient water quality
sampling programs, could be
used for a limited time. Areas
should be sampled to determine
whether they should be
reclassified or dropped from
the program
When a bacterial concentration exceeds a water quality standard, a state, tribe, or local government must
immediately either issue a public notification or resample. If a sample result is determined to be accurate and
standards are indeed being exceeded, the agency must issue its public notification. Resampling is acceptable
after exceedance of a state or tribal water quality standard where there is reason to doubt the accuracy or
certainty of the first sample, based on predefined quality assurance measures. EPA recommends that additional
samples be taken as soon as possible if the first sample exceeds water quality standards.
EPA recommends that additional sampling be conducted immediately after a sewage spill or a significant
pollution event where the potential exists that indicator levels may be expected to exceed standards. EPA
strongly recommends that states and tribes consider beach closures when a sewage spill or major leaks are
suspected.
Additional sampling should be conducted to determine whether a public notification can be discontinued (beach
advisory, posting, or closure). Since an advisory should not be lifted without sample results that show the
applicable water quality standards have been met, an agency may want to complete accelerated sampling to
remove a health advisory sooner rather than waiting until the next routine sampling results are received.
EPA recommends that samples be taken after a heavy rainfall, particularly if
a valid preemptive standard is not in place.
Middle of typical bathing area.
Near known and potential pollution
sources.
For short beaches, one sample at a
point corresponding to each
lifeguard chair, or one for every 500
m of beach.
For long beaches (> 8 km [5
miles]), sample at most highly used
areas, and spread out samples along
the entire beach.
Knee depth.
Middle of typical bathing area.
Near known and potential pollution
sources.
Knee depth.
NA
Middle of typical bathing area.
Near potential pollution
sources.
Knee depth.
Bl. After a water quality standard is exceeded
When a bacterial concentration exceeds a water quality standard, a state, tribe, or local
government must immediately either issue a public notification or resample, if there is reason to
doubt the accuracy or certainty of the first sample. Public notification procedures (beach
advisories, postings, and closings) are discussed more fully in chapter 5.
4-6
June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
• If a sample result is determined to be accurate and standards are indeed being exceeded, the
agency must issue its public notification. Notification should remain in effect until resampling
indicates that water quality standards are no longer being exceeded and approved QA/QC
requirements are being met for sample accuracy. When standards are no longer being
exceeded, the basic sampling approach may be resumed, provided no heavy rainfall or other
pollution events have occurred.
• Resampling is acceptable after a state or tribal water quality standard has been exceeded if
there is reason to doubt the accuracy or certainty of the first sample, based on predefined QA
measures. EPA recommends that additional samples be taken as soon as possible if the first
sample exceeds water quality standards.
• If possible, the resampling should be completed immediately after a water quality
"exceedance" is detected, with results obtained no more than 48 hours after the
routine monitoring results indicate an exceedance.
• If the second sample indicates that a water quality standard has been exceeded, then
states, tribes, and local governments must provide prompt public notification.
• Resampling policies should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the program is still
protective of public health by limiting public exposure to poor water quality.
Resampling is more reasonable when (1) sampling results at the beach have shown
that, historically, water quality has consistently met water quality standards and (2) no
known or potential sources of fecal contamination affect beach water quality.
B2. After a sewage spill or pollution event
For all beaches, EPA recommends that additional sampling be conducted immediately after a
sewage spill or a significant pollution event where the potential exists that indicator levels may be
expected to exceed standards. EPA strongly recommends that states, tribes, and local governments
consider beach closure when a sewage spill or major leaks are suspected. (Beach closures are
discussed more fully in chapter 5.)
Additional sampling should be conducted before a beach is reopened after a closure because of a
known sewage spill. Since a beach should not be reopened without sampling results showing that
health standards are being met, an agency should complete additional sampling of a beach to
ensure the spill has been mitigated before reopening the beach.
B3. Reopening after an advisory or a closure
Additional sampling should be conducted to determine whether a public notification (beach
advisory, posting, or closure) can be discontinued. Since an advisory should not be lifted without
sample results showing that the applicable water quality standards have been met, an agency
might want to complete accelerated sampling to remove a health advisory sooner rather than
June 2002 4-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
waiting until the next routine sampling results are received. (Additional sampling might not be
necessary if a preemptive advisory or closing already exists. Preemptive advisories are discussed
more fully in section 5.3.2.)
B4. After a heavy rainfall event
At Tier 1 and Tier 2 beaches, EPA recommends that additional samples be taken after a heavy
rainfall, particularly if a state, tribe, or local government does not have a preemptive standard in
place.
B5. Other circumstances
Additional sampling should be conducted to determine the extent to which a beach is affected by
bacterial densities that are above the applicable water quality standards. When routine monitoring
at a sample location indicates elevated bacterial densities, additional sampling may be conducted
to determine the extent of the water quality problem. A good example of this practice was the
adaptive sampling strategy completed by the local health agency in Huntington Beach, California,
in 1999. By adding sampling stations and increasing the frequency of sampling, the health agency
was able to define the extent of poor water quality and the portion of the beach that could remain
open for swimming. Defining the extent of the poor water quality more effectively protects public
health and might provide valuable information for source identification and mitigation.
C. Where to Collect Samples
During the Data Quality Objective (DQO) Process, agencies should consider spatial and temporal
variation as well as resource constraints in setting forth optimal sampling locations. EPA's
recommendation for all beaches is that samples be taken in the middle of a typical bathing area.
At Tier 1 beaches, agencies should consider the following:
• If the beach is short, samples should be taken at a point corresponding to each lifeguard chair,
or one for every 500 meters of beach.
• If the beach is long (more than 5 miles), samples should be taken at the most highly used areas
and spread out along the entire beach.
In addition, all Tier 1 and 2 beaches should be sampled near known and potential pollution
sources, whereas Tier 3 beaches should be sampled near potential pollution sources.
D. What Depth to Sample
EPA's recommendation for all beaches is that samples be taken at knee depth. States and tribes
are encouraged to sample at the same depth for all beaches to ensure consistency and
comparability among samples. For example, if beach classification changes overtime, the samples
4-8 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
would remain comparable because of the consistency in sample depth. At Tier 1 beaches,
additional samples may be taken as necessary at a particular beach (e.g., waist depth, ankle).
Table 4-2 presents examples of monitoring options based on the beach classification (chapter 3).
The table includes suggestions for Tier 1, 2, and 3 beaches on when to conduct basic sampling,
when to conduct additional sampling, where to collect samples, and at what depth to sample.
Current Research
Monitoring program design is an essential part of any sampling program. Ongoing beach-related
research efforts are being conducted by EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state and local
agencies, tribes, and other scientists and organizations. For example, EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) is undertaking a study at marine, estuarine, and freshwater beaches to
develop a statistically valid monitoring protocol that takes into account elements that contribute to
the uncertainty associated with sampling bathing beach waters, such as tides, wind, solar
radiation, bather density, temporal and spatial factors, rainfall, and the proximity of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution. New data collected during the summer of 2000 are being evaluated
to recommend a monitoring protocol that minimizes uncertainty about the quality of bathing
waters while requiring the fewest number of samples possible. When published, this protocol will
provide additional information to assist in determining when, where, and how many samples
should be taken and how the monitoring data should be analyzed. The data quality objectives of
this study are provided at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/bch_dqo.pdf The guidance will be
updated periodically to reflect the results of ongoing research.
June 2002 4-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
4.2.2 Other Elements of a Monitoring Plan
Monitoring Design Considerations
Information Sources
One information source for monitoring recommendations is a National Research Council (NCR)
report that recommended ways to improve the usefulness of monitoring information. It is
contained in appendix H. The NRC report addresses such topics as monitoring objectives, testing
hypotheses and statistical methods, analytical methods and sampling designs, evaluation of
monitoring program performance, and data analysis.
Another information source is EPA's Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology
(CALM). During the monitoring design process, states and tribes should consider how the beach
water quality monitoring results will be used in conjunction with other state monitoring efforts.
For example, the information might also be used to help characterize ambient waters for activities
such as 305(b) reports or watershed assessments. Although such considerations are beyond the
scope of this document, these topics are addressed in EPA's draft CALM document (USEPA,
2002).
DQO Process
When monitoring data are being used in making a decision by selecting between two clear
alternatives (e.g., close a swimming beach or not close it), EPA recommends that states and tribes
consider using the systematic planning tool called the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process.
The DQO Process is an iterative process used to develop qualitative and quantitative statements
that
Clarify study objectives.
• Define the appropriate types of data.
Specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for
establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions (USEPA, 2000a).
The final outcome of the monitoring design process is a design for collecting data (e.g., the
number of samples to collect; when, where, and how to collect samples; variables to be measured;
and quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities needed to manage sampling design
and measurement errors), together with limits on the probabilities of making decision errors. The
design and oversight activities that will be used during the beach monitoring program to ensure
that the samples are collected and analyzed appropriately to meet the acceptance or performance
4-10 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
criteria are then written down in one or more planning documents. These materials form the
quality system documentation to be submitted for consideration of a grant award.
Staffing Monitoring Programs
A monitoring plan should include an adequate staffing plan for the beach monitoring program.
EPA recommends that professional staff from state, tribal, and local agencies maintain primary
responsibility for design and oversight of beach monitoring. Citizen volunteers may also be used
to perform supplemental beach monitoring program functions. For example, volunteers could be
used to provide more intensive monitoring at high-priority beaches or to help with monitoring at
lower-priority beach areas where regular staff might not be available. Appendix I provides
additional information on volunteer monitoring programs.
Training Monitoring Staff
Once the monitoring plan has been developed, the staff who will implement the program should
receive specific training. Whether drawn from the ranks of professional staffer volunteers, the
personnel responsible for sample collection and environmental measurements at the beach, as well
as those performing the bacterial indicator analyses, should be trained for those activities. The
quality of information produced by a monitoring program depends on the quality of the work
undertaken by field and laboratory staff. Separate training programs should be developed for field
staff, laboratory staff, and others involved in the monitoring program. Training should continue
for as long as the monitoring program is in action. Additional information on training is provided
in appendix I.
Managing Data
One of the most important aspects of a monitoring program is management of the data, from the
collection process through the data analysis. Data management activities include documenting the
nature of the data and subsequent analyses in a manner that permits the data in one set to be
compared with those in other data sets. Data management also includes handling and storing both
hard copies and electronic files containing field and laboratory data. A data management system
that will address the multiple needs of data users should be designed at the beginning of the
monitoring program. It is important to understand and comply with all state or tribal agency
policies and standards regarding data collection and generation.
Providing data to update national ambient water quality databases with the results of local beach
monitoring is an example of the need to transfer data between states and EPA. EPA strongly
encourages beach managers (and volunteer monitors) to add their data to the Agency's storage
and retrieval (STORET) database. States, tribes, and local governments can add their data to an
existing "state STORET" database, create a "state or local STORET" database, or create a data
system to store data. EPA maintains two data management systems containing water quality
June 2002 4-11
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
information for the nation's waters: the Legacy Data Center and STORET. The Legacy Data
Center, or LDC, contains historical water quality data dating back to the early part of the 20th
century and collected up to the end of 1998. STORET contains data collected beginning in 1999,
along with older data that have been properly documented and migrated from the LDC. Both
systems contain raw biological, chemical, and physical data on surface water and ground water
collected by federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; volunteer groups; academics; and
others. Each sampling result in the LDC and in STORET is accompanied by information on
where the sample was taken (latitude, longitude, state, county, Hydrologic Unit Code, and brief
site identification), when the sample was gathered, the medium sampled (e.g., water, sediment,
fish tissue), and the name of the organization that sponsored the monitoring. Staff working with
the database should have expertise and training in the software, as well as in the procedures for
data transport, file transfer, and system maintenance. Additional information on STORET can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/storet/.
The operation of the data management system should include QA oversight and QC procedures.
If changes in hardware or software become necessary during the course of the project, the data
manager should obtain the most appropriate equipment and test it to verify that the equipment
can perform the necessary jobs. Appropriate user instructions and system documentation should
be available to all staff using the database system. The development of spreadsheet, database, and
other software applications involves performing QC reviews of input data to ensure the validity
of computed data.
Program Implementation and Oversight
The monitoring program should be implemented and its effectiveness assessed at regular
intervals. The purpose of assessments (such as surveillance, readiness reviews, technical system
audits, performance evaluations, and audits of data quality) is to determine whether the
established QC procedures are being used and how the program is operating. Checklists or
reviews of program documentation and reports can be used to evaluate different aspects of the
program. The types and number of assessments to be performed can be documented in the
monitoring program oversight plan. In addition, the program should clearly provide for the
authority of the assessor (e.g., a QA officer) to stop work and should identify under what
conditions this may occur.
The QA program should include procedures for identifying and defining a problem, assigning
responsibility for investigating the problem, determining the cause of the problem, assigning
responsibility for implementing corrective action, and assigning responsibility for determining
the effectiveness of the corrective action and verifying that the corrective action has eliminated
the problem. Supervision is important during the program. To provide advice and identify
problems when they occur, personnel providing oversight to technical staff should be well versed
in the procedures they are performing. This proficiency is needed whether in the field performing
the sampling or in the laboratory performing the microbiological analyses.
4-12 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
Public Comment
Public review of the monitoring plan is part of the overall public review and comment criterion
described in section 2.2.9. States, tribes, or local governments must submit documentation of this
public review to EPA.
4.3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation
The third performance criterion is to develop a mechanism to collect relevant monitoring
information and submit timely reports to EPA and in the case of a state, document any delegation
of monitoring responsibilities to local governments.
Report Submission. States, tribes, and local governments must report their monitoring data to
the public, EPA, and other agencies in a timely manner. States should coordinate closely with
local governments to ensure that monitoring information is submitted in a consistent manner.
States, tribes, and local governments must report their monitoring data annually to EPA.
Reported data must be consistent with the list of required data elements in appendix E. The data
elements include one-time beach description data, one-time beach program data, one-time station
and method identification data, and reoccurring monitoring data. Visit the BEACH Watch web
site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches and refer to the Beach Guidance document for
updates on data submission.
Delegation. If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local governments, the state grant
recipient must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local governments
responsibility for implementing the monitoring program and document any specific delegated
responsibilities. States must notify EPA annually if there are any changes in delegated
responsibilities.
4.4 Assessment Methods and Procedures
Performance Criterion 4 requires the development of detailed methods and assessment
procedures. States, tribes, and local governments must
• Adequately address and submit to EPA methods for detecting levels of pathogens and
pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation areas. They must
provide documentation to support the validity of methods other than those currently
recommended or approved by EPA.
• Identify and submit to EPA assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in
pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation
areas.
June 2002 4-13
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Adherence to specific procedures for sampling is very important for a successful beach
monitoring program. Collection, preservation, and storage of water samples are critical to the
results of water quality analyses for bacterial indicators at swimming beaches.
This section and appendix J include a general discussion of basic equipment and techniques that
may be used to obtain water samples. The most appropriate sampling procedures should be
determined for the beach monitoring program based on the sampling design, the availability of
facilities and equipment, and how the samples will be processed. In any case, it is important to
develop a written plan or standard operating procedures (SOPs) that document the materials used
and the steps performed to obtain the samples and submit them to a laboratory for analysis.
Appendix J outlines the EPA-recommended SOPs for sample collection, handling, and
subsequent analysis. See also, Guidance for the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures
(USEPA, 200Id).
4.4.1 Laboratory Analysis
An important component of the beach monitoring program is selection of a laboratory
experienced in performing microbiological techniques, including methods for detecting E. coll
and enterococci, that can provide results that conform with the established standards for precision
and bias (accuracy). It is recommended that an accredited laboratory be used to obtain data when
beach advisory or closing decisions are to be made.
Policies and procedures for obtaining necessary laboratory and analytical services should be
developed as part of this performance criterion. Analytical laboratories should have the capability
to analyze the quantity of samples requested within the required time period, the
instrumentation/technique expertise to perform the required analyses, and qualified staff to
perform the analyses (USEPA, 1998c). Not only do microbiological techniques call for strict
adherence to specified methods, but staff also should avoid introducing unwanted
microorganisms into media and thereby producing incorrect results. Facilities should be equipped
with proper ventilation and equipment, and surfaces should be kept clean and disinfected
regularly. Staff should have received extensive training in a variety of techniques for the
detection of heterotrophic bacteria and other microorganisms and should be able to meet the
standards set for preparation of sterile media, inoculation procedures, colony counts, and other
aspects involved in the analysis of bacterial densities in surface water samples.
The laboratory QA officer should issue and approve SOPs covering general laboratory
operations, as well as specific procedures. Copies of all approved laboratory operations SOPs
should be kept on file. Such SOPs usually include a discussion of responsibilities for performing
and overseeing the work; possible interferences that might affect the analyses; safety
considerations; QC activities, equipment, materials, reagents, and standards needed for the
analyses; the steps of the procedure in chronological order; an explanation of how data should be
4-14 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
analyzed and reported; references; and associated documents and forms. The laboratory should
maintain log books for sample receipt, preparation of standards and media, sample analysis,
instrument runs, and instrument maintenance. The laboratory should have an established quality
management plan that specifies the quality policy, staff responsibilities, record management,
types of assessments performed to evaluate the analyses, and how corrective actions are
addressed.
Further discussions of good laboratory practices, requirements for equipment and supplies,
training programs for staff, QA/QC issues, and health and safety considerations for
microbiological laboratories are provided by Cross-Smiecinski and Stetzenbach (1994), Csuros
and Csuros (1999), and Eaton et al. (1995). A capable laboratory should be accredited.
Accreditation means that the laboratory has been investigated and found to meet the standards
and criteria set by an appropriate accrediting agency, including having qualified personnel,
appropriate instrumentation, SOPs, and demonstrated proficiency in the analysis of samples for
particular bacterial indicators. Laboratory accreditation is available through state agencies or
EPA's National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP), which oversees
state accrediting authorities. Further information on NELAP is available from the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nelac.
NELAC is a voluntary association of state and federal agencies that was formed to establish and
promote mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental
laboratories.
Agency policies and procedures for purchasing analytical services should be reviewed to
determine their suitability for implementing the beach monitoring program. Of particular
importance are the specification of method requirements that will be used to identify bacterial
indicator levels in the water samples, the number of samples that will be submitted for analysis,
the frequency of submittals, the schedule and turnaround time for results, deliverables and
reporting format, and contractual requirements, including penalty or damage clauses to reduce
laboratory default, late data submittals, and improperly performed analyses. Further guidance on
soliciting and awarding contracts for analytical services is provided in EPA 's Guide to
Laboratory Contracting (USEPA, 1998c).
June 2002 4-15
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
4.4.2 Analytical Procedures
This section discusses currently recommended analytical procedures for assessing ambient
waters.
For several years EPA has recommended a number of EPA-developed methods for use in testing
ambient waters. These methods are described below.
In addition, EPA has proposed to amend the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants under section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act, by adding several analytical
procedures for enumerating Escherichia coli (E. coll) and enterococci to the list of EPA-
approved methods at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 136. If EPA has
"approved" (i.e., promulgated through rulemaking) standardized testing procedures for a given
pollutant, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must specify one
of the approved testing procedures or an approved alternative test procedure. These methods also
can be used in nonregulatory applications.
In August 2001 EPA proposed these new testing procedures in Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants in
Ambient Water; Proposed Rule. These procedures were developed by the voluntary consensus
bodies (the American Public Health Association [APHA], American Water Works Association
[AWWA], and Water Environment Foundation [WEF]) that jointly publish Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, referred to as "Standard Methods: American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)," Association of Official Analytical Chemists
International (AOAC), and commercial vendors with methods submitted to the EPA Office of
Water's Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) program.
The proposed rule would revise 40 CFR Part 136 to add analytical methods for E. coli,
enterococci, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia in ambient waters. The rule includes methods
published in the 7995 Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, the 20th edition of
Standard Methods, and the 2000 Edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards (Vols. 11.01
and 11.02). It also includes methods that EPA and commercial vendors, including Hach
Company and IDEXX Laboratories and others, have developed.
For beach testing, EPA recommends that states, tribes, and local governments use the EPA-
recommended methods described below. The methods identified in the Part 136 rule also would
be acceptable. In addition to the methods proposed in Part 136, entities that want to use methods
other than the approved ones need to go through the EPA's ATP program, where they should
submit their method with validation data. Such documentation supporting the validity of methods
other than those currently recommended by EPA must be provided in order to meet performance
criterion 4.
4-16 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
Description of Methods
Membrane filtration (MF) and most probable number (MPN) are two types of methods that are
currently used for enumerating E. coli and enterococci in ambient water. MF is a direct-plating
method in which sample dilutions/volumes are filtered through membrane filters that are
subsequently transferred to petri plates containing selective primary isolation agar. A second
substrate medium is used in the two-step MF procedures to differentiate the target organisms. In
MPN tests, the number of tubes or wells producing a positive reaction provides an estimate of the
original, undiluted density (concentration) of target organisms in the sample. This estimate of
target organisms, based on probability formulas, is termed the most probable number. MPN tests
can be conducted in multiple-tube fermentation (MTF), multiple-tube enzyme substrate, or
multiple-well enzyme substrate formats.
EPA-Recommended Methods
EPA currently recommends four membrane filter methods for assessing ambient waters and for
making decisions concerning the protection of human health at beaches.
Membrane Filter Tests for Enterococci
EPA Method 1600 (mEImedia). Method 1600 is a single-step MF procedure that provides a
direct count of enterococci in water based on the development of colonies on the surface of a
filter when placed on selective mEI agar (USEPA, 1997). This medium, a modification of the mE
agar in EPA Method 1106.1, contains a reduced amount of 2-3-5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride,
and an added chromogen, indoxyl-p-D-glucoside. This change in ingredients allows for results in
24 hours rather than 48 hours, and it eliminates the second filter transfer step from mE to EIA. In
this method, a water sample is filtered, and the filter is placed on mEI agar and incubated at 41 ±
0.5 °C for 24 hours. Following incubation all colonies with a blue halo, regardless of colony
color, are counted as enterococci. Results are reported as enterococci per 100 mL.
EPA Method 1106.1 (mE media): EPA Method 1106.1 is a two-step MF procedure that provides
a direct count of enterococci in water, based on the development of colonies on the surface of a
membrane filter when placed on a selective medium (USEPA, 1985b). A water sample is filtered
through a 0.45-|J,m membrane filter, and the filter is placed on a plate containing selective mE
agar. After the plate is incubated at 41 ± 0.5 °C for 48 hours, the filter is transferred to an Esculin
Iron Agar (EIA) plate and incubated at 41 ± 0.5 °C for 20 to 30 minutes. After incubation, all
pink to red colonies on the mE agar that form a black or reddish-brown precipitate on the
underside of the filter when placed on EIA are counted as enterococci. The organism density is
reported as enterococci per 100 mL.
June 2002 4-17
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Membrane Filter Tests for E. coli
Modified EPA Method 1103.1 (Modified mTEC Media): Modified EPA Method 1103.1 is a
single-step MF procedure that provides a direct count of E. coli in water, based on the
development of colonies on the surface of a filter when placed on a selective modified mTEC
medium (USEPA, 1985a). This is a modification of the standard mTEC media that eliminates
bromcresol purple and bromphenol red from the medium, adds the chromogen
5-bromo-6-chloro-3-indolyl-p-D-glucuronide, and eliminates the transfer of the filter to a second
substrate medium. In this method, a water sample is filtered through a 0.45-|J,m membrane filter.
The filter is placed on modified mTEC agar, incubated at 35 ± 0.5 °C for 2 hours to resuscitate
injured or stressed bacteria, and then incubated for 23 ± 1 hours in a 44.5 ± 0.2 °C water bath.
Following incubation, all red or magenta colonies are counted as E. coli.
EPA Method 1103.1 (mTEC Agar): EPA Method 1103.1 is a two-step procedure that provides a
direct count of E. coli in water based on the development of colonies on the surface of a
membrane filter when placed on a selective nutrient and substrate medium (USEPA, 1985a).
EPA originally developed this method to monitor the quality of recreation waters. This method
also was used in health studies to develop the bacteriological ambient water quality criteria for E.
coli. In this method, a water sample is filtered through a 0.45-|J,m membrane filter, the filter is
placed on mTEC agar (a selective primary isolation medium), and the plate is incubated first at
35 ± 0.5 °C for 2 hours to resuscitate injured or stressed bacteria and then at 44.5 ± 0.2 °C for 23
± 1 hours in a water bath. Following incubation the filter is transferred to a filter pad saturated
with urea substrate medium. After 15 minutes all yellow or yellow-brown colonies (occasionally
yellow-green) are counted as positive for E. coli.
An EPA video, "Improved Enumeration Methods for the Recreational Water Quality Indicators:
Enterococci and Escherichia coli" demonstrates the four methods currently recommended by
EPA, including the mEI and the mE agar methods for enterococci and the modified mTEC and
mTEC agar methods for E. coli. The purpose of the video is to introduce and demonstrate the
improved methods. Accompanying the video is a laboratory manual having the same name that
explains all four methods in a step-by-step format (USEPA, 2000b). The laboratory manual also
contains color photographs of the target colonies on all media to aid in identification. The video
and methods manual are now available to all interested laboratories. Requests for copies of the
manual (EPA 821R-97-004) or videotape (EPA 822V-99-001) should be directed to EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ or
phone 513-489-8190). The manual is also available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches
or http://www.epa.gov/microbes.
Other Methods Proposed in Part 136 Rule
In the Part 136 proposed rule (Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water; Proposed Rule),
4-18 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
EPA has outlined several additional methods to be used to enumerate E. coli and enterococci.
Additional information on these methods can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/.
Most probable number tests for E. coli:
• LIB EC-MUG (Standard Methods 9221B. 1/922IF)
• ONPG-MUG (Standard Methods 9223B, AOAC 991.15, Colilert, Colilert-18, and
Autoanalysis Colilert)
• CPRG-MUG (Standard Methods 9223B, ColisureTM)
Membrane filter tests for E. coli:
• mEndo, LES-Endo, or mFC followed by transfer to NA-MUG media (Standard Methods
9222B/9222G or 9222D/9222G)
• MI agar
• m-ColiBlue24 broth
Most probable number tests for Enterooccci:
• Azide Dextrose/PSE/BHI (Standard Methods 9230B)
• MUG media (ASTM D6503-99, Enterolert)
Beach managers should be aware of the methods that may be used for analyzing the water
samples from beaches to meet particular monitoring program objectives. In addition, they should
be prepared to advise the laboratory of the intended use of the data and the data quality needs of
the project when seeking laboratory services. Otherwise, the laboratory cannot implement
performance-based measurement systems (PBMS) effectively or know when it is appropriate to
rely on the published methods.
4.4.3 Recommended Sample Collection Techniques
Strict adherence to specific procedures for sampling is critically important for a successful beach
monitoring program. This can be accomplished through a detailed plan or SOP for obtaining
samples and submitting them for analysis. Proper collection, preservation, and storage of water
samples are critical to ensuring the accuracy of the results of water quality analyses for bacterial
indicators at swimming beaches. This section and appendix J discuss the basic equipment and
techniques that may be used to obtain water samples. Appropriate sampling procedures should be
determined for the beach monitoring program based on the sampling design, the availability of
facilities and equipment, and how the samples will be processed. For example, sample containers
might be sterilized locally before each beach sampling event by the laboratory performing the
analyses. These containers also may be provided through a contractor, or an agency might
purchase sterile containers from a scientific supply company. In any case, it is important to
develop a written plan or SOP that documents the materials used and the steps performed to
June 2002 4-19
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
obtain the samples and submit them to a laboratory for analysis. Appendix J outlines the EPA-
recommended SOPs for sample collection, handling, and subsequent analysis.
4.4.4 Data Verification and Validation
Certain procedures should be used to verify whether the microbiological analyses have correctly
estimated the densities of indicator bacteria, to ascertain whether particular requirements for a
specified use of the results have been fulfilled, and to determine how the data should be
interpreted for decision making. This section discusses some of the important aspects of these
procedures, which should be included in the monitoring program design to ensure that the data
obtained are usable and defensible. Several iterations through these activities might be necessary
to ensure that the data and their interpretation are correct.
Validation Methods
Single laboratory validation refers to the confirmation that particular DQOs for a specified
intended use have been fulfilled. Thus, once the data have been confirmed to meet standards and
contract requirements, they may be systematically examined to determine their technical usability
with respect to the planned objectives. This activity also can provide a level of overall confidence
in the reporting of the data based on the methods used. For example, if the wrong medium was
used or the incubation temperature limit was exceeded, the data would be assigned a qualifier
indicating their uncertainty and would be rejected from further analyses. A report that provides
an assessment of the usability of the data, a summary of environmental sample results, and a
summary of QC and QA results should be prepared. The report should discuss any discrepancies
between the DQOs and the data collected and any effects such discrepancies might have on the
ability to meet the DQOs.
Finally, an assessment of data quality should be performed to evaluate whether the data are of the
right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use. This assessment may include
reviewing the DQOs and sampling design, conducting a preliminary data review, selecting the
statistical test, verifying the assumptions of the statistical test, and drawing conclusions from the
data.
Verification Methods
Procedures to verify whether the bacterial indicators were correctly determined should be
provided for any method used. Verification involves performing additional tests to identify those
colonies found on the membrane filter that provided information. A false positive rate is
calculated as the percent of colonies that reacted (were identified as the indicator) but were not
actually the indicator. A false negative rate is calculated as the percent of colonies that did not
react as anticipated (and so were not identified as the indicator) but were in fact that indicator.
False positive and false negative rates for the media used in EPA Methods 1600 and 1103.1 are
4-20 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
provided in those methods. Verification procedures should be used in establishing QC limits on
initial use of the procedure, when using a new technician to perform the procedure to ensure that
method requirements can be met, whenever any changes are made in how the procedure is
performed or in the materials used in the procedure, and always when the results are to be used in
evidence for legal proceedings.
Sample records, chain of custody records, and sample tracking records should be reviewed to
verify that all the samples collected were analyzed so that the data set will be complete. Data
entries and analyses also should be verified. For large quantities of data, spot-checking to detect
potential data entry errors should be performed. Additional checks may include graphically
displaying data to visually inspect for potential errors, using statistical methods to detect invalid
data, and checking for duplicate data entries. Input data may be reviewed for accuracy, bias,
completeness, precision, representativeness, or uncertainty. In addition, data reductions and
transformations should be reviewed (audited) to ensure that they have been correctly performed.
Review of calculations may include rechecking the computations, reviewing the assumptions
used and the selection of input data, and checking the input data against the original sources to be
sure transcription errors have not occurred. The types of calculations that might be performed on
bacterial indicator filter counts to estimate bacterial densities per sample are provided in the EPA
methods. Further examples are shown in Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water
Collection and Analysis ofE. coli in Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater (IITF, 1999).
The reviewer should document the results and report them to the beach monitoring program
management staff. To verify conformance of the data collection effort with the plan, data should
pass the specified numerical QC tests (precision and bias limits); the plans should be followed
and calculations should be performed correctly; all samples should be treated consistently; and
the necessary quantity of data and information relative to the stated DQOs should be obtained
(completeness). Any components requiring correction should be corrected if possible, or the data
should be rejected and not used to make the decision.
4.5 Use of Predictive Tools in Beach Monitoring Programs
The primary objective of any beach monitoring program is to minimize beachgoers' health risk
associated with infectious diseases caused by exposure to pathogenic microbial organisms.
Notifications of elevated levels of indicator bacteria are usually based on monitoring of beach
waters. Under this system, however, users of recreational waters can be exposed to waterborne
pathogens because of inadequate monitoring or delayed notification of monitoring results during
periods of poor water quality. The laboratory methods commonly used to detect potentially
harmful microorganisms take 24 to 48 hours. During this period, beachgoers might be exposed to
harmful pathogens.
To reduce exposure to pathogens, government agencies need tools that can provide a quick,
reliable indication of the water quality conditions. Predictive models are one means to provide
June 2002 4-21
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
these rapid indications. Modeling tools are used to supplement, not replace, monitoring and
provide conservative estimates when there is a lag time between sampling the water quality and
obtaining results.
A wide range of models are available that could be adapted to support beach advisory decisions.
If a beach manager chooses to use a predictive model, the model chosen should be supported by
identified selection criteria. Selection of the appropriate model for helping to determine beach
advisories and closings depends on the site conditions of the waterbody of concern. Some of the
site-specific considerations include the types of sources (point source/nonpoint source),
waterbody types, transport and circulation patterns, severity of impairment, and frequency of
indicator criteria exceedances. Other issues to consider are the model development and
application cost, the accuracy required, the use of the system, the training of staff, user-
friendliness, and public outreach and education requirements. In some cases economies of scale
can be identified when related analysis and modeling efforts have been initiated in the waterbody
of concern. The methodology and screening factors for selecting a model can and should be
described in the QA project plan. The selection of the appropriate model may be based on the
following screening factors:
Combined point and nonpoint sources
• Pathogen source characterization
• Dominant mixing and transport processes
• Pathogen concentration prediction
• Ability to provide time-relevant analysis, decision making, and guideline establishment
• Time-relevant use
• Evaluation of unplanned and localized spills
• Documented application to beach and shellfish closures
• Ease of use
• Input data requirements
Calibration requirements
• Pollutant routing
• Kinetics of pathogen decay
If models are properly developed and applied, simple models for dilution and mixing zone
evaluations can be used in making beach advisory or closing decisions. More complex models
also can be considered in light of their ability to assess dynamic loading and transport processes.
Detailed models can be used in developing a range of decision rules for categories of loading or
environmental conditions. These decision rules can be used to address day-to-day operations in a
cost-effective and timely manner.
The predictive models currently in use by local agencies vary in their complexity and approach
but are generally simple, reliable tools. An example of a commonly-used model is the rainfall-
based alert curve, which is a statistical relationship between the amount of rainfall at
4-22 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
representative rainfall gauges in the watershed and the observed bacterial indicator concentration
at a specific beach area. This relationship is based on simple regression methods and the
frequency of exceeding simultaneous and representative observations of bacterial indicator
concentrations and rainfall events. Pathogen data supporting the development of rainfall-based
alert curves are generated from the water column concentrations obtained from ambient or
targeted monitoring programs. Although these models do not explicitly account for point and
nonpoint sources or fate and transport processes, they rely on a direct statistical relationship and
provide simple, easy-to-use tools with reasonable accuracy.
In some cases objectives can best be met by using one model, whereas in others a combination of
models might be needed. Models are often developed for a particular waterbody type, including
rivers and streams, lakes, and offshore ocean waters. When determining the type of model to use,
factors such as data needs, application cost, pollutant type, and required accuracy are important to
consider.
Appendix K provides examples of currently used models and other predictive tools that could be
used to determine the need for a beach closing. The models are divided into two
categories—watershed pathogen loading models and pathogen concentration prediction models.
The latter category is divided into two additional groups to reflect different waterbody types: (1)
rivers and streams and (2) lakes and estuaries. Currently, there is a lack of readily available
models that address the coastal nearshore environment; therefore, no models that study the surf
zone are included in appendix K.
June 2002 4-23
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
4.6 References
APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed.
American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Cross-Smiecinski, A., and L.D. Stetzenbach. 1994. Quality Planning for the Life Science
Researcher: Meeting Quality Assurance Requirements. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Csuros, M., and S. Csuros. 1999. Microbiological Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Lewis Publishers, Washington, DC.
Eaton, A.D., L.S. Clesceri, and A.E. Greenberg, eds. 1995. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater., 19th ed. American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC.
IITF. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of
E. coli in Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater. Indiana Interagency Task Force on E. coll.
LaPorte County Health Department, LaPorte, IN.
USEPA. 1985a. Test Method 1103.1: Escherichia coli in water by the membrane filter
procedure. In Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in water by the membrane filter
procedure. EPA 600/4-85-076. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1985b. Test Method 1106.1: Enterococci in water by the membrane filter procedure. In
Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in water by the membrane filter procedure.
EPA 600/4-85-076. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1997. Method 1600: Membrane Filter Test Method for Enterococci in Water. EPA
821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998a. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5. EPA
600/R-98-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998b. The EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs. EPA Manual 5360.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998c. Guide to Laboratory Contracting. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
4-24 June 2002
-------
Chapter 4
USEPA. 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA 600/R-
96-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000b. Improved Enumeration Methods for the Recreational Water Quality Indicators:
Enterococci andEscherichia coli. EPA 821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 200 la. EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans, EPA QA/R-2. EPA
240/B-01-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001b. EPARequirementsfor Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPAQA/R-5. EPA
240/B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001 c. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. EPA 800/R-95-001. July, 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 200 Id. Guidance for the Preparation of Standard Operating Procedures, QS/G-6.
EPA 240/B-01/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2002. Version 1: Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Unpublished; anticipate
publication by fall 2002.
June 2002 4-25
-------
Chapter 5
Chapter 5: Public Notification and Risk Communication
This chapter describes the performance criteria and technical guidance related to the public
notification and risk communication portions of a beach program.
5.1 Performance Criteria
Performance Criteria 5 through 8 describe the four requirements for an overall public notification
and risk communication plan (communication plan). The general and specific requirements are
summarized below and in table 5-1.
• Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan (5)
• Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments (6)
• Measures to Notify the Public (7)
• Notification Report Submission and Delegation (8)
Table 5-1. Summary of Public Notification and Risk Communication Performance Criteria
Performance Criteria
General Requirements
Public Notification and Risk
Communication Plan (Performance
Criterion 5). The state, tribe, or local
government must develop an overall public
notification and risk communication plan.
The plan must describe the state's, tribe's,
or local government's public notification
efforts and measures to inform the public
of the potential risks associated with water
contact activities in the coastal recreation
waters that do not meet applicable water
quality standards.
Specific Requirements
• Identify measures to notify EPA and local governments
when indicator bacteria levels exceed a water quality
standard.
• Identify measures to notify the public when indicator
bacteria levels exceed a water quality standard.
• Identify notification report submission and delegation
process.
Chapter
Section
5.2
June 2002
5-1
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table 5-1. (continued)
Performance Criteria
General Requirements
Specific Requirements
Chapter
Section
Measures to Notify EPA and Local
Governments (Performance Criterion 6).
The state, tribe, or local government must
adequately identify measures for prompt
communication of the occurrence, nature,
location, pollutants involved, and extent of
any exceeding of, or likelihood of
exceeding, applicable water quality
standards for pathogens and pathogen
indicators. The state, tribe, or local
government must identify how this
information will be promptly
communicated to EPA. States only must
identify how this information will be
promptly communicated to a designated
official of the local government for the area
adjoining the coastal recreation waters for
which the failure to meet applicable
standards is identified.
Identify measures to notify EPA when a state water
quality standard is exceeded.
For states, identify measures to notify local governments
when a water quality standard is exceeded.
States, tribes, and local governments must notify EPA
annually of exceedances of water quality standards and
actions taken to notify the public.
States only must notify local governments promptly of
exceedances of water quality standards and actions taken
to notify the public.
5.3
Measures to Notify the Public
(Performance Criterion 7). A state, tribe,
or local government program must
adequately address the posting of signs at
beaches or similar points of access, or
functionally equivalent communication
measures that are sufficient to give notice
to the public that the coastal recreation
waters are not meeting or are not expected
to meet applicable water quality standards
for pathogens and pathogen indicators.
States, tribes, and local governments, as delegated must:
- Identify measures to notify the public when a water
quality standard has been exceeded.
- Immediately issue a public notification or resample
for bacterial exceedance of a water quality standard.
- Promptly notify the public of a water quality
standard exceedance when there is no reason to
doubt the accuracy of the sample.
- Post a sign or functional equivalent when a water
quality standard is exceeded.
5.3
Notification Report Submission and
Delegation (Performance Criterion 8).
States, tribes, and local governments must
compile their notification plans in timely
reports and in the case of states, to describe
any delegation of notification
responsibilities that has been made, or
intends to make to local governments.
State, tribes, and local governments must notify EPA
and in the case of states, local governments must be
notified annually of notification plan changes and any
delegation of responsibilities.
States, tribes, and local governments, as delegated, must:
- Report the actions taken to notify the public when
water quality standards are exceeded.
- Promptly report notification data to the public.
- Annually submit required notification data elements
such as advisory date, location, duration, cause to
EPA (see appendix E for a list of the required data
elements).
5.4
5-2
June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
5.2 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan
The public notification and risk communication plan, or communication plan (Performance
Criterion 5), should contain the following elements:
• Measures to notify the public, EPA, and local governments (Performance Criteria 6 and 7)
- Problem assessment and audience identification
- Types of notification
- When to notify
- How to notify
- When to remove notification
- Evaluation of notification program effectiveness
• Notification report submission and delegation (Performance Criterion 8)
• Identify opportunity for the public to review and comment on the notification plan (see
performance criteria 9, section 2.2.9)
June 2002 5-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Example of Notice in Spanish
Aviso! Corriente de agua/agua del drenaje de tormenta puede causar enfermedades evite contacto con
agua de desague que este estancada o corriendo y el area donde desemboca al oceano.
English Translation
Warning! Runoff/storm drain water may cause illness avoid contact with ponded or flowing runoff
and the area where runoff enters the ocean.
Orange County Environmental Health Division, For Further Information, Call 714-667-3752
5.3 Measures to Notify the Public, EPA, and Local Governments
5.3.1 Problem Assessment and Audience Identification
The communication plan should provide a clear sense of what the state, tribal, or local agency
hopes to accomplish and how it plans to accomplish it. One of the first steps is to identify any
communication problems and determine the appropriate target audience.
Problem assessment. The state or tribe should identify specific objectives to be accomplished by
a beach notification and risk communication program. The objectives should include identifying
audiences and determining the best way to inform the public of swimming advisories.
Audience identification. The state or tribe should identify and characterize the potential target
audiences for beach advisories or closings and determine what types of information and
communication styles are appropriate for each audience. A state or tribe should consider the
range of behavioral and sociodemographic groups of people that might be affected by that
program and determine the best communication methods for those audiences. For example, a
sign posted at the beach entrance could be used for local beach users, whereas a message on an
Internet web site or telephone hotline could be used to notify tourists who live farther away.
Also, if the beach population has a diverse makeup or the beach receives international visitors, it
may be important to include advisories in both English and other languages.
5.3.2 Types of Notification
Measures such as beach advisories or closings should be used to inform the public of the
potential risks associated with water contact activities in waters that exceed applicable state or
5^4 June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
tribal water quality standards. Advisories or closings, as appropriate, must be issued when
indicator bacteria levels exceed the state or tribal water quality standard and there is no reason to
doubt the accuracy of the sample. (More detailed guidance explaining when to resample is
provided in section 4.2.1, and guidance on when to issue an advisory or closing is presented in
section 5.3.3.)
Beach Closings and Advisories
Beach Closings
The term "beach closing" typically means that the beach area is officially closed to the public.
The closing of a beach is a local decision; EPA does not set beach closure requirements or
conditions. States, tribes, and local governments have the flexibility to close the entire beach or
just the recreation water adjacent to the beach. EPA recommends, however, that a closing be
issued if there is an imminent public health hazard such as a sewage line break or other high-risk
contamination source. During a closing, no one should be in the water. Lifeguards may or may
not be present at the beach. The beach could be closed to the public temporarily or for an
extended period (for the remainder of the swimming season).
Beach Advisories
An advisory (or "posting" as defined in California) does not officially close a beach to the public.
Advisories are recommendations to the public to avoid swimming in water that has exceeded
applicable water quality standards to reduce the potential of contracting a swimming related
illness. There are several types of advisories.
• A water quality exceedance advisory notifies the public of an exceedance of applicable water
quality standards after a water quality monitoring test.
• A permanent advisory notifies the public of a constant potential human health risk associated
with use of the water. A permanent advisory can be issued under conditions such as naturally
occurring organisms that are present in the water or human influences that cause a continuous
or reoccurring water quality standard exceedance.
• P± preemptive advisory notifies the public of the likelihood of higher levels of
microorganisms at certain times, such as after significant rainfall, during high temperatures,
with a particular wind direction, and in other situations. For example, a preemptive advisory
sign could be issued and posted following any rainy period because rainfall can cause an
elevation of bacteria levels due to runoff from the land.
June 2002 5-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Practical Applications of Closings Versus Advisories
The state, tribal, or local beach agency could distinguish between voluntary and involuntary risk
when implementing a notification program. A state, tribal, or local beach agency may not
necessarily have the ability to keep people from swimming. Therefore, the delegated authority
might choose to issue advisories and let people use their own discretion. It is important to make
the advisory or closing message as clear and effective as possible for the public to understand.
Content of Advisories and Closings
The most important information to include in a public notification is that swimming is not
advisable because of high levels of a microbial indicator detected in the water. When a sign is
posted to notify the public, the content should simply state that an advisory or closing is being
issued because of high levels of bacterial indicators. When issuing public notices or press
releases or notifying the public through a newspaper, however, additional information can be
included because there are fewer space limitations.
An advisory or closing should include the following information:
• General heading: Words such as "WARNING," "ADVISORY," or "BEACH CLOSED."
• Reason for the advisory or closing. Exceedance of water quality criteria (if known) and risk
of potential health effects (nausea, diarrhea, headaches, cramps, or other symptoms).
An advisory or closing should briefly explain that the water is routinely tested and that the most
recent samples indicate an exceedance of the applicable water quality standards. Appropriate
language might be as follows: "We routinely monitor for the presence of bacteria in the water.
Our most recent sampling results indicated an exceedance of our action level." The notice also
could explain whether the exceedance is based on an instantaneous criterion or on a rolling
average criterion. It might be helpful to explain the lag time associated with sample results,
noting that the sample might have been taken 24 hours before the advisory or closing. Finally,
listing the source of the contamination reassures the public that the problem has been
investigated and steps are being taken to address it (USEPA, 2000).
• Time and duration of the advisory or closing. It is important to identify when the sampling
was performed. In addition, it might be helpful to report when the advisory or closing is
expected to be removed and identify whether the advisory or closing will be in effect until
further notice or until the samples obtained meet a certain criterion.
• Location involved. Beach(es), county, park, or miles affected.
• Agency name and contact number.
5^6 June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5-2 provides suggestions for the content of advisories and closings.
5.3.3 When to Notify
As soon as the data reviews and data quality assessment are completed, concentrations for the
specified bacterial indicators should be reported to the beach manager. If a sample indicates that
there is an exceedance of a state or tribal water quality standard for pathogens or pathogen
indicators, the state, tribe, or local government agency must either immediately issue a public
notification or, if there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the first sample, the agency may
resample. If there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the first sample, states, tribes, and local
governments must provide prompt public notification. Resampling is acceptable after
exceeedance of a state or tribal water quality standard where there is reason to doubt the accuracy
or certainty of the first sample, based on predefined quality assurance measures. The
interpretation of the bacterial indicator densities with respect to notifying the public of an
advisory or beach closing should be clear and based on the decision rules established during the
planning process.
If the decision is to resample, the resampling should be done in accordance with the discussion in
section 4.2.1, When to Conduct Additional Sampling. If the decision is to notify the public EPA
recommends the following two approaches:
• Prompt notification of the owner, manager, or operator and/or the lifeguards. When sample
results indicate an exceedance of a state or tribal water quality standard, the appropriate
agency must promptly notify the beach manager/operator and appropriate staff members (e.g.,
lifeguards). This approach ensures that the responsible authorities know that action should be
taken to ensure the safety of the beach employees, and reduce liability.
• Prompt public notification. The appropriate agency must promptly notify the public of an
exceedance of applicable water quality standards by either a sign or functional equivalent (see
section 5.3.4). For Tier 1 and 2 beaches, notification should occur at the point of beach
access. For rainfall advisories, states and tribes may choose not to notify at the point of
access, but could notify the public using alternative methods.
June 2002 5-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table 5-2. Recommended Content for Advisories and Closings
Exceedance of Water Quality Criteria, Preemptive Advisory or Closing, Permanent Advisory or Closing
Sign
• Warning," "Advisory," "Beach Closed," or similar language
• Reason for advisory or closing
- For preemptive advisory or closing: "Heavy rainfall has occurred. Beach is closed/under advisory for the
next 24 hours due to predicted elevated bacteria levels"
• Name of beach, city, county, or miles of area affected
• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen
• Agency's name and contact number
Press Release or Public Notice
• Attention-getting title
• Reason for advisory or closing
- For preemptive advisory or closing: expected high bacteria levels
• What is the health risk and why
• Name of beach, city, county, or miles of area affected
• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen
• Agency's name and contact number, for both readers and journalists
Hotline
• "An advisory has been issued for..."
• Reason for advisory or closing
- Preemptive advisory or closing: expected high bacteria levels
• What is the health risk and why
• Name of beach, city, county, or miles of area affected
• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen
• Agency's name and contact number
Internet
• A list of beaches, cities, and counties, along with their respective status (open, closed, or under advisory)
• Reason for advisory or closing
- Preemptive advisory or closing: expected high bacteria levels
• What is the health risk and why
• Miles or area affected
• When samples were taken, period of effectiveness, and when advisory will end or beach will reopen
• Agency's name and contact number
• Description of monitoring and notification program
• Links to beach and environmental agencies and the health department
• Maps, photographs, graphics
• Opportunities for volunteer involvement in beach program
• Reference list of materials and guides for beach users
5-8 June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
The following additional steps should be taken to issue an advisory when a beach has a high
level of human health risk or when a sign posted on the beach is not the most effective means of
communicating human health risk. For example, if the beach is frequently visited by tourists or
users who do not live in the vicinity of the beach, notification of advisories or closings might
need to be made through additional methods, such as news media, telephone hotlines, or an
Internet web site. (See section 5.3.4)
• Discuss the situation with other agencies. State, tribal, or local agencies, as well as appropriate
organizations involved with the beach monitoring and notification program, should be
contacted.
• Provide results on a telephone hotline.
• Issue a press release.
• Provide information on the local beach web site.
5.3.4 How to Notify
The needs of the target audience(s) determine the most appropriate method of notification when
communicating a water quality exceedance.
The BEACH Act allows states and tribes to develop signs or functionally equivalent
communication measures when notifying recreational water users. Functionally equivalent
communication measures are those that effectively (1) communicate to the target audience and
(2) communicate the potential health risk in a timely manner (at least as timely as posting signs at
the beach).
A functional equivalent at the point of access could be a visual notice or personal interaction
such as a flag at a beach or interaction with beach or park personnel. Other functionally
equivalent measures not provided at the point of access include mass media (newspapers,
television, radio), Internet web sites, telephone hotlines, and technical reports.
Beach Signs
A sign is one of the most useful ways to notify beach users of potential health risks associated
with using the water. Signs should state the type of advisory or closing and the reason it was
issued—an exceedance of water quality criteria, heavy rainfall and the high levels of bacteria
June 2002 5-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
associated with it, or another reason as
deemed appropriate.
Signs should be located where they are
most likely to be noticed by beach users.
They should be placed at beach entrances,
on bulletin boards, or in the general
vicinity of the common swimming areas.
It is important to keep the signs simple.
The signs should be consistent throughout
the state or tribe to avoid confusion. The
signs should also be large enough to be
noticed, legible, and easily understood.
They should not contain small print or
technical language that might be hard to
understand. The signs should be a bright
color, such as red or yellow, to attract
attention. Graphics (such as a no
swimming symbol) are a good way to get
attention and easily convey a risk
associated with swimming. The words
"WARNING," "ADVISORY," or
"BEACH CLOSED" should be written in
large letters at the top of the signs so that
they can be read from a distance.
Additional information may be written in
easily read smaller print. The advantage of
signs is that they provide a visual notice at
the point of access.
Mass Media
Newspapers, television, and radio are an
effective means to communicate an
advisory because they provide more
detailed information to the public than a
sign. For example, a press release can inform the public of the area affected and the anticipated
duration of the advisory or closing. Notifying the public through mass media also targets a larger
audience than a beach sign. Mass media messages are particularly effective because they inform
the public of beach advisories before people arrive at the beach. The Public Notification Plan
should include an effective plan for ensuring sufficient and timely media coverage. The plan
AB411 - California's Requirements for Signs
Sign information: For public beaches or ocean water
contact sports areas closed because of a release or
spill of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or
for failure to meet microbiological indicator
organism standards, warning signs shall be visible
from each legal primary beach access point, as
identified in the coastal access inventory prepared
and updated...and any additional access points
identified by the health officer.
Example: WARNING! CLOSED TO SWIMMING
AND OTHER WATER CONTACT.
BEACH/SWIMMING AREA IS
CONTAMINATED AND MAY CAUSE ILLNESS.
For a portion of a public beach or ocean water
contact sports area with a storm drain, warning signs
should be placed at the affected area and at other
locations determined by the local health officer (for
example, along walkways to the beach, park
entrances) where they are likely to be read.
Language should be similar to the following:
Example: WARNING! NO SWIMMING OR
OTHER WATER CONTACT. STORM DRAIN
WATER MAY CAUSE ILLNESS.
Signs should be large enough to be clearly visible
and legible. They should be posted in English and a
second language, as deemed appropriate by the local
health officer, if a large percentage of users of the
public beach or water contact sports area understand
only that language. For example, a variation of the
international sign, with a graphic depiction of a
swimmer in a red circle with a diagonal hash mark,
may be appropriate.
5-10
June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
should explain how the mass media will be used—through public service announcements, paid
media, free media, newspapers, or a radio or television station.
Press Release
Public notification of a beach advisory or closing can be provided in the form of a press release
issued by the local health officer or beach manager. A press release is more effective if it comes
from the public health authority. The press release should indicate whether an advisory or closing
is being issued, the reason for the advisory or closing, the area affected, and the anticipated
duration of the advisory or closing. The press release should include both the name of the agency
and a contact number. It might be helpful to issue a press release at the beginning of the
swimming season to warn the public not to swim 24 hours after a heavy rain. Any notice or press
release issued for beach advisories and closings should be formatted to get the reader's attention
and communicate the information effectively. Consider the following suggestions (USEPA,
2000):
• Place the most important information on the top half of the notice in large print because
people often read only the first half of the notice.
• Limit the length of the notice and use bullets and bold text when appropriate.
• In a press release given to a newspaper reporter, provide a list of the required information
components and tell the press that these must be included in the press release.
• When the notice is sent to TV and radio stations, as well as newspapers, write "PRESS
RELEASE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY" at the top of the notice to emphasize its importance.
• Include a name, title, and telephone and fax numbers or e-mail address for the press to
contact for additional information or clarification.
Internet Web Sites
Internet web sites can be used to report advisories and closings to the public. The message can
and should be updated as the status of the advisory or closing changes.
A web site is a good way to reach many people in a community where the Internet is highly
accessible. States, tribes, and local governments are encouraged to develop web sites and
establish links between their web sites and EPA's BEACH Watch site at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches. EPA's BEACH Program coordinates the BEACH
Watch site to inform the public of trends in water quality at beaches, as well as local information
for beaches nationwide.
June 2002 5-11
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
The contents of a web site can be as simple as a current update of water quality conditions or a
list of advisories and closings. If desired, a web site can show previous advisories and closings,
water quality sampling results, maps of the area, photographs of the beach, names and agency
telephone numbers to enable the public to comment or ask questions, and tips for swimming
safety to reduce the human health risk of water use.
Telephone Hotlines
A telephone hotline can be established to inform the public about all beaches that are currently
closed, posted with an advisory, or otherwise restricted in a given area. The hotline message
should state whether there is an advisory or closing, what area is involved (beach, city, county, or
number of miles), the reason for the closing or advisory, the time frame involved, and the date of
removal, if known. The name of the responsible agency and a contact telephone number should
be included as well. The hotline should be updated as needed to convey changes in the status of
beach closings and advisories. Hotlines should follow the same general format as written
advisories. The most important information should be stated first, in clear, nontechnical language
because many people will listen to only the beginning of the message. The message needs to be
updated as the status of the advisory or closing changes.
Technical Reports
To assess the health of the beaches monitored, a state, tribe, or local government might want to
compile a monthly or an annual report of the beach advisories and closings after the beach season
has ended. This report could include the number of times criteria were exceeded, the number of
days beaches were under an advisory or closed, the number of beaches affected by an advisory or
closing, a compilation of all the sampling results, or other measures of beach advisories or
closings such as "beach mile-days."
5.3.5 When to Remove Notification
It is important to establish a procedure for removing an issued or expired advisory or reopening a
closed beach. The procedure might vary depending on whether the beach was closed or an
advisory was issued. This is an important step in risk communication. The public should know
when the water meets applicable standards and should be able to recognize the established
procedures for reopening the beach or removing an advisory.
EPA recommends that the following procedure be performed at all beaches:
• Resample and compare the bacterial concentrations with the applicable water quality
standards to determine whether the levels exceed the standards. This procedure should be
performed unless the advisory or closing was preemptive due to rain.
5-12 June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
• Remove advisories or reopen a beach after a set number of hours or days after a rainfall. This
should be done only if significant monitoring has previously been conducted to support the
assumption that bacterial densities are below criteria after a set period of time. Best
professional judgment also could be used to supplement the decision to reopen a beach;
however, the monitoring data should be the primary basis of the decision.
Beach managers can use the following additional procedures to remove advisories and reopen
beaches:
• Notify the owner/manager/operator and lifeguards of the test results.
• Provide an announcement to agency staff or local government staff.
• Remove the advisory or closing sign.
• Provide the sampling results on a hotline, water quality information/result phone line, or local
radio or TV station or in a local newspaper.
• Remove any physical barriers.
5.3.6 Evaluation of Notification Program's Effectiveness
The public notification and risk communication program should be evaluated at various times
throughout the risk communication process. This step is an important element that helps to
ensure that a notification program has been designed to meet the needs of the public and the
objectives of the agency. Throughout the risk communication and notification process, it is
important to include activities, benchmarks, and milestones that require formative, process, and
summary evaluation data to be collected and used. An evaluation of program effectiveness
should consider the factors described below.
Whether the notification program meets the needs of the audiences and the objectives of the
agency
Notification program evaluations should be conducted to assess the likelihood of attaining
program objectives and the strengths and weaknesses of alternative communication strategies.
An example of this type of assessment is determining how many people pay attention to
communication methods such as beach signs and physical barriers or assessing how many people
actually contact a telephone hotline or Internet web site to obtain water quality information for a
particular beach.
To conduct informative evaluations, staff members as well as members of the target audience
should be used. The time required can range from several hours of staff time spent on
June 2002 5-13
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
brainstorming and reviewing activities to a considerable amount of time spent interviewing the
target audience (USDHHS, 1993).
Whether the process evaluations occur as the communication strategy is implemented
Process evaluations are useful in both new and established risk communication programs. These
evaluations can be used to determine whether communication strategies are being implemented
as planned, to evaluate the communication strategy steps, and to assess the adequacy of
administrative, personnel, or other resources necessary to keep the communication program on
track. An example is an assessment of whether the appropriate people are always notified when
an advisory is issued, a beach is closed, or a water quality standard is exceeded. Also, a state or
tribe should determine whether the water quality has been resampled as required by the
procedures for issuing advisories and closing beaches. Are signs, press releases, and web sites
presenting appropriate and accurate information? Is the program being conducted on the
intended time schedule, with the intended information dissemination mechanisms, within budget,
and using the intended staff and other resources?
Process evaluations can be conducted during the course of the communication program and used
to modify the communication strategy during implementation. There is no need to wait until the
end of the program to evaluate its implementation. Evaluation activities can include regular
contacts with communication partners (media personnel, web site owner, target audience) to
evaluate the timing and adequacy of advisory information. Interviews with target audience
members or focus groups are also useful to assess how well the advisory information is reaching
the target audience and how receptive they are to that information.
Whether the needs of the public and the agency's objectives have been met
Summary evaluations are designed to document the short- or long-term results of risk
communication programs and to evaluate whether objectives were achieved. These evaluations
determine whether the beach advisories and closings have been effective in communicating
health risks to the public. Did people receive enough information to make an informed decision?
Were people protected from bacterial contamination? Did the public respond positively to the
advisory and closing program? These questions and others should be considered as part of the
evaluation process.
Summary evaluations should occur at the end of the risk communication program. They can
include focus groups, mail surveys, and telephone surveys. A large sample size is often needed
for the program evaluators to measure statistically significant program outcomes and impacts in
large regions (e.g., statewide). A focus group could be composed of all staff involved in the
beach risk communication program. Examples of questions to ask include the following:
• What agency objectives did the advisory help achieve?
5-\A June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
• What objectives were not accomplished?
• What positive reactions have you heard from or observed in target audiences?
• What is working in the advisory materials?
• What negative reactions have you heard from or observed in target audiences? Which
methods of communication need improvement?
• What changes do we need to make in our advisory communication program?
Before developing of a risk communication plan, surveys can be mailed or conducted over the
telephone to gain feedback from a subset of the target audience. These surveys can be used to
determine the public's knowledge about the following:
• Human health risks of swimming in contaminated water
Specific advisory recommendations
• The advisory process
In addition, the surveys could be designed to assess the following:
• The public's reaction to advisories and closings
The public's willingness to adhere to advisory and closing recommendations
• The public's suggestions for better communication methods
5.4 Notification Report Submission and Delegation
As discussed earlier in chapter 2, Performance Criterion 8 requires grant recipients to compile
and report their notification activities in timely reports and describe any delegation of notification
responsibilities to local governments that might have been made.
Report Submission. States, tribes, and local governments must report their notification data to
EPA, and for states only, to local governments agencies in a timely manner. States, tribes, and
local governments also must report to EPA the actions they have taken to notify the public when
water quality standards are exceeded. To meet this criterion, states should coordinate closely with
local governments to acquire information and ensure that it is submitted in a consistent fashion.
States, tribes, and local governments must report their notification data annually to EPA.
Reported data must be consistent with the list of required data elements, such as advisory date,
location, duration, cause, etc. The complete list of notification data elements is listed in appendix
E. The data elements include one-time beach description data, one-time beach program data, one-
time station and method identification data, and reoccurring beach advisories and closings data.
June 2002 5-15
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Visit the BEACH web site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience^eaches and refer the Beach
Guidance Document for updates on data submission.
Delegation. State, tribes, and local governments must notify EPA, in an annual report, the
changes in the notification plan and any delegation of responsibilities. EPA encourages states to
coordinate with local governments and to delegate to local governments, as appropriate,
responsibilities for notification programs. Local governments have traditionally played the lead
role in administering beach protection programs. There are many reasons for the local level to
take responsibility for protecting recreation waters. For example, local citizens and officials often
are more familiar with local problems and needs and may be in a better position to address local
issues and formulate solutions. Also, many of the benefits of protecting natural resources—in this
case coastal recreation waters—accrue at the local level.
5-16 June 2002
-------
Chapter 5
5.5 References
USDHHS, 1993. Recommendations to Improve Health Risk Communication: A Report on Case
Studies in Health Risk Communication. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Public Notification Handbook. Draft for comment. EPA 816/R-00-010. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
June 2002 5-17
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A: Beach Guidance Review Team
The authors gratefully acknowledge the many comments received from the state and local
environmental and health agency members and the environmental group members of the external
Beach Guidance Review Team. These members include:
James Alamillo, Heal The Bay
Fred Banach, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Public Health
Bart Bibler, Florida Department of Health
Kathy Brohan, Maryland Department of the Environment
Sarah Chasis, Natural Resources Defense Council
Jody Connor, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Fred Earnhardt, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Linda Eichmiller, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
Richard Eskin, Maryland Department of the Environment
Suzanne Giles, OCEANA, (formerly with American Oceans Campaign)
Mark Gold, Heal the Bay
Darryl Hatheway, Surfrider Foundation
Catherine Hazelwood, The Ocean Conservancy
Mark Horton, Orange County California
Ramesh Kapur, New York Department of Health
Kerry Kehoe, Coastal States Organization
Virginia Loftin, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bob Masanado, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Robin McCraw, California State Water Resources Control Board
Ray Montgomery, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Bruce Moulton, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Judy Nelson, Westport, Connecticut, Health District
Jan Newton, Washington State Department of Ecology
Jack Pingree, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Debbie Rouse, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Dave Rosenblatt, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Nancy Ross, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Fun Shimabukuro, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Susan Sylvester, WI Department of Natural Resources
Sol Sussman, Texas General Land Office
Mitzy Taggart, Heal the Bay
Blake Traudt, Texas General Land Office
Leslie Williams, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
June 2002 A-l
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B: EPA Grant Coordinators
Table B-l provides the names of the EPA headquarters and regional Grant Coordinators and
corresponding contact information.
Table B-l. Regional Grant Coordinators
Region
Headquarters
Washington, DC
Region 1
Connecticut,
Maine,
Massachusetts,
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island
Region 2
New Jersey,
New York,
Puerto Rico,
U.S. Virgin
Islands
Region 3
Delaware,
Maryland,
Pennsylvania,
Virginia
Region 4
Alabama,
Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi,
North Carolina,
South Carolina
Region 5
Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin
Region 6
Louisiana, Texas
Name
Charles
Kovatch
Matt
Liebman
Helen
Grebe
Nancy
Grundahl
Joel
Hansel
Holly
Wirick
Mike
Schaub
Address
USEPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW Mail code: 4305
Washington, DC 20460
USEPA Region 1
One Congress Street
Suite 1100-CWQ
Boston, MA 02 114-2023
USEPA Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
(MS220) Edison, NJ
08837-3679
USEPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3ES 10)
Philadelphia, PA
19103-2029
USEPA Region 4
6 IForsyth Street, 15th
Floor Atlanta, GA
30303-3415
USEPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
(WQ-16J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
USEPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave. (6WQ-EW)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Telephone/Fax
202-566-0399
202-566-0409
617-918-1626
617-918-1505
732-321-6797
732-321-6616
215-814-2729
215-814-2782
404-562-9274
404-562-9224
312-353-6704
312-886-0168
214-665-7314
214-665-6689
E-mail
kovatch. charles@epa. gov
liebman.matt@epa.gov
grebe.helen@epa.gov
grundahl.nancy@epa.gov
hansel.j oel@epa. gov
wirick.holiday@epa.gov
schaub.mike@epa.gov
June 2002
B-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table B-l. (continued)
Region
Region 9
American
Samoa,
California,
Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana Islands,
Guam, Hawaii
Region 10
Alaska, Oregon,
Washington
Name
Terry
Fleming
Rob
Pedersen
Address
USEPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
(WTR-2)
San Francisco, CA 94105
USEPA Region 10
120 Sixth Ave. (OW-134)
Seattle, WA 98 101
Telephone/Fax
415-972-3462
415-947-3537
206-553-1646
206-553-1065
E-mail
fleming.terrence@epa.gov
pedersen.rob@epa.gov
B-2
June 2002
-------
Appendix C
Appendix C: BEACH Act and BEACH Act Fact Sheet
June 2002 C-l
-------
PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND COASTAL HEALTH ACT OF 2000
-------
114 STAT. 870 PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
Public Law 106-284
106th Congress
An Act
Oct. 10, 2000 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the quality of coastal
[jj R 999] recreation waters, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
Beaches the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Environmental
Assessment and SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
Act of 2000 This Act may be cited as the "Beaches Environmental Assess-
Inter- ment and Coastal Health Act of 2000".
governmental
relations. SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY CRI-
Public health and TERIA AND STANDARDS BY STATES.
safety.
33 USC 1251 Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
note- U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(i) COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.—
Deadlines. "(1) ADOPTION BY STATES.—
"(A) INITIAL CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.—Not later than
42 months after the date of the enactment of this sub-
section, each State having coastal recreation waters shall
adopt and submit to the Administrator water quality cri-
teria and standards for the coastal recreation waters of
the State for those pathogens and pathogen indicators for
which the Administrator has published criteria under sec-
tion 304(a).
"(B) NEW OR REVISED CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.—Not
later than 36 months after the date of publication by the
Administrator of new or revised water quality criteria
under section 304(a)(9), each State having coastal recre-
ation waters shall adopt and submit to the Administrator
new or revised water quality standards for the coastal
recreation waters of the State for all pathogens and
pathogen indicators to which the new or revised water
quality criteria are applicable.
"(2) FAILURE OF STATES TO ADOPT.—
"(A) IN GENERAL.—If a State fails to adopt water
quality criteria and standards in accordance with para-
graph (1)(A) that are as protective of human health as
the criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators for
coastal recreation waters published by the Administrator,
the Administrator shall promptly propose regulations for
the State setting forth revised or new water quality stand-
ards for pathogens and pathogen indicators described in
paragraph (1)(A) for coastal recreation waters of the State.
-------
PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
114 STAT. 871
"(B) EXCEPTION.—If the Administrator proposes regula- Publication.
tions for a State described in subparagraph (A) under sub-
section (c)(4)(B), the Administrator shall publish any
revised or new standard under this subsection not later
than 42 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
"(3) APPLICABILITY.—Except as expressly provided by this
subsection, the requirements and procedures of subsection (c)
apply to this subsection, including the requirement in sub-
section (c)(2)(A) that the criteria protect public health and
welfare.".
SEC. 3. REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.
(a) STUDIES CONCERNING PATHOGEN INDICATORS IN COASTAL
RECREATION WATERS.—Section 104 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
"(v) STUDIES CONCERNING PATHOGEN INDICATORS IN COASTAL Deadlines.
RECREATION WATERS.—Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, after consultation and in
cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local offi-
cials (including local health officials), the Administrator shall ini-
tiate, and, not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment
of this subsection, shall complete, in cooperation with the heads
of other Federal agencies, studies to provide additional information
for use in developing—
"(1) an assessment of potential human health risks
resulting from exposure to pathogens in coastal recreation
waters, including nongastrointestinal effects;
"(2) appropriate and effective indicators for improving
detection in a timely manner in coastal recreation waters of
the presence of pathogens that are harmful to human health;
"(3) appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-effective
methods (including predictive models) for detecting in a timely
manner in coastal recreation waters the presence of pathogens
that are harmful to human health; and
"(4) guidance for State application of the criteria for patho-
gens and pathogen indicators to be published under section
304(a)(9) to account for the diversity of geographic and aquatic
conditions.".
(b) REVISED CRITERIA.—Section 304(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
"(9) REVISED CRITERIA FOR COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.— Deadlines.
"(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the Publication.
date of the enactment of this paragraph, after consultation
and in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal,
and local officials (including local health officials), the
Administrator shall publish new or revised water quality
criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators (including
a revised list of testing methods, as appropriate), based
on the results of the studies conducted under section 104(v),
for the purpose of protecting human health in coastal recre-
ation waters.
"(B) REVIEWS.—Not later than the date that is 5 years
after the date of publication of water quality criteria under
this paragraph, and at least once every 5 years thereafter,
-------
114 STAT. 872
PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
33 USC 1346.
Deadline.
Publication.
the Administrator shall review and, as necessary, revise
the water quality criteria.".
SEC. 4. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND
NOTIFICATION.
Title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1341 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"SEC. 406. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND
NOTIFICATION.
"(a) MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION.—
"(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this section, after consultation and in
cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local
officials (including local health officials), and after providing
public notice and an opportunity for comment, the Adminis-
trator shall publish performance criteria for—
"(A) monitoring and assessment (including specifying
available methods for monitoring) of coastal recreation
waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that
are used by the public for attainment of applicable water
quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators;
and
"(B) the prompt notification of the public, local govern-
ments, and the Administrator of any exceeding of or likeli-
hood of exceeding applicable water quality standards for
coastal recreation waters described in subparagraph (A).
"(2) LEVEL OF PROTECTION.—The performance criteria
referred to in paragraph (1) shall provide that the activities
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph shall
be carried out as necessary for the protection of public health
and safety.
"(b) PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS.—
"(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may make grants
to States and local governments to develop and implement
programs for monitoring and notification for coastal recreation
waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that
are used by the public.
"(2) LIMITATIONS.—
"(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may award a
grant to a State or a local government to implement a
monitoring and notification program if—
"(i) the program is consistent with the performance
criteria published by the Administrator under sub-
section (a);
"(ii) the State or local government prioritizes the
use of grant funds for particular coastal recreation
waters based on the use of the water and the risk
to human health presented by pathogens or pathogen
indicators;
"(iii) the State or local government makes available
to the Administrator the factors used to prioritize the
use of funds under clause (ii);
"(iv) the State or local government provides a list
of discrete areas of coastal recreation waters that are
subject to the program for monitoring and notification
for which the grant is provided that specifies any
coastal recreation waters for which fiscal constraints
-------
PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 873
will prevent consistency with the performance criteria
under subsection (a); and
"(v) the public is provided an opportunity to review
the program through a process that provides for public
notice and an opportunity for comment.
"(B) GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—The Adminis-
trator may make a grant to a local government under
this subsection for implementation of a monitoring and
notification program only if, after the 1-year period begin-
ning on the date of publication of performance criteria
under subsection (a)(l), the Administrator determines that
the State is not implementing a program that meets the
requirements of this subsection, regardless of whether the
State has received a grant under this subsection.
"(3) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—
"(A) REPORT.—A State recipient of a grant under this
subsection shall submit to the Administrator, in such for-
mat and at such intervals as the Administrator determines
to be appropriate, a report that describes—
"(i) data collected as part of the program for moni-
toring and notification as described in subsection (c);
and
"(ii) actions taken to notify the public when water
quality standards are exceeded.
"(B) DELEGATION.—A State recipient of a grant under
this subsection shall identify each local government to
which the State has delegated or intends to delegate
responsibility for implementing a monitoring and notifica-
tion program consistent with the performance criteria pub-
lished under subsection (a) (including any coastal recre-
ation waters for which the authority to implement a moni-
toring and notification program would be subject to the
delegation).
"(4) FEDERAL SHARE.—
"(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, through grants
awarded under this section, may pay up to 100 percent
of the costs of developing and implementing a program
for monitoring and notification under this subsection.
"(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of
the costs of developing and implementing a monitoring
and notification program may be—
"(i) in an amount not to exceed 50 percent, as
determined by the Administrator in consultation with
State, tribal, and local government representatives;
and
"(ii) provided in cash or in kind.
"(c) CONTENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.—
As a condition of receipt of a grant under subsection (b), a State
or local government program for monitoring and notification under
this section shall identify—
"(1) lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, including
coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points
of access that are used by the public;
"(2) in the case of a State program for monitoring and
notification, the process by which the State may delegate to
local governments responsibility for implementing the moni-
toring and notification program;
-------
114 STAT. 874 PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
"(3) the frequency and location of monitoring and assess-
ment of coastal recreation waters based on—
"(A) the periods of recreational use of the waters;
"(B) the nature and extent of use during certain
periods;
"(C) the proximity of the waters to known point sources
and nonpoint sources of pollution; and
"(D) any effect of storm events on the waters;
"(4)(A) the methods to be used for detecting levels of patho-
gens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human
health; and
"(B) the assessment procedures for identifying short-term
increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harm-
ful to human health in coastal recreation waters (including
increases in relation to storm events);
"(5) measures for prompt communication of the occurrence,
nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any
exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality
standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators to—
"(A) the Administrator, in such form as the Adminis-
trator determines to be appropriate; and
"(B) a designated official of a local government having
jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal recreation
waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards
is identified;
"(6) measures for the posting of signs at beaches or similar
points of access, or functionally equivalent communication
measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that
the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not
expected to meet applicable water quality standards for patho-
gens and pathogen indicators; and
"(7) measures that inform the public of the potential risks
associated with water contact activities in the coastal recreation
waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards.
Deadline. "(d) FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS.—Not later than 3 years after
the date of the enactment of this section, each Federal agency
that has jurisdiction over coastal recreation waters adjacent to
beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public
shall develop and implement, through a process that provides for
public notice and an opportunity for comment, a monitoring and
notification program for the coastal recreation waters that—
"(1) protects the public health and safety;
"(2) is consistent with the performance criteria published
under subsection (a);
Reports. "(3) includes a completed report on the information speci-
fied in subsection (b)(3)(A), to be submitted to the Adminis-
trator; and
"(4) addresses the matters specified in subsection (c) .
Public "(e) DATABASE.—The Administrator shall establish, maintain,
information. an(j make available to the public by electronic and other means
a national coastal recreation water pollution occurrence database
that provides—
"(1) the data reported to the Administrator under sub-
sections (b)(3)(A)(i) and (d)(3); and
"(2) other information concerning pathogens and pathogen
indicators in coastal recreation waters that—
-------
PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
114 STAT. 875
"(A) is made available to the Administrator by a State
or local government, from a coastal water quality moni-
toring program of the State or local government; and
"(B) the Administrator determines should be included.
"(f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MONITORING FLOATABLE MATE-
RIAL.—The Administrator shall provide technical assistance to
States and local governments for the development of assessment
and monitoring procedures for floatable material to protect public
health and safety in coastal recreation waters.
"(g) LIST OF WATERS.—
"(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning not later than 18 months
after the date of publication of performance criteria under
subsection (a), based on information made available to the
Administrator, the Administrator shall identify, and maintain
a list of, discrete coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches
or similar points of access that are used by the public that—
"(A) specifies any waters described in this paragraph
that are subject to a monitoring and notification program
consistent with the performance criteria established under
subsection (a); and
"(B) specifies any waters described in this paragraph
for which there is no monitoring and notification program
(including waters for which fiscal constraints will prevent
the State or the Administrator from performing monitoring
and notification consistent with the performance criteria
established under subsection (a)).
"(2) AVAILABILITY.—The Administrator shall make the list
described in paragraph (1) available to the public through—
"(A) publication in the Federal Register; and
"(B) electronic media.
"(3) UPDATES.—The Administrator shall update the list
described in paragraph (1) periodically as new information
becomes available.
"(h) EPA IMPLEMENTATION.—In the case of a State that has
no program for monitoring and notification that is consistent with
the performance criteria published under subsection (a) after the
last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date on which
the Administrator lists waters in the State under subsection
(g)(l)(B), the Administrator shall conduct a monitoring and notifica-
tion program for the listed waters based on a priority ranking
established by the Administrator using funds appropriated for
grants under subsection (i)—
"(1) to conduct monitoring and notification; and
"(2) for related salaries, expenses, and travel.
"(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized
to be appropriated for making grants under subsection (b), including
implementation of monitoring and notification programs by the
Administrator under subsection (h), $30,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.".
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(21) COASTAL RECREATION WATERS.—
"(A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'coastal recreation waters'
means—
"(i) the Great Lakes; and
Deadline.
Public
information.
Federal Register,
publication.
-------
114 STAT. 876 PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000
"(ii) marine coastal waters (including coastal estu-
aries) that are designated under section 303(c) by a
State for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar
water contact activities.
"(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term 'coastal recreation waters'
does not include—
"(i) inland waters; or
"(ii) waters upstream of the mouth of a river or
stream having an unimpaired natural connection with
the open sea.
"(22) FLOATABLE MATERIAL.—
"(A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'floatable material' means
any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended
in the water column.
"(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term 'floatable material'
includes—
"(i) plastic;
"(ii) aluminum cans;
"(iii) wood products;
"(iv) bottles; and
"(v) paper products.
"(23) PATHOGEN INDICATOR.—The term 'pathogen indicator'
means a substance that indicates the potential for human infec-
tious disease.".
SEC. 6. INDIAN TRIBES.
Section 518(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1377(e)) is amended by striking "and 404" and inserting
"404, and 406".
33 USC 1375a. SEC. 7. REPORT.
Deadline. (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 4 years thereafter, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit
to Congress a report that includes—
(1) recommendations concerning the need for additional
water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators
and other actions that should be taken to improve the quality
of coastal recreation waters;
(2) an evaluation of Federal, State, and local efforts to
implement this Act, including the amendments made by this
Act; and
(3) recommendations on improvements to methodologies
and techniques for monitoring of coastal recreation waters.
(b) COORDINATION.—The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may coordinate the report under this section
with other reporting requirements under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
-------
PUBLIC LAW 106-284—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 877
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provi-
sions of this Act, including the amendments made by this Act,
for which amounts are not otherwise specifically authorized to
be appropriated, such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
Approved October 10, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 999 (S. 522):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-98 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-366 accompanying S. 522 (Comm. on Environment
and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 145 (1999): Apr. 22, considered and passed House.
Vol. 146 (2000): Sept. 21, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Sept. 26, House concurred in Senate amendment.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):
Oct. 10, Presidential statement.
o
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4305)
EPA823-F-01-06
January 2001
&EPA
Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health Act of 2000
Public Law 106-284
On October 10, 2000,
the Beaches Environ-
mental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act was
signed into law. This
new law authorizes a
national grant program
to assist state, tribal,
and local governments
in developing and
implementing monitor-
ing and public
notification programs
for their coastal
recreation waters. It
also requires states to
adopt improved water
quality standards for
pathogens and patho-
gen indicators and
requires EPA to
conduct studies and
develop improved
microbiological water
quality criteria guid-
ance. In addition, the
law requires EPA to
develop performance
criteria for monitoring,
notification, and public
information databases
and requires other
federal agencies to
establish certain
programs.
Purpose and Title
This legislation amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water
Act, or CWA) to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters and attain other objectives. The
following summary is provided for the convenience of the reader. It does not substitute for the
statute. Grant applicants should consult the statute and applicable grant regulations prior to filing
such applications.
Sect/on 1. Short Title
"Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000"
Water Quality Standards and Criteria
Sect/on 2. Adoption of Coastal Recreation Water Quality Criteria and Standards by States
The provisions of this section amend section 303 of the CWA with respect to the following:
• Initial Criteria and Standards: [By April 10, 2004], states having coastal recreation waters
are required to adopt water quality criteria and standards for pathogens and pathogen
indicators for which the EPA Administrator has published criteria under the act. [This refers
to EPA 's 1986 Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria.]
• New or Revised Criteria and Standards. Requires states to adopt new or revised standards
for coastal recreation waters not later than 36 months after the EPA Administrator publishes
new or revised criteria guidance for pathogens and pathogen indicators.
• Failure to Adopt. If a state fails to adopt criteria and standards for pathogens and pathogen
indicators that are "as protective of human health as EPA criteria [by April 10, 2004]" the
EPA Administrator shall promptly propose regulations setting forth revised criteria and
standards.
Section 3. Revisions to Water Quality Criteria
This section adds the following to section 104 of the CWA as "Studies Concerning Pathogen
Indicators In Coastal Recreation Waters":
• New Studies: [By October 10, 2003], the EPA Administrator shall complete studies for use
in developing: (1) an assessment of potential health risks from exposure to pathogens in
coastal recreation waters; (2) appropriate and effective indicators and appropriate, accurate,
and expeditious methods for detecting or predicting the presence of pathogens in coastal
recreational waters; and (3) guidance for state
application of EPA's criteria guidance for
pathogens to account for the diversity of
geographic and aquatic conditions.
• Revised Criteria: Requires the EPA Adminis-
trator to publish new or revised water quality
criteria guidance for pathogens in such
waters not later than October 10, 2005.
Criteria is to be reviewed at least once every
five years thereafter.
A copy of the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act
can be found on the BEACH Watch
website at .
-------
Monitoring and Notification
The provisions of this section amend Title IV of the CWA to add section 406, "Coastal Recreation Water Quality Monitoring and
Notification." This section includes the following provisions:
• Monitoring and Notification Performance Criteria: Directs the EPA Administrator, by April 10, 2002, to publish "perfor-
mance criteria" for a monitoring and notification grants program. The criteria will address the following topics: (1) the
monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches for attainment of water quality standards for
pathogens, including methods for such monitoring and assessment; and (2) prompt notification of local governments, the
public, and the EPA Administrator of exceedances, or the likelihood of exceedances, of standards for such waters so that
public health and safety can be maintained.
• Program Development and Implementation Grants. Authorizes the EPA Administrator to make grants to states, tribes, and
local governments to develop and implement monitoring and notification programs. To qualify for an implementation grant,
a grantee would need to: (1) be consistent with EP A's performance criteria; (2) prioritize use of grant funds based on use of
the water and risk to human health, and identify factors considered in setting priorities; (3) develop a list of waters not
subject to the monitoring and notification program due to fiscal constraints; and (4) provide an opportunity for public
comment. States may delegate responsibilities and provide funding to local governments to implement a program. Local
agencies may also apply for a grant under certain circumstances.
• Content of State, Tribal, and Local Programs. As a condition of the grant, a state, tribe, or local government shall: (1) list
coastal recreational waters adjacent to beaches used by the public; (2) identify the delegation process; (3) identify monitor-
ing and assessment methods including frequency and location of monitoring; and (4) identify communication procedures
and measures.
• Federal Agency Programs: Requires Federal agencies to develop programs for certain coastal recreation waters within three
years. These programs should be designed to: (1) protect public health and safety; (2) meet EPA's performance criteria; and
(3) address certain other matters required for state and local programs.
• EPA Database and Technical Assistance: Directs the EPA Administrator to: (1) establish a national coastal recreation water
pollution occurrence database; and (2) provide technical assistance for development of assessment and monitoring proce-
dures for floatable materials in those waters.
• List of Waters: EPA is required to maintain a publicly available "list of waters" that are subject to a monitoring and notifica-
tion program, as well as those not subject to a program because of fiscal constraints.
• EPA Implementation: In states that do not have a program consistent with EPA's performance criteria, EPA is required to
conduct such a program for listed priority waters using grant funds that otherwise would have been awarded to those
states. This "backstop" would commence three years after EPA lists waters in such states.
• Authorization of Appropriations: Authorizes annual appropriations of $30 million for fiscal years 2001 through2005.
[Actual funding levels depend on specific appropriations enacted annually by Congress.]
Other Provisions
• Defines "Coastal Recreation Waters": This term includes: "(i) the Great Lakes and (ii) marine coastal waters (including
coastal estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) by a State for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water
contact activities." The term does not include "(i) inland waters or (ii) waters upstream of the mouth of a river or stream
having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea."
• Tribes Are Treated Like States: Adds language which allows EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states for
purposes of section 406 of the act, which include coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification programs and
grants. EPA already had authority to treat tribes in a manner similar to states for purposes of section 303 of the act.
• Reporting Schedule: Requires that EPA report to Congress every four years.
• Appropriation Authority: Authorizes appropriations to carry out the act.
-------
Appendix D
Appendix D: Indicator Organisms
This appendix provides further background information about indicator organisms and EPA's
review of epidemiological studies. For a more complete discussion, refer to EPA's
Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (USEPA, 2000).
D.I Organisms That Can Indicate Fecal Contamination
Because many pathogens are not easily detected, indicator organisms are a fundamental
monitoring tool used to measure both changes in environmental (water) quality or conditions and
the potential presence of hard-to-detect target pathogenic organisms. An indicator organism
provides evidence of the presence or absence of a pathogenic organism surviving under similar
physical, chemical, and nutrient conditions. For fecal contamination, indicator organisms should
(Sloat and Ziel, 1992; Thomann and Mueller, 1987):
• Be easily detected using simple laboratory tests.
• Generally not be present in unpolluted waters.
• Appear in concentrations that can be correlated with the extent of contamination.
• Have a die-off rate that is not faster than the die-off rate of the pathogens of concern.
Indicator bacteria are usually harmless, more plentiful, and easier to detect than pathogens
(Wilhelm and Maluk, 1999). Methods are not currently available to culture or enumerate all the
disease-causing organisms that might be present in natural waters. For example, viruses and
protozoans are generally not used as indicators because of difficulties associated with isolating
them and detecting their presence in environmental samples. The bacteria species chosen as
indicators are indigenous to the intestines of warm-blooded animals and indicate the potential
presence of dangerous pathogens that can cause human illnesses.
Use and reliability are two factors that states and tribes should consider when selecting a
pathogen indicator. The lack of correlation between certain indicators and pathogen-caused
diseases in humans, as well as the uncertain relationship between indicators and different sources
of pathogens, is a limitation of bacterial indicators. A positive result for the indicator organism
means that the indicator is present in the waterbody, not necessarily that waterborne pathogens
are also present. The presence of an indicator might not indicate whether those pathogens (if
present) are viable or capable of causing disease and whether the source of the contamination is
humans or other animals.
Indicators vary in their ability to reliably predict potential risks to human health. Some indicators
have been shown to have a greater statistical relationship to disease than others. Also, current
June 2002 D^T
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
indicators are based on fecal contamination and might not accurately assess the potential for
disease from other pathogens that can cause skin, upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and
throat disease (USEPA, 1999). More research on the use of other bacteria and viruses as
indicators is being conducted at the federal, state, and local levels. Despite variability in the
ability of indicators to reliably predict potential risks to human health, EPA studies indicate that
enterococci and E. coli are the most effective available primary indicators for predicting the
presence of gastrointestinal illness-causing pathogens,
and for marine waters, enterococci is most appropriate.
One area of current scientific debate is whether indicator bacteria react differently under various
climatic and environmental conditions. Preliminary evidence suggests that E. coli and
enterococci can be detected at tropical locales such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam in waters
where there is no apparent source of contamination from warm-blooded animals (USEPA, 1999).
EPA and others are evaluating whether the current indicator bacteria grow and persist in natural
tropical environments. If E. coli and enterococci are determined to propagate naturally in tropical
conditions, EPA will conduct additional research to identify alternative indicators for tropical
areas.
D.2 EPA's Review of Recent Epidemiological Studies
Since the publication of EPA's 1986 criteria, a number of studies related to bacterial indicators
have been completed. Therefore, EPA reviewed relevant recent studies to determine whether the
studies continue to support EPA's recommendation to use E. coli and enterococci as bacterial
water quality indicators. EPA's review focused on the epidemiological studies that related
swimming-associated health effects to marine and freshwater bacterial water quality using
studies performed after 1984. (For a complete discussion of these studies, see EPA's
Implementation Guidance on Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, USEPA, 2000).
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) concluded:
The epidemiological studies conducted since 1984, which examined the
relationships between water quality and swimming-associated health effects, have
not established any new or unique principles that might significantly affect the
current guidance EPA recommends for maintaining the microbiological safety of
marine and freshwater bathing beaches. Many of the studies have, in fact,
confirmed and validated the findings of the U.S. EPA studies. There would appear
to be no good reason for modifying the Agency's current guidance for recreational
waters at this time (Dufour, 1999).
D-2 June 2002
-------
Appendix D
The new studies added an additional body of evidence that supports EPA's 1986 criteria. As a
result of this examination, EPA determined that its 1986 water quality criteria for bacteria
continue to represent the best available science and serve as a defensible foundation for
protecting public health from gastroenteritis in recreational waters. EPA found no reason to
undertake a revision of the criteria at that time (USEPA, 2000).
The following table includes the relevant findings of the research EPA reviewed that has been
conducted on indicator organisms since 1986.
Table D-l. Summary of Research Conducted Since 1986
Researcher/Year/
Location
Fattal et al.
(1987)
Israel
Cheung et al.
(1990)
Hong Kong
Balarajan et al.
(1991)
United Kingdom
Von Schirnding et
al.
(1992)
South Africa
(Atlantic Coast)
Corbett et al.
(1993)
Sydney,
Australia
Type of
Water
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Microorganisms Evaluated
Fecal coliforms
Enterococci
Escherichia coli
Fecal coliforms
E. coli
Klebsiella spp.
Enterococci
Fecal streptococci
Staphylococci
Pseudomonas aemginosa
Candida albicans
Total fungi
Unknown
Enterococci
Fecal coliforms
Coliphages
Staphylococci
F-male-specific
bacteriophages
Fecal coliforms
Fecal steptococci
Relevant Findings
Of the indicators tested, enterococci were the
most predictive indicator for enteric disease
symptoms.
Of the indicators tested, E. coli showed the
highest significant correlation with combined
swimming-associated gastroenteritis and skin
symptom rates.
Risk of illness increased with degree of
exposure.
Uncertainty about the sources of fecal
contamination may explain the lack of
statistically significant relationship rates of
illness between swimmers and non-
swimmers.
Gastrointestinal symptoms in swimmers did
not increase with increasing counts of fecal
bacteria.
Counts of fecal coliforms were better
predictors of swimming-associated illness
than streptococci.
June 2002
D-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table D-l. (continued)
Researcher/Year/
Location
Kay et al.
(1994)
United Kingdom
Kueh et al.
(1995)
Hong Kong
Fleisher et al.
(1996)
United Kingdom
Haile et al.
(1996)
California, USA
McBride et al.
(1998)
New Zealand
Seyfried et al.
(1985)
Canada
Ferley et al.
(1989)
France
Type of
Water
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Fresh
Fresh
Microorganisms Evaluated
Total conforms
Fecal coliforms
Fecal streptococci
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Total staphylococci
E. coli
Fecal coliforms
Staphylococci
Aeromonas spp.
Clostridium perfringens
Vibrio cholera
Vibrio parahemotylicus
Salmonella spp.
Shigella spp.
Total conform
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococci
Total staphylococci
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Total coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Enterococci
E. coli
Fecal coliforms
E. coli
Enterococci
Fecal coliforms
Fecal streptococci
Heterotrophic bacteria
Pseudomonas aeroginosa
Total staphylococci
Fecal coliforms
Fecal streptococci
Relevant Findings
Compared to the other indicators tested,
fecal streptococci were the best indicator of
gastrointestinal symptoms.
No statistical relationship between E. coli
and swimming-associated illness was found
(possibly because only two beaches were
sampled).
Nonenteric illness can be transmitted through
recreational contact with marine waters
contaminated with sewage.
The association of symptoms with both
E. coli and fecal coliforms was very weak
Enterococci were most strongly and
consistently associated with illness risk for
the exposed groups.
If swimmers remained in the water for more
than 30 minutes, the risk differences were
significantly greater between swimmers and
nonswimmers.
A small correlation was observed between
fecal streptococci and gastrointestinal illness.
The best relationship is between fecal
streptococci and gastrointestinal illness.
D-4
June 2002
-------
Appendix D
Table D-l. (continued)
Researcher/Year/
Location
Francy et al.
(1993)
Ohio, USA
Type of
Water
Fresh
Microorganisms Evaluated
E. coli
Fecal coliforms
Relevant Findings
In this study, the relationship between
E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria was found
to be statistically significant. This
relationship can differ from one data source
to another.
June 2002
D-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
D.3 References
Balarajan, R., V. Soni Raleigh, P. Yuen, D. Wheeler, D. Machin, and R. Cartwright. 1991.
Health risks associated with bathing in sea water. British MedicalJournal 303:1444-1445.
Cheung, W.H.S., K.C.K. Chang, R.P.S. Hung, and J.W.L. Kleevens. 1990. Health effects of
beach water pollution in Hong Kong. EpidemiologicalInfections 105:139-162.
Corbett, S.J., G.L. Rubin, O.K. Curry, D.G. Kleinbaub, and Sydney Beach Users Study Advisory
Group. 1993. The health effects of swimming at Sydney beaches. American Journal of Public
Health 83(12): 1701-1706.
Dufour, A.P. 1999. Memo from A. Dufour to Elizabeth Sutherland, Acting Director, Standards
and Applied Science Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology.
Fattal, B., E. Peleg-Olevsky, T. Agursky, and H.I. Shuval. 1987. The association between
seawater pollution as measured by bacterial indicators and morbidity among bathers at
Mediterranean bathing beaches of Israel. Chemosphere 16:565-570.
Ferley, J.P., D. Zmirou, F. Balducci, B. Baleux, P. Fera, G. Larbaigt, E. Jacq, B. Moissonnier,
A. Blineau, and J. Boudot. 1989. Epidemiological significance of microbiological pollution
criteria for river recreational waters. InternationalJournal of Epidemiology 18(1): 198-205.
Fleisher, J.M., D.Kay, R.L. Salmon, F.Jones, M.D. Wyer, and A.F. Godfree. 1996. Marine waters
contaminated with domestic sewage: Nonenteric illnesses associated with bather exposure in the
United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health 86(9): 1228-1234.
Francy, D.S., D.N. Myers, and K.D. Metzker. 1993. Escherichia coli andFecal-Coliform
Bacteria as Indicators of Recreational Water Quality. Water Resources Investigations Report
93-4083.U.S. Geological Survey, Columbus, OH.
Haile, R. 1996. A Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project, Monterey Park, CA.
Kay, D., J.M. Fleisher, R.L. Salmon, F. Jones, M.D. Wyer, A.F. Godfree, Z. Zelenauch-Jacqotte,
and R. Shore. 1994. Predicting likelihood of gastroenteritis from sea bathing: Results from
randomised exposure. The Lancet 344(October 1):905-909.
Kueh, C.S.W., T-Y Tarn, T.W. Lee, S.L. Wang, O.L. Lloyd, I.T.S. Yu, T.W. Wang, J.S.
Tarn, and D.C.J. Bassett. 1995. Epidemiological study of swimming-associated
illnesses relating to bathing-beach water quality. Water Science Technology 31:1-4.
f>6June 2002
-------
Appendix D
McBride, G.B., C.E. Salmond, D.R. Bandaranayake, SJ. Turner, SJ. G.D. Lewis, and
D.G. Till. 1998. Health effects of marine bathing in New Zealand. International
Journal of Environmental Health Research 8:173-189.
Seyfried, P.L., R.S. Tobin, N.E. Brown, and P.P. Ness. 1985. A prospective study of swimming-
related illness: II. Morbidity and the microbiological quality of water. American Journal of
Public Health 75(9): 1071-1075.
Sloat, S., and C. Ziel. 1992. The Use of Indicator Organisms to Assess Public Water Safety.
Hach Company, Loveland, CO.
Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and
Control. Harper and Row, New York.
USEPA. 1999. Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA 600/R-98-079. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
-1986. Draft. January 2000. EPA 823/D-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Von Schirnding, Y.E.R., R. Kfir, V. Cabelli, L. Franklin, and G. Joubert. 1992. Morbidity among
bathers exposed to polluted seawater. South African Medical Journal 81(6):543-546.
Wilhelm, LJ. and T.L. Maluk. 1999. Fecal-Indicator Bacteria in Surface Waters of the Santee
River Basin and Coastal Drainage, North and South Carolina, 1995-1998.
June 2002 D-7
-------
Appendix E
Appendix E: Draft Data Elements
The following is a draft list of data elements for states, territories, and tribes to use when
developing their databases and electronic data reporting systems. The data elements cover
general program information, beach monitoring data fields, swimming advisory fields, and
location data which may be submitted to EPA to meet the grant requirements.
Table E-l. Beaches Program Tracking Draft Data Element List
Table
Description
Type of User Entry
Beach Tracking One-time Submissions
Beach
Name
Description
Comment Text
Typical beach name (e.g., Jones beach)
Beach descriptive information (e.g., relative location,
season length)
Additional descriptive information about a beach
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Organization
Organization Type
Organization Role
Name
Description
Short
Name/Abbreviation
Grouping of organizations (e.g., state agency, local agency,
public interest group)
Grouping of possible organization roles for a beach (e.g.,
sampling agency, lead beach agency, laboratory)
Typical organization name or an organization affiliated with
a beach (e.g., x state Dept. of Environmental Protection)
Descriptive information about an organization affiliated
with a beach
Typical abbreviation of an organization's name (e.g., state
DEP)
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
State Lead Contact
First Name
Last Name
Middle Initial
Suffix
Title
Suite/POBox/Street
First Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Second Line
The first name of a person affiliated with a beach
The last name of a person affiliated with a beach
The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach
The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD)
The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person's
official title in his/her job or organization, not that person's
role with respect to the beach)
First line of a street address, suite name, or Post Office (PO)
box for an organization or person
Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an
organization or person
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
June 2002
E-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Suite/POBox/Street
Third Line
City Name
State
ZIP Code
Nonelectronic
Address Type
Address Start Date
Address Stop Date
Description
Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an
organization or person
Name of the city in an address for an organization or person
Two-character representation of the state for an organization
or person
The ZIP Code for an organization or person
Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of
nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,
mailing address)
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
no longer used
Type of User Entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Beach Lead Contact
First Name
Last Name
Middle Initial
Suffix
Title
Suite/POBox/Street
First Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Second Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Third Line
City Name
State
ZIP Code
Nonelectronic
Address Type
Address Start Date
The first name of a person affiliated with a beach
The last name of a person affiliated with a beach
The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach
The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD)
The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person's
official title in his/her job or organization, not that person's
role with respect to the beach)
First line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an
organization or person
Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an
organization or person
Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO box for an
organization or person
Name of the city in an address for an organization or person
Two-character representation of the state for an organization
or person
The ZIP code for an organization or person
Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of
nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,
mailing address)
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
entered or will begin being used
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
E-2
June 2002
-------
Appendix E
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Address Stop Date
Description
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
no longer used
Type of User Entry
Free-text entry
Notification Lead Contact
First Name
Last Name
Middle Initial
Suffix
Title
Suite/POBox/Street
First Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Second Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Third Line
City Name
State
ZIP Code
Nonelectronic
Address Type
Address Start Date
Address Stop Date
The first name of a person affiliated with a beach
The last name of a person affiliated with a beach
The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach
The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD)
The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person's
official title in his/her job or organization, not that person's
role with respect to the beach)
First line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an
organization or person
Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for
an organization or person
Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an
organization or person
Name of the city in an address for an organization or person
Two-character representation of the state for an organization
or person
Number of the ZIP code for an organization or person
Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of
nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,
mailing address)
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
no longer used
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Electronic Address (to be included for all contacts)
Description
Electronic Address
Type
Address Start Date
Address Stop Date
Description of the electronic address for an organization or
person
Grouping of electronic addresses used to indicate what type
of electronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,
URL, e-mail)
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
no longer used
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
June 2002
E-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Description
Type of User Entry
Telephone (to be included for all contacts)
Number
Number Start Date
Number Stop Date
Phone Type
Numeric representation of the phone number for an
organization or person
Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is
no longer used
Grouping of phone numbers used to indicate what type of
phone number an organization or person uses (e.g., fax,
voice)
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Advisory/Closing/ Posting Procedure
Organization Role
Procedure Type
Procedure Name
Procedure
Description
Grouping of possible organization roles for a beach-specific
procedure (e.g., issuance authority, notification authority)
Grouping of procedures used to indicate what type of
procedure is being performed by the beach for advisories,
closings, and postings (e.g., issuance method, determination
method)
Typical name used for the beach-specific advisory, closing,
or posting procedure
Description of the beach-specific advisory, closing, or
posting procedure
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Beach Tracking Continuous Submissions
Beach Activity
Activity Type
Name
Actual Start Date
Actual End Date
Description
Comment Text
Activity Status
Reason
Grouping of beach activities that indicates what type of
activity is being performed (e.g., closure, advisory, posting)
Name of the specific beach activity being performed
Start date of the specific beach activity being performed
(e.g., beach closure begin date)
Stop date of the specific beach activity being performed
(e.g., beach closure end date)
Description of the specific beach activity being performed
Comments about the specific beach activity being
performed
Status of the specific activity being performed (e.g., active,
rescinded)
The specific reason why the beach activity is being
performed (e.g., criteria exceeded)
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
E-4
June 2002
-------
Appendix E
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Reason
Description/Source
Description
Additional descriptive information regarding the reason that
a beach activity is being performed, including specific
source information
Type of User Entry
Free-text entry
Monitoring One-time Submissions
Sampling Station
Station Identifier
Station Name
Station Description
Water Level Measure
Water Level Unit
Code
User-defined identifier for beach sampling location
Common name for beach sampling location
Text describing the sampling station and/or beach
monitoring area
Water depth at sampling site
Unit code associated with water level measure
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Sampling Location Point
Absolute Location
Point Type
Geopositioning
Datum Code
Geopositioning
Method Code
Latitude Direction
Latitude Measure -
Degrees
Latitude Measure -
Minutes
Latitude Measure -
Seconds
Longitude Direction
Longitude Measure -
Degrees
Longitude Measure -
Minutes
Longitude Measure -
Seconds
Associated Estuary
Type of location point (e.g., point of record, sampling)
The code that represents the reference datum used in
determining latitude and longitude coordinates
The method used to determine the latitude and longitude
coordinates for a point on earth
North or South
Degree component of latitude measure
Minute component of latitude measure
Second component of latitude measure
East or West
Degree component of longitude measure
Minute component of longitude measure
Second component of longitude measure
Name of estuary associated with the location point
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
June 2002
E-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Great Lake
Waterbody Name
Ocean Waterbody
Name
Shore Relation
Description
Name of Great Lake waterbody associated with the location
point
Name of ocean waterbody associated with the location point
Indicates if the station is nearshore or offshore
Type of User Entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Pollution Source Location Point
Geopositioning
Datum Code
Geopositioning
Method Code
Latitude Direction
Latitude Measure -
Degrees
Latitude Measure -
Minutes
Latitude Measure -
Seconds
Longitude Direction
Longitude Measure -
Degrees
Longitude Measure -
Minutes
Longitude Measure -
Seconds
Associated Estuary
Waterbody Name
Waterbody Name
Shore Relation
The code that represents the reference datum used in
determining latitude and longitude coordinates
The method used to determine the latitude and longitude
coordinates for a point on earth
North or South
Degree component of latitude measure
Minute component of latitude measure
Second component of latitude measure
East or West
Degree component of longitude measure
Minute component of longitude measure
Second component of longitude measure
Name of estuary associated with the location point
Name of Great Lake waterbody associated with the location
point
Name of ocean waterbody associated with the location point
Indicates if the station is nearshore or offshore
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Beach Station Assignment
Beach/Project Name
Name of beach associated with sampling station
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
E-6
June 2002
-------
Appendix E
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Station Identification
Code
Description
Station identification code for sampling station
Type of User Entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Beach Program Assignment
Beach/Project Name
Program
Identification Code
Name of beach associated with federal program
Program code associated with federal program
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Monitoring Lead Contact
First Name
Last Name
Middle Initial
Suffix
Title
Suite/POBox/Street
First Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Second Line
Suite/POBox/Street
Third Line
City Name
State
ZIP Code
Nonelectronic
Address Type
Address Start Date
Address Stop Date
The first name of a person affiliated with a beach
The last name of a person affiliated with a beach
The middle initial of a person affiliated with a beach
The suffix of a person affiliated with a beach (e.g., MD)
The title of a person affiliated with a beach (that person's
official title in his/her job or organization, not that person's
role with regards to the beach)
First line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an
organization or person
Second line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for
an organization or person
Third line of a street address, suite name, or PO Box for an
organization or person
Name of the city in an address for an organization or person
Two-character representation of the state for an organization
or person
The ZIP Code for an organization or person
Grouping of addresses used to indicate what type of
nonelectronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,
mailing address)
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
no longer used
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Electronic Address
Description
Description of the electronic address for an organization or
person
Free-text entry
June 2002
E-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Electronic Address
Type
Address Start Date
Address Stop Date
Description
Grouping of electronic addresses used to indicate what type
of electronic address an organization or person uses (e.g.,
URL, e-mail)
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when an address is
no longer used
Type of User Entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Telephone
Number
Number Start Date
Number Stop Date
Phone Type
Numeric representation of the phone number for an
organization or person
Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is
entered or will begin being used
Used for historical purposes to indicate when a number is
no longer used
Grouping of phone numbers used to indicate what type of
phone number an organization or person uses (e.g., fax,
voice)
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Monitoring Continuous Submissions
Field Activity
Field Activity
Category
Identification Code
Start Date/Time
Type of sample collected during field activity (e.g.,
composite, routine sample, observation)
User-defined identifier for field activity
Start date and time of sampling activity
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Field Activity Beach Assignment
Field Activity
Identification Code
Beach/Project Name
Field activity identification code
Name of beach associated with field activity
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Sample
Associated Field
Activity
Total Volume
Total Volume Unit
Code
Container Color
Container Type
Container Size
Field activity associated with this sample.
Total volume of collected sample
Unit code associated with total volume
Color of sample collection container
Type of sample collection container
Size of sample collection container
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
Free-text entry
E-8
June 2002
-------
Appendix E
Table E-l. (continued)
Table
Container Size Unit
Code
Description
Unit code associated with container size
Type of User Entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Result
Result Sequence
Number
Completion Indicator
Code
Result Value
Result Characteristic
Result Unit of
Measure
Result Status
Analysis Date
Associated Field
Activity
Analytical Procedure
ID
Result identification number
Indicates whether the result is completely described
Value of the result for the specified sample and
characteristic
Characteristic with which the result is associated. This
includes both biological characteristics (e.g.,
E. coli, fecal coliform bacteria), as well as observation
characteristics (e.g., weather conditions, air temperature,
water temperature)
Unit code associated with result value
Indicates if the result is preliminary or final
Date on which the analysis was performed
Identification code of the associated field activity
Analytical procedure used in determining of the result
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Free-text Entry
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Result Lab Remark Assignment
Associated Result
Associated Lab
Remark
Result with which the remark is associated
Lab remark (e.g., "Sample or extract held beyond
acceptable holding time.")
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
Chosen from List of
Possible Data Elements
June 2002
E-9
-------
Appendix F
Appendix F: Beach Evaluation and Classification List
This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may
be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in
the main guidance document.
Table F-l provides an example of information describing (1) the potential for risk to human
health presented by pathogens, (2) use of the beach, and (3) other factors that can be used to rank
and classify beaches. As indicated in chapter 3, coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or
similar points of access should be classified in an appropriate tier based on the potential risk to
human health presented by pathogens, and the use of the beach. Further ranking of waters that
present an equal level of risk may be accomplished by considering information grouped in the
category of "other factors" in the following table. The Beach Act also requires that the public be
provided an opportunity to review the ranking program through a process that provides for public
notice and an opportunity to comment.
Table F-l. Information to Consider When Ranking and Classifying Your Beaches
Category
Potential Risk
to Human
Health
Presented by
Pathogens
(Available
Information)
Potential Risk
to Human
Health
Presented by
Pathogens
(Pollution
Threats)
Information
State water quality reports
Swimmers report health effects from this beach
Advisories issued at this beach last year during the bathing season because of exceedance of
water quality standard or preemptive standard
Beach closed to bathing during the season last year because of health concerns or exceedance
of water quality standard or preemptive standard
Suspected sources of human pathogen contamination of the water at this beach
Industrial point sources
Urban point sources: Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
Urban nonpoint sources: Oil, pesticides, other toxics
Urban nonpoint sources: Sewage, pathogens
Urban nonpoint sources: Plastics and other floatables
Agricultural nonpoint sources: Pesticides and other toxics
Agricultural nonpoint sources: Nutrients/animal wastes
June 2002
F-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table F-l. (continued)
Category
Potential Risk
to Human
Health
Presented by
Pathogens
(Sanitary
Survey)
Information
Annual rainfall for this area
Number of significant rainfall events during the past year (e.g., more than 1 inch in 24
that were known to contribute to pathogen contamination)
hours)
Type of terrain within 5 miles of the beach
Average high temperature during the swimming season
Average temperature during the past 30 days
Average flow if beach is on a river or an estuary with a flow
Flow during past 30 days if beach is on a river or an estuary with a flow
Nearshore water movement if beach is on an ocean, a lake, or other nonflowing waterbody
with or without a tide
Number of point source dischargers within 1 mile of this area (include outfalls)
Area subject to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) or storm sewer overflows (SSOs)
Area subject to agricultural runoff during storms
Location of nearest POTW
Number of POTWs within 5 miles of beach
Approximate number of septic systems within 5 miles of beach
Water treatment level in the area
Number of animal feeding operations (AFOs, feedlots) or concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) within 5 miles of beach
Number of aquaculture facilities within 5 miles of beach
Nature of discharges from AFOs, CAFOs, and aquaculture facilities to a waterbody adjacent
to this beach
Availability of sanitary facilities for the bathing public during the bathing season
Number of marinas or pleasure craft with toilets
Wild animals present on or near the beach
Domesticated animals present on or near the beach
Approximate number of birds per hour that frequent a typical 50-meter length of this beach or
nearshore waters
Pollution prevention and abatement efforts in this area
F-2
June 2002
-------
Appendix F
Table F-l. (continued)
Category
Potential risk to
Human Health
Presented by
Pathogens
(Monitoring
Data)
Use of the
Beach
(Exposure
Considerations)
Other Factors
Information
Number of exceedances of water quality standard per sampling station at a beach per month
Approximate area of beach open to bathers (length x width at high tide)
Average number of days in the bathing season
Percentage of beach visitors who go in the water
Average density of bathers at peak season (include weekends and holidays)
Average density of bathers during off-peak season
Average density of bathers from the susceptible population (children, elderly)
Importance of the beach to the local economy
If a program is not now in place at this beach, resources are available for developing a beach
monitoring and notification program
If a program is in place or planned, resources are available for maintaining a beach
monitoring and notification program
June 2002
F-3
-------
Appendix G
Appendix G: Conducting a Sanitary
Survey
This appendix provides supplemental
discussions, examples, and additional
references that may be helpful to beach
program managers. It does not create
additional requirements beyond those in
the main guidance document.
Sanitary surveys are frequently associated
with water supply systems. They are used
to identify sources of pollution and
provide information on source controls
and identification, persistent problems,
and management actions and links to
controls. Thus, a sanitary survey can be
an effective tool for protecting human
health at bathing beaches and can provide
information that helps in designing
monitoring programs and selecting
sampling locations, times, and
frequencies.
G.I When to Conduct a Sanitary
Survey
Using Sanitary Surveys
In the past several years, Delaware has become increasingly
concerned about having to close its beaches to swimming for
extended periods because of bacterial contamination. Lake water
quality and designated uses, such as public swimming, are
threatened primarily by high levels of bacteria.
Trap Pond is one of Delaware's most important freshwater
recreational resources. Located in the Nanticoke watershed, a Trap
Pond is a priority watershed that drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
Trap Pond is the recreational focus for Trap Pond State Park.
Although the watershed has no point source discharges and little
developmental pressure, erosion, pollution transport, and
increased nutrient influx were contributing to the lake's surface
water and ground water pollution. Increasing bacteria
contamination and symptoms of accelerated eutrophication such
as algal blooms were becoming increasingly obvious each season.
A comparative study found that Saunders Branch, the major
tributary to Trap Pond, had elevated bacteria and phosphorus
levels.
Sanitary surveys revealed the two probable causes—a direct
discharge from an underground septic system and livestock with
direct access to the stream. Property owners were notified of the
leaking septic systems and corrected the problem, and the bacteria
levels decreased immediately in the affected area of Saunders
Branch. Livestock accessibility, the second cause, was addressed
with a 1-year section 319 grant of $84,419. This grant funded a
conservation planner through the Sussex Conservation District
and Soil Conservation Service. The planner provided technical
assistance to implement animal waste management systems and
nutrient management plans on farms throughout the watershed.
Some 98 percent of the producers installed manure storage
facilities, buffer strips, and other best management practices, and
all producers fenced their livestock out of the streams.
(USEPA, 1999a)
A sanitary survey should be conducted in
suspected high-risk situations to identify
or confirm the presence or absence of
contamination sources and to aid in beach
classification. In addition, sanitary surveys
may be performed periodically during a
swimming season, when a bacterial exceedance is measured, or more frequently depending on
the length of the bathing season (CTDEP, 1992; Figueras et al., 2000; Great Lakes-Upper
Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 1990). A sanitary survey also should be
conducted as part of any proposal to expand or develop a recreational beach area or when a
newly proposed activity would significantly alter the water quality in an existing recreational
beach area. The findings of the survey should receive prime consideration in any decision to
proceed with development. In some states, such as Maryland, a permit for operation of a bathing
beach may not be issued if a detailed sanitary survey reveals sources of pollution that affect or
might affect the bathing beach (Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1978). If a
June 2002
G-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
significant pollution event occurs during the bathing season, a source identification should be
conducted rather than a comprehensive sanitary survey.
G.2 Who Conducts a Sanitary Survey
The EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary Surveys recommends that a Registered Sanitarian or a
Registered Environmental Health Specialist conduct or supervise the sanitary survey. The
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection recommends that the local health
department conduct a sanitary survey of any watershed that drains to a public bathing area
(CTDEP, 1992). The Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers
suggests that the official agency regulating the bathing beach or a person or persons acceptable to
that agency should conduct the sanitary survey (Great Lakes —Upper Mississippi River Board of
State Sanitary Engineers, 1990).
G.3 Steps for Performing a Sanitary Survey
The survey should identify new sources of microbiological hazards and evaluate the adequacy of
the existing sampling program and the corrective measures in place to deal with existing hazards.
The Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems: Surface Water
and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water (USEPA, 1999)
established four steps for conducting a comprehensive sanitary survey:
1. Plan the survey
2. Conduct the survey and site visit
3. Compile the sanitary survey report
4. Review and respond to the report
Examples of how to conduct a sanitary survey are also provided in the Guidance Manual for
Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems (USEPA, 1999), the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program Model Ordinance (NSSP, 1997), California's Draft Guidance for Saltwater
Beaches (CADHS, 2000), California' $ Draft Guidance for Freshwater Beaches (CADHS, 2001).
A brief description of the process is provided in the following paragraphs.
G.3.1 Planning the Survey
Before new survey activities are initiated, the previous sanitary survey report as well as any
existing data or reports on the area should be reviewed. These materials will help design a
thorough and efficient on-site evaluation. Data such as historical data on tides, currents,
prevailing winds, rainfall, discharges of wastewater treatment plant effluent, storm water outfalls,
combined sewer overflows, and urban and agricultural effluents could be collected. It is
important to compile a checklist to ensure that all potential sources of pathogen contamination or
G-2 June 2002
-------
Appendix G
other hazards that need to be identified are assessed during an on-site visit. The purpose of an on-
site visit is to identify and evaluate all existing and potential sources of microbiological
contamination that could affect the safe use of the area. The checklist in appendix F can help
target areas to examine as part of the on-site evaluation.
G.3.2 Conducting the Sanitary Survey
For the purposes of this guidance, the significance of rainfall, climate, terrain, flow, and sources
of pollution in the watershed and at the beach should be determined to aid in the beach
evaluation process.
• Rainfall and climate. Pollution can typically be expected to reach a peak after rainfall when
storm water runoff washes fecal material into receiving waters (Jagals, 1997). As part of the
beach evaluation process, therefore, it can be helpful to identify the annual rainfall for the
area, the pattern of rainfall in the 30 days before the survey (has it been below normal,
normal, or above normal?), and the number of significant rainfall events (e.g., more than 1
inch in 24 hours) in the past year. The type of terrain, the permeability of the soils, and the
storage characteristics of the watershed also can affect the rate at which runoff reaches the
beach (Novotny and Olem, 1994). Very hilly or mountainous terrain increases the amount of
runoff and the rate at which it reaches the beach. The average high temperature during the
swimming season and the temperature pattern during the past 30 days can affect pathogen
survival. Microbial growth rates tend to increase as temperatures rise (Auer and Niehaus,
1993).
• Water flow. The average flow and the flow during the last 30 days are important factors to
consider for beaches on rivers or estuaries. For nonflowing waterbodies (lakes, oceans) with
or without a tide, nearshore water movement is important to consider. Water movement
affects the concentration of pathogens; waterbodies with little or no flow or water movement
usually have higher pathogen concentrations.
• Sources of pollution in the watershed. Determining the location and impact of pollution
sources in the watershed can also aid in the beach evaluation process. Pollution sources that
are closer to the beach or that occur more frequently have a greater effect on the beach than
pollution sources that are farther away and occur less frequently. These sources all have the
potential to contribute to the bacterial and pathogen load affecting the recreational beach, and
therefore it is important to identify them during a sanitary survey. Once the sources have been
identified, public health can be protected by enforcing proper discharge levels (Thomann and
Mueller, 1987; USEPA, 1994).
• Water treatment level. The water treatment level and pollution prevention and abatement
efforts in the area also play an important role in beach evaluation. Tertiary treatment removes
more pathogens than primary, secondary, or no treatment; therefore, areas where tertiary
June 2002 G-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
treatment occurs are at lower risk than areas where primary, secondary, or no treatment
occurs (Thomann and Mueller, 1983). Pollution prevention and abatement efforts can help to
minimize health risks to bathers. Areas that have excellent pollution prevention and
abatement efforts can be of lower risk than areas where few such efforts occur.
• Sources of pollution at the beach. Human and animal fecal pollution that occurs at the
beach is an important source of pollution. The adequacy of the sanitary facilities for the
bathing public should be evaluated. Marinas, pleasure craft with toilets, wild or domestic
animals and birds, and failing septic drainfields or tanks also can be direct sources of fecal
pollution to recreational waters and the beaches adjacent to them (NRDC, 1999; USDHHS,
1994).
G.3.3 Compiling the Sanitary Survey Report
Final written reports for every sanitary survey should be prepared in a format that is consistent
statewide (USEPA, 1999) or that meets the criteria of the particular program for which the
sanitary survey is being conducted. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (USFDA, 1997)
recommends that the following components be included in sanitary survey reports for shellfish
growing areas:
• An executive summary that includes a description of the area, a location map, and the history
of the water quality of the area (if known).
• A pollution source survey, including a summary of the sources, a map or chart documenting
the location of the major sources, and an evaluation of the pollution sources and the
magnitude of the pollutants they produce.
• Information about physical factors that can affect the distribution and concentration of
microorganisms and microbial water quality.
• A description of the hydrographic and meteorological characteristics, including tides, rainfall,
winds, and river dischargers, and a summary discussion concerning the actual or potential
effect of transport of pollution to the area.
• Water quality studies, including a map of the sampling stations; the sampling plan and
justification; the sample data analysis; and presentation and interpretation of the data,
including the effects of meteorological and hydrographic conditions on bacterial loading and
the variability of the data.
• A conclusion section that includes recommendations for improvement.
G-4 June 2002
-------
Appendix G
The Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems (USEPA, 1999)
suggests that the survey report include the date and time of the survey, the names of survey
inspectors, a summary of survey findings with the signatures of survey personnel, a listing of
deficiencies based on a regulatory reference, recommendations for improvement in order of
priority, and a copy of the survey form. For examples of a sanitary survey report, refer to Bartram
and Rees (2000) and NSSP (1997).
With a completed sanitary survey report, a more accurate assessment of public health risk at a
beach can be made. Also, informed decisions on how to improve public health at the beach and
the implementation of new or improved sampling locations and frequencies can be discussed.
Evaluation criteria contained in the sanitary survey checklist in appendix F include the following:
• Annual rainfall for the area
• Amount of rainfall in the past 30 days
• Number of significant rainfall events (e.g., more than 1 inch in 24 hours during the past year)
that might have contributed to pathogen contamination
• Average high water temperature during the swimming season
• Water temperature during the past 30 days
• Average flow of beach if the beach is on a river or an estuary
• Average flow during the past 30 days if the beach is on a river or estuary
• Water movement if the beach is on an ocean, a lake, or other nonflowing waterbody with or
without a tide
• Number of point source dischargers within 1 mile of this area (include offshore outfalls)
• Area subject to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) or sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
• Area subject to agricultural runoff during storms
• Nearest publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
• Number of POTWs within 5 miles of the beach
• Approximate number of septic systems within 5 miles of the beach; estimated age of systems
• Water treatment level in the area
• Number of animal feeding operations (AFOs, feedlots) or concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) within 5 miles of the beach
• Number of aquaculture facilities within 5 miles of the beach
• Nature of discharges from AFOs, CAFOs, and aquaculture facilities to the waterbody
adjacent to this beach
Sanitary facilities during peak season
• Presence of a marina or pleasure craft with toilets
• Wild animals present on or near the beach
• Domesticated animals present on or near the beach
• Approximate number of birds per hour that frequent a typical 50-meter length of this beach or
nearshore waters
• Pollution prevention and abatement efforts in this area
June 2002 G-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
G.4 References
Auer, M.T., and S.L. Niehaus. 1993. Modeling fecal coliform bacteria—I. Field and
laboratory determination of loss kinetics. Water Resources 27(4):693-701.
Bartram, J., and G. Rees. 2000. Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the Design
and Implementation of Assessments and Monitoring Programmes. E & FN SPON, London.
CADHS. 2000. Draft Beach Sanitation Guidance for Freshwater Beaches. California
Department of Health Services,
CADHS. 2001. Draft Beach Sanitation Guidance for Saltwater Beaches. California Department
of Health Services,
CTDEP. 1992. Guidelines for Monitoring Bathing Waters and Closure Protocol.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Hartford, CT.
Figueras, M.J., JJ. Borego, E.B. Pike, W. Robertson, and N. Ashbolt. 2000. Sanitary inspection
and microbiological water quality. In Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the
Design and Implementation of Assessments and Monitor ing Programmes, ed J.B. a.G. Rees. E &
FN SPON, London.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. 1990. Recommended
Standards for Bathing Beaches. Health Education Service, Albany, NY.
Jagals, P. 1996. Stormwater runoff from typical developed and developing South African urban
developments: Definitely not for swimming. Presented at 8th International Symposium on
Health-Related Water Microbiology, October 6-10, 1996, in Mallorca, Spain. Water Science and
Technology 35(11-12): 133-140.
Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality—Prevention, Identification, and Management
of Diffuse Pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
NRDC. 1999. Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. Natural
Resources Defense Council, New York.
NSSP. 1997. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.
Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and
Control. Harper and Row, New York.
G-6 June 2002
-------
Appendix G
USEPA. 1994. Combined sewer overflows control program. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Federal Register. Apr. 19, 1994, 59(75).
USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems:
Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. EPA
815/R-99-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USDHHS, 1994. Recommendations to Improve Health Risk Communication: A Report on Case
Studies in Health Risk Communication. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs,
Washington, DC.
USFDA. 1997. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.
June 2002 G-7
-------
Appendix H
Appendix H: Data Quality and Sampling Design Considerations
This appendix provides additional information on basic data quality planning elements, as well as
sampling design considerations. It provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional
references that may be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional
requirements beyond those in the main guidance document.
H.1 Data Quality
H.1.1 General Considerations
In its Office of Water Quality Management Plan (USEPA, 200 Ic), EPA established a quality
policy for Office of Water (OW) Programs. Several key concepts from that document are
summarized below because they guide EPA's review of its own quality programs and others.
• Goal: The goal of OW is as follows: "Environmental decisions shall be based on data of
known and documented quality, such that the decisions are scientifically, and where
necessary, legally defensible and able to withstand public scrutiny."
• Basic tenet: A basic tenet of OW's quality system is that "the level of effort needed to
manage the quality of any activity depends on:
- The importance of the activity,
- The risk of decision error,
- The schedule for completion, and
- The available resources.
Quality policy: OW's quality policy is based on the goal and basic tenet described above. The
OW Quality Management Plan provides a succinct statement of priorities and a detailed
guide to components of the quality approach. The quality policy stresses the need for
systematic, up-front planning and the use of a graded approach to quality management.
• Graded Approach: The graded approach to quality management might be the most important
part of OW's policy. The basic philosophy behind the graded approach is to recognize that
"quality" is not an objective attribute that remains constant. Rather, quality is a subjective
attribute of a process or product that must be established in the context of that process or
product. Therefore, the quality of the data and the effort expended to manage the quality of
the data and the decisions should be based on the end goal of the decision. "Good" quality
data are those that enable the user to make the decision at hand with an acceptable risk of
error within the required time frame.
June 2002 H-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
H.1.2 Quality System Documentation
An important part of the grant application process is documenting the monitoring program's
quality management practices as they pertain to the collection and analysis of water samples. The
documentation should address the following:
• Who are the project manager, the sponsoring organization, the responsible individual within
that organization, the project personnel, the "customers," and the "suppliers?" How are the
customers and suppliers involved?
• What are the project objectives, and what questions and issues will be addressed?
• What are the project schedule, resources, budget, and milestones? Are there any applicable
requirements such as regulatory or contractual requirements?
• What types of data does the project require? How will those data support the project
objectives?
• How was the quantity of data needed determined? How were the criteria for the quality of
the data determined?
• How, when, and from where were the data obtained, including existing data? What are the
constraints on the data collection process?
• What activities during data collection will provide the information used to assess data quality
(field or laboratory quality control operations, audits, technical assessments)?
• How will the data for the project will be analyzed and evaluated? How will they be assessed
to determine how well they serve their intended use and the performance criteria established?
H.I.3 Quality Assurance Project Plan
Typically, the written documentation takes the form of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP).
A QAPP typically details the technical activities and quality assurance (QA) and quality control
(QC) procedures that should be implemented to ensure the data meet the specified standards. The
QAPP should identify who will be involved in the project and their responsibilities; the nature of
the study or monitoring program; the questions to be addressed or decisions to be made based on
the data collected; where, how, and when samples will be taken and analyzed; the requirements
for data quality; the specific activities and procedures to be performed to obtain the requisite
level of quality, including QC checks and oversight; and how the data will be managed, analyzed,
checked to ensure that it meets the project goals, and reported. The QAPP should be
implemented to ensure that data collected and analytical data generated are complete, accurate,
H-2 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
and suitable for the intended purpose. EPA has provided requirements and guidance for the
preparation of QAPPs in USEPA (1998, 2001b).
H.I.4 Data Quality Objectives
EPA has published a planning tool to help develop DQOs that are included in the quality system
documentation. This tool, guidance on the DQO Process, recommends a process that usually
consists of the following three activities (USEPA, 2000):
• Define the decision to be made.
• Clarify the information needed for this decision.
• Design the data collection program on the basis of the decision rule and the tolerable limits of
decision error.
This process should include preparing a clear statement of the problem, identifying the
decision(s) to be made using the data, identifying of the information needed to make the
decision(s) (e.g., previously collected data, new environmental measurements), defining the
spatial and temporal boundaries of the study, developing a decision rule that will describe a
logical basis for choosing an appropriate action based on study results, specifying the limits on
decision errors, and optimizing the design for obtaining data. Several iterations of this process
might be required to specify the DQOs for a project. Because DQOs are continually reviewed
during data collection activities, any needed corrective action can be planned and executed to
minimize problems before they become significant. General guidance and examples of planning
for monitoring programs are also provided in Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary
Program (USEPA, 1991) and Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of
Nonpoint Source Controls (USEPA, 1997b).
H.1.5 Standard Operating Procedures
Grant applicants should also document their methods and assessment procedures in the quality
system documentation they submit. For routine implementation of these methods, standard
operating procedures (SOPs), which can be referenced in and provided with the quality system
documentation, provide a tool to assist the person(s) performing the activities. An SOP typically
presents in detail the method for a given technical (not administrative) operation, analysis, or
action in sequential steps, and it includes specific facilities, equipment, materials and methods,
QA and QC procedures, and other factors necessary to perform the operation, analysis, or action.
By following the SOP, the operation should be performed the same way every time, that is, it is
standardized. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, field sampling, laboratory
analysis, software development, and database management. EPA presents examples of the format
and content of SOPs in (USEPA, 200la). The format and content requirements for an SOP are
flexible because the content and level of detail in SOPs vary according to the nature of the
procedure. SOPs should be revised when new equipment is used, when comments by personnel
June 2002 H-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
indicate that the directions are not clear, or when a problem occurs. The grantee should ensure
that obsolete documents are removed and that the revised SOPs are used in subsequent tasks.
H.2 Sampling and Monitoring Design Considerations
H.2.1 Improving Usefulness of Monitoring Information
The National Research Council (NRC, 1990a, 1990b) has evaluated marine monitoring programs
and practices and has made a series of recommendations to improve the usefulness of monitoring
information. EPA (USEPA, 1991) suggested the following steps based on the NRC's findings for
designing successful monitoring programs. These steps can be used to develop a beach
monitoring program.
Step 1. Develop monitoring objectives
Clear objectives should be developed for each component of the monitoring program. The
objectives should include detecting exceedances and notifying the public when an exceedance is
detected. Microbiological monitoring of recreational waters, in most cases, is undertaken to
establish the degree of allowable microbiological pollution to protect public health and the
environment. For beach management programs, recreational waters should attain criteria as
protective as those EPA established in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986
(USEPA, 1986). Although an advisory should be considered when a sample exceeds water
quality standards, it is ultimately a state or local decision to determine when to issue an advisory
or closing.
Step 2. Establish testable hypotheses and select statistical methods
Monitoring program objectives should be translated into statistically testable hypotheses.
Establishing testable hypotheses ensures that the results of the monitoring program will be
unambiguous and that the objectives of the program can be met. This approach results in the
creation of a threshold level for determining when to record an exceedance and notify the public.
Step 3. Select analytical methods and alternative sampling designs
Detailed specifications for the analysis of each environmental variable of the monitoring program
should be developed, including field and laboratory protocols and quality assurance/quality
control procedures. In addition, alternative spatial and temporal sampling designs should be
devised. The sampling designs should specify the number and location of sampling points,
sample frequency, and level of sample replication. This information should then be used in the
next step to evaluate expected monitoring program performance and to select the most efficient
sampling design among the alternatives.
H-4 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
Step 4. Evaluate expected monitoring program performance
Evaluating monitoring program performance might be the most important step in the design and
review process (USEPA, 1991). Before the program begins, an evaluation of alternative sampling
designs assists in the selection of the most appropriate design for cost-effective sampling that
meets the program objectives. During the course of the monitoring effort, performance
evaluations provide a systematic procedure for measuring success in terms of the ability to
continue to meet program goals. The periodic evaluation process should also identify the need to
modify the sampling design and methods. Without this evaluation, there is a risk of collecting
and analyzing too few or too many samples. The results of this evaluation should be used to
identify the modifications to the initial design necessary to increase monitoring program
effectiveness.
Step 5. Implement data analysis
The development of a data management system is an essential task in the design of monitoring
programs, and sufficient funds should be provided to cover data analysis. The data management
system should be operational before the monitoring program is implemented. In addition to
specifying data analysis methods, an expeditious timetable for analyzing the data, and the
procedures for reporting and communicating the results, the data management system should be
used to assess implementation progress and monitoring program performance. The results of the
performance assessment can be used to refine the program objectives and to modify individual
study elements to satisfy those objectives.
H.2.2 Sampling Design Considerations
Sampling design considerations that might be helpful when establishing a monitoring program
include the following:
• Identify the decision maker and program personnel.
• Clarify monitoring program goals and objectives.
• Describe the monitoring program.
• Identify the type of data needed and the sampling design.
• Establish quality objectives and criteria.
Identify the Decision Maker and Program Personnel
A beach water quality monitoring program requires the efforts of program managers, technical
staff, and potentially other interested parties or stakeholders. The team involved in planning and
implementing the program might include senior government officials from offices established to
protect health or environmental quality; technical experts familiar with the issues and methods to
be used; data analysts; data users, including risk assessors and the manager or program leader
June 2002 H-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
who will make the advisory or closing decision; and quality assurance specialists. Individuals or
organizations that might be directly affected by the decision also should be involved in planning
the monitoring program to improve communication and build consensus. The members of this
group will be able to offer different perspectives and assist in solving problems. They might be
involved in development of the plan at different stages and participate in meetings or other
activities.
Some personnel manage or perform the work of the monitoring program, while other personnel
who do not actually do the work are needed to provide oversight and ensure the quality of the
work being performed. Quality control (QC) is a system of technical procedures and activities
developed and implemented to produce measurements of requisite quality. Quality assurance
(QA) is an integrated system of management procedures and activities used to verify that the QC
system is operating within acceptable limits. QA oversight is important to maintain the
credibility of a beach monitoring program. QA personnel should be identified at the planning
stage and included during program operation program to assess all aspects of data collection.
Clarify Monitoring Program Goals and Objectives
A clear statement of the purpose of the monitoring program and the program's objectives
prevents confusion and the waste of resources. As noted in EPA's monitoring guidance (USEPA,
1997b), monitoring programs can be undertaken for different reasons and to answer different
questions. The types, quantity, and quality of the data can vary considerably to meet different
goals. A conceptual model of the potential environmental hazard should be prepared. This model
can be in the form of a diagram illustrating known or suspected sites of contamination at one or
more beaches, sources of microorganisms, and exposure scenarios (e.g., children playing in sand
or shallow water, swimming, or surfing). The problem to be investigated needs to be defined.
The following are examples of monitoring program goals:
• Determine whether an impairment exists.
• Determine the spatial and temporal extent of the impairment.
• Determine the causes and sources of the impairment.
An example of the first type of program goal is routine monitoring to protect human health by
comparing levels of indicator bacteria to the ambient water quality criteria for bacteria (USEPA,
1986) during the swimming season. This information is used to determine whether an advisory
should be posted or the beach closed. The results from initial monitoring might spur intensive
monitoring involving the collection of water samples at different times (e.g., daily or only after
storm events) and from many locations (e.g., waterbodies downstream from the initial location).
Intensive monitoring might be needed while establishing a monitoring program to pinpoint the
most appropriate locations for the routine sampling effort and the depths, times, and procedures
needed to collect the samples. Such monitoring data might be needed during the program to
evaluate whether the sampling design continues to protect human health. Intensive monitoring
H-6 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
can determine the most appropriate sampling frequency needed to assess standards. It might also
be desirable or necessary to identify the point and nonpoint sources that could be responsible for
waterbody impairment, or to evaluate the influence of rainfall on the bacterial load at a particular
beach. Extensive sampling is needed to develop predictive tools using statistical analysis or
mathematical models.
This guidance focuses on routine monitoring for beach advisory or closing decisions. An
example of a principal study question is
Could levels of bacteria in the water at Bayside Beach affect swimmers' health?
Examples of alternative actions that might be considered if the answer to this question is "yes"
include the following:
Post an advisory at the beach to warn swimmers of the potential hazard.
Close the beach and do not permit swimming until further notice.
Conduct a sanitary survey to identify point and nonpoint sources of bacteria.
Take no action.
The following is an example of a decision statement for this type of program:
Determine whether bacterial indicator levels require taking action to protect human
health.
Decision rules developed for this program at a freshwater lake might include the following
examples:
If the density of enterococci in any one sample exceeds the EPA instantaneous (single-
sample) criterion of 61 per 100 mL, the water is sampled again.
If the density of enterococci in the second sample exceeds the EPA instantaneous
criterion, the beach is closed.
If the running geometric mean of enterococcal densities from five sequential samples
taken during the previous 30 days is greater than the EPA averaging period criterion of
33 per 100 mL, the beach is closed.
If the density of indicator bacteria does not exceed the criteria under the above
conditions, swimmers are not at risk and the beach remains open.
June 2002 H-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Describe the Monitoring Program
The planning team should discuss what information is needed to make the decision. In the above
example, bacterial densities lead to the decision. Also useful are measurements of other
environmental factors, such as temperature, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, or
water flow, which might provide evidence of a problem or show the seriousness of the
exceedance.
The regulatory basis for the decision—in this case, EPA's ambient water quality criteria for
bacteria—should be documented. In addition, spatial and temporal boundaries for the monitoring
program should be examined. For example, a beach might extend for many miles along the
coastline of a jurisdiction, but swimmers have access to only a few hundred feet of shoreline at
the end of one road. In addition, the presence of a storm water outfall on the beach might be the
focus of sampling.
One or more members of the planning team should document these elements of the program in
the monitoring plan. The team also should review available resources, relevant deadlines, the
budget, the availability of personnel, and schedule requirements to determine how they will affect
sampling at the beach(es) in question. This information should be evaluated along with the
proposed sampling design and the boundaries of the monitoring program (see below) to assess
how well the program objectives can be met within the various technical and cost limitations.
Identify the Type of Data Needed and the Sampling Design
Various sampling designs have been used for monitoring recreational waters adjacent to bathing
beaches. The sampling design specifies the number, location, and types of samples to be
collected. It provides the conditions under which they should be collected, the analyses to be
performed, and the QA and QC procedures necessary to ensure that the tolerable decision error
rates specified in the DQOs.
Because enterococci and E. coli are commonly found in the feces of humans and other warm-
blooded animals, the presence of enterococci or E. coli in water is an indicator of fecal pollution
and the possible presence of enteric bacteria that pose a risk to human health. Epidemiological
studies have led to established recreational water standards based on the documented relationship
between health effects and water quality (chapter 1). According to studies of marine and
freshwater bathing beaches, the amount of enterococci or E. coli in the water is directly related to
the incidence of swimming-associated gastroenteritis (Cabelli, 1983; Dufour, 1984).
Although statistical or probabilistic sampling designs are highly desirable, not every sampling
problem can be solved with these designs. Moreover, local limitations in staff and funding might
lower the number of samples that can be analyzed during the swimming season. Basic sampling
design should address the following seven aspects (Bartram and Rees, 2000):
H-8 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
1. Reasons to sample
2. What to sample
3. How to sample
4. When to sample
5. Where to sample
6. How many samples to take
7. Sampling evaluation
A sampling and analysis plan should include the location of sampling sites, frequency of
sampling, duration of the sampling period, and depth of sampling. For each recreational
waterbody, the plan also should include other pertinent information, such as the types of
containers to be used for sampling, how to package samples for transport, references for
analytical methods, how to report data, and requirements for repeat sampling. The plan should be
developed in conjunction with the local laboratory that will conduct the bacteriological analyses
(CADHS, 1999).
It is difficult to decide the optimum number of
samples to take and the most suitable
locations to characterize the water quality in
the most meaningful way. Sampling marine
and estuarine waters requires considering tidal
cycles, current patterns, bottom currents,
countercurrents, stratification, seasonal
fluctuations, dispersion of discharges,
multidepth sampling, and many other factors.
Sampling lakes and rivers adjacent to beaches
requires considering wind and flow and
whether the beach is upstream or downstream
of pollution sources, as well as time of day
(see box). Determining the most appropriate,
cost-effective use of the resources available
for a monitoring program is also difficult. The
following aspects of sampling are presented for
plan.
A study was conducted at two beaches on Lake
Erie to evaluate the water sampling design for
the collection of several microbiological
indicator organisms in relation to day, time,
and location of collection. The concentrations
of these organisms were generally found to
vary significantly by the time and day that
collection took place. However, the
concentrations did not vary significantly at
various locations in the bathing area. Sampling
at different locations in the bathing area might
be considered for beaches that have poor
dispersion of fecal waste sources (Brenniman
etal., 1981).
consideration when developing a monitoring
Location. Sampling locations are chosen based on historical records, usage, current situations,
concentration of bathers, pollution sources, accessibility, and other factors. Areas known to be
chronically contaminated, as well as areas that typically have the highest bather density, should
be included in the sampling plan. An area close to a storm water outfall might have high counts
of bacteria, but it might not be an area commonly used for swimming. Therefore, the priority
might be to sample in the area with more swimmers to obtain a better estimate of risk to human
health. Ultimately, these decisions are appropriate for the beach manager to make. Table 4-1 in
June 2002
H-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
chapter 4 should be consulted for guidance. In addition, other criteria for sampling might be
defined, such as obtaining the sample at a specified distance from swimmers and animals and not
in the "swash zone" area of low waves near the shore (UTF, 1999), as well as spacing samples at
specified intervals for lengthy stretches of beach.
Frequency. Ideally, when first establishing a recreational water quality monitoring program, the
optimum sampling frequency is daily and samples of estuarine or marine bathing waters should
be obtained at high tide, ebb tide, and low tide to determine the cyclic water quality and
deterioration that should be monitored during the swim season (Bordner et al., 1978; see box
below). Lakes and rivers might also be
sampled at different times, for example,
during calm versus windy days or during
low-flow versus storm-flow conditions. If
a beach monitoring program does not
have the resources to sample this often, a
minimum frequency of sampling should
be established based on historical
records, usage, current situations, the
potential for health hazards and the
number of samples required by the water
quality standards being used. Highly
populated or high-risk areas, require more
frequent sampling, as shown by the tiered
approach (Table 4-1). Sampling might be
needed under special circumstances, such
as at locations where no sanitary facilities
are provided at a beach or when toilets at
the beach are not open or not operational.
Subsequent sampling also might be
needed to determine when to reopen a
recreational area after a beach closing.
Sampling frequency can be related to the
peak bathing period, which is generally in
the afternoon, but preferably samples are
collected in both the morning and
afternoon (Bartram and Rees, 2000), at
least for beaches classified as Tier 1.
Weekends and holidays should be
considered in the sampling program. To
characterize the water quality at the beach
before the weekend crowd arrives, a
Water quality data for the years 1979 to 1981 were
obtained for a marginally polluted beach in New
York. A standard of 2,400 total coliform organisms
per 100 mL of sample was used. On a particular day
during May through September, one sample per hour
was taken for 7 hours. Analysis of the water quality at
this location with respect to intra-day variation
showed significantly higher mean densities during the
first 2 hours of sampling than during the last 2 hours
of sampling. During the 3 years studied (1979
-1981), morning coliform densities tended to be
significantly greater than the standard, whereas
afternoon samples tended to be significantly lower
than the standard. These differences were likely due
to environmental factors such as wind and local
currents. Because such environmental factors vary
from location to location, the finding of significant
intra-day variation in indicator organism density at
this location strongly suggested a need for sampling
at different times of the day.
Analysis of the inter-year variability of coliform
density at this location showed this variability to be
quite low. Analysis using only one-half of the 3 years
of data compiled by the New York City Health
Department gave a profile of water quality at this
location that showed little difference from the
analysis using the full data set. This fact, coupled
with the previous findings of the study, indicated that
sanitary surveys should maximize the number of
replicate determinations made per sampling date
instead of maximizing the number of days on which
samples are taken (Fleisher, 1990).
H-10
June 2002
-------
Appendix H
sample also could be taken on Thursday so that the results are ready by Friday. To characterize
the water quality at the beach after the weekend crowd has left, a sample could be taken late
Sunday or on Monday. The frequency of sampling might change according to a beach
classification.
Sampling Depth. The primary factor for determining the depth of sampling is the users at risk.
Samples of ankle- and/or knee-depth water might be more appropriate for children and infants,
whereas waist- and/or chest-depth samples might be more appropriate for adults (refer to Table
3-1). Sampling from boats is usually inadequate for beach monitoring because water depths
would exceed those common to beach-related recreational activities, especially for young
children (CADHS, 1999). Local health agencies, however, might desire to assess water quality
away from the shore in additional areas where surfing, windsurfing, or other activities occur.
Sampling Time. The most appropriate time of sampling is that which best estimates water
quality conditions during the highest periods of risk. Wave and tidal actions affect bacteria
levels, as do the number of bathers during sampling and before and after sampling; the water
temperature; and the recent, current, and predicted weather conditions (e.g., wind, rain). Bacteria
levels change frequently, based on these types of environmental conditions. This factor should be
taken into account when formulating a sampling design and when interpreting sampling results
and analyses. If information on the conditions of a beach when the most people are in the shallow
waters is of interest, sampling should be conducted during high tide when bacteria levels might
be higher near the shore (see Table 4-1). To estimate how water quality is affected by the number
of swimmers in the water, the water should be sampled during the time of day when there is the
highest bather density at a beach.
In addition, sampling after the weekend might capture the conditions of the water after the
highest bather density. Samples could also be taken on Thursday to inform weekend visitors of
water quality before they swim on the weekend. (This type of sampling is recommended for use
only on a temporary basis if resources prevent routine daily sampling. It should be done only to
better understand indicator occurrence patterns, which are used to develop a more minimalistic
sampling approach that best represents those patterns.) Ideally, sampling should be done
throughout the day and week to look for patterns of bacteria levels. However, it is important to
remember that the results of the laboratory test will take about 24 hours.
The final sampling design should be carefully documented in a sampling and analysis plan or
incorporated into a QAPP. (Refer to USEPA, 1998 and 2000, for further information on QAPP
preparation.) The plan should include a rationale and listing of the location of all sampling sites
and stations within a site, the frequency of sampling at each station, the depth of water sample
collection, and the duration of the sampling period (e.g., one time only, 2 weeks in July, during
the open swimming season). The plan should also include the procedures for obtaining the
samples and analyzing them for bacterial indicator(s), procedures for collecting other data from
the field, the schedule for repeat sampling, and how and to whom data will be reported. SOPs
June 2002 H-ll
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
should be prepared for all activities that need to be performed the same way every time. Each
SOP should include details on the method for a given operation, analysis, or action in sequential
steps, as well as the facilities, equipment, materials and methods, QA and QC procedures, and
other factors required to perform the operation, analysis, or action.
Establish Quality Objectives and Criteria
Data quality standards define the way the sample is collected and analyzed, and they provide
performance criteria that, if met, ensure that the data are acceptable and usable by the decision
maker. As part of the DQO process, the planning team should establish program and
measurement quality objectives to enable the data user to understand any errors or uncertainties
associated with the data. Two categories of errors are commonly recognized-sampling error and
measurement error. Sampling error is the difference between sample values and in situ "true"
values, and it results from unknown biases due to sampling design, including natural variability
due to spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability in microorganism abundance and
distribution. Measurement error is the difference between sample values and in situ "true" values
associated with the measurement process, including bias and imprecision associated with
sampling methodology, specification of the sampling unit, sample handling, storage,
preservation, identification, instrumentation, and other factors.
The monitoring program should specify methods and procedures to reduce the magnitude and
frequency of measurement error. For example, using trained staff to perform the data collection
and analyses and following standardized, repeatable procedures for data and sample collection
can help eliminate sloppy, inconclusive work. Uncertainty in the data because of sampling and
measurement errors or errors introduced during data manipulation could result in identifying a
risk to human health when one does not exist (i.e., the true density of bacteria is not greater than
the criterion) or not identifying a risk when one does exist (i.e., the true density of bacteria
exceeds the criterion). Data entry, transfer, calculation, and reporting mistakes can compound
these issues. Data entries and the procedures for calculating results must be carefully checked for
accuracy and completeness.
Measurement performance criteria are qualitative and quantitative statements used to interpret
the degree of acceptability or utility of the data to the user. These criteria, also known as data
quality indicators (DQIs), include the following:
• Precision
• Bias
• Representativeness
• Completeness
Comparability
H-12 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
Sometimes DQIs for some parameters cannot be expressed in terms of precision and bias
(accuracy) or completeness. In these cases a full description of the method by which the data will
be obtained should be included in the plan. The various measurement performance criteria that
should be established for beach water quality monitoring parameters are discussed in the
following subsections.
Precision. Precision is defined as the degree of mutual agreement or consistency between
individual measurements or enumerated values of the same property of a sample. Obtaining an
estimate of precision provides information on the uncertainty due to natural variation, sampling
error, and analytical error. The precision of sampling methods is estimated by taking two or more
samples at the same sampling site at approximately 10 percent of the sites. The precision of
laboratory analyses is estimated by analyzing two or more aliquots of the same water sample.
This data quality indicator is obtained from two duplicate samples by calculating the relative
percent difference (RPD) as follows:
I C -C
(C1 + C2)/2
where C, is the first of the two values and C2 is the second value. Because the absolute value of
the numerator is calculated, the RPD is always a positive number. If it is to be calculated from
three or more replicate samples, the relative standard deviation (RSD) is used and is calculated as
RSD = 4 x 100
X
where s is the standard deviation and x is the mean of repeated samples. The standard deviation
or the standard error of a sample mean(s) is calculated as
SD =
n-1
whereof, is the measured value of the replicate, x is the mean of repeated sample measurements,
and n is the number of replicates. Precision can also be expressed in terms of the range of
measurement values.
June 2002 H-13
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Because of the heterogeneity of populations of bacteria in surface waters, an RPD of less than or
equal to 50 percent between field duplicates for microbiological analyses might be considered
acceptable. In laboratory analyses, the precision among laboratories following EPA Method 1600
for detecting enterococci from separate aliquots of the same sample was determined to be 2.2
percent for marine water samples and 18.9 percent for fresh surface water samples (USEPA,
1997a). Analysts should be able to duplicate bacterial colony counts on the same membrane
within 5 percent and the counts of other analysts within 10 percent; otherwise, procedures should
be reviewed and corrected (UTF, 1999).
Accuracy. Accuracy is the degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted
reference or true value. Accuracy is a combination of random error (precision) and systematic
error (bias), both of which are due to sampling and analytical operations. Bias is the systematic
distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in one direction so that the expected
sample measurement is always greater or lesser to the same degree than the sample's true value.
Because accuracy is the measurement of a parameter and comparison to a "truth" and the true
values of environmental, physicochemical, and biological characteristics cannot be known, use of
a surrogate is required.
The accuracy of field measurements is usually evaluated by analyzing samples prepared from
known concentrations of the pollutant(s) of interest or by adding known concentrations of the
pollutant(s) of interest to field-collected samples (known as "spiked" samples). In studies
following Method 1103.1 (USEPA, 1985) to estimate densities of E. co//', use of samples
prepared from known quantities of freeze-dried and cultured E. coli as a surrogate resulted in
97.9 percent recovery of the bacteria from water samples. Based on the mTEC medium, bias was
determined to be -2 percent of the true value. This information is helpful in establishing the
most appropriate methods to be followed. Accuracy, defined as the similarity of a repeated entity
to its original form, such as information, data entry, and calculations, can be controlled by
double-checking sources, manual data entries, or electronic data transfers and performing
recalculations. Figure H-l is a graphical representation of the relationship between bias and
precision, and accuracy.
Representativeness. Data representativeness is defined as the degree to which data accurately
and precisely represent the characteristics of a population, and therefore it addresses the natural
variability or the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of a population. It is not quantitative but
descriptive in nature, and it can be assessed only by evaluating the sampling design with respect
to the particular features of the water at each beach. It is possible to quantitatively estimate
sample sizes using estimates of variance and selecting acceptable levels of false positive and
false negative error.
In the sampling design, care should be taken to define the area of sample collection and
determine whether it is typical and representative of each area of concern. For swimming beaches
less than 30 meters in length, a single sample taken from water at the midpoint of the beach site
H-14 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
Figure H-l. Graphical representation of the relationship between bias and precision, and
accuracy (after Gilbert, 1987). (a): high bias + low precision = low accuracy; (b): low
bias + low precision = low accuracy; (c): high bias + high precision = low accuracy; and
(d): low bias + high precision = high accuracy.
might suffice. For lengthy beaches, establishing the correct number and location of samples is
more difficult, because the sampling needs to ensure that the estimated bacterial densities provide
a reasonable representation of the potential risk from waterborne pathogens. For example, the
monitoring program might decide to sample from the middle of the area where most swimmers
congregate and then 15 m on either side of that first sampling station to obtain an average value
of bacterial densities for comparison against the standard. Alternatively, each individual sample
result might be compared to the standard. At beaches where a known point source of pathogens,
such as a storm water outfall, enters the water, the sample might be drawn from stations within
15m of the point source or where swimmers might be considered to be at greatest risk from
exposure.
As noted above, an initial intensive sampling study might be necessary to help decide where and
how often samples need to be routinely collected to address bacterial heterogeneity. If sufficient
resources are not available to collect and analyze multiple samples along a beach, the monitoring
June 2002
H-15
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
program plan should justify the decision and note the extent of the area that might be affected by
an advisory or closing if bacterial densities at a single station exceed the standards.
Completeness. Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements made that are judged
to be valid according to specific criteria and entered into the data management system.
Accidental or inadvertent loss of samples during transport or lab activities should be avoided
because the loss of the original samples will result in irreparable loss of data. Lack of data entry
into the database will reduce the ability to perform analyses, integrate results, and prepare
reports. Thus, controlling sample loss by using unbreakable containers, careful sample
management (e.g., assigning serial laboratory numbers, completing log books), and tracking
samples through analysis and data entry is important. Percent completeness (%C) for
measurement parameters can be defined as follows:
%C=-x100
where v is the number of measurements judged valid and Tis the total number of measurements.
Most monitoring programs should try to achieve a level of completeness in which no less than 95
percent of samples are judged to be valid.
Comparability. Two data sets are considered comparable when the two sets can be considered
equivalent with respect to the measurement of a specific variable or group of variables.
Comparability of data is not defined quantitatively; it is ensured by similarity in sampling based
on geographic, seasonal, and method characteristics; the uniform training and experience of field
sampling and laboratory personnel; and the use of standardized, repeatable methods for analysis
of bacterial indicator densities. This document should help improve comparability among beach
water quality monitoring programs by establishing comparable sampling and analysis procedures
so that the meaning of the results can be more easily understood by the public nationwide.
Additional Factors Affecting Sampling Design. By establishing the "rules" for data quality at
the planning stage, the number of samples that need to be collected and analyzed is adjusted to
obtain data that will be used to judge the quality of the data obtained. For example, a duplicate
water sample should be collected from at least 10 percent of the sites in the study to calculate
precision. Under some conditions, more frequent collection of duplicate samples might be
advised. Monitoring programs need to carefully balance their needs to sample from multiple
areas and their resource limitations with the need for data quality. If only one sample is collected
from every site for analysis, an agency might cover more territory, but it will not be able to detect
errors during sampling, inadvertently reducing the density of bacteria in the sample or showing
that the particular patch of water sampled contained an unusually high number of fecal bacteria,
but was not representative of the entire area. Thus, inappropriate decisions might be made based
on erroneous results.
H-16 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
For the same cost, the number of sites sampled could be reduced while including some QC
samples to provide a means to double check the results, both from the field sampling effort and
from analyses of duplicate aliquots of single samples in the laboratory. This approach can
increase the level of confidence in the data produced and help detect unusual conditions that
might lead to errors in decision making.
June 2002 H-17
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
H.3 References
Bartram, J., and G. Rees. 2000. Monitoring Bathing Waters: A Practical Guide to the Design
and Implementation of Assessments and Monitoring Programmes. E & FN SPON, London.
Bordner, R., J.A. Winter, andP.V. Scarpino, eds. 191%. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring
the Environment, Water and Wastes. EPA 600/8-78-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Brenniman, G.R., S.H. Rosenberg, andR.L. Northrop. 1981. Microbial sampling variables and
recreational water quality standards. American Journal of Public Health 71(3):283-289.
Cabelli, V.J. 1983. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters. EPA 600/1-80-03.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
CADHS. 1999. Health and Safety Code Section 115875-115915. California Department of
Health Services, Sacramento, CA.
Dufour, A.P. 1984. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters. EPA 600/1-84-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Fleisher, J.M. 1990. The effects of measurement error on previously reported mathematical
relationships between indicator organism density and swimming-associated illness: A
quantitative estimate of the resulting bias. InternationalJournal of Epidemiology 19(4): 1100-
1106.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. VanNostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
IITF. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of
E. coli on Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater. Indiana Interagency Task Force on E. coli.
LaPorte County Health Department, Laporte, IN.
NRC. 1990a. Monitoring Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring.
National Research Center. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 1990b. Monitoring Southern California's Coastal Waters. National Research Center.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1985. Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in Water by the Membrane
Filter Procedure. EPA 600/4-85-076. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
H-18 June 2002
-------
Appendix H
USEPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and Toxicology
Division, and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program. EPA 503/8-91-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997a. Method 1600: Membrane Filter Test Method for Enterococci in Water.
EPA-821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997b. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness ofNonpoint Source
Controls. EPA 841/B-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPAQA/G-5. EPA/600-
R-98-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA 600/R-
96-055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001 a. Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), EPA Q A/G-
6. EPA 240/B-01-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001b. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPAQA/R-5. EPA
240/B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001 c. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. EPA 800/R-95-001. July, 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
June 2002 H-19
-------
Appendix I
Appendix I: Training
This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may
be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in
the main guidance document.
Training volunteers to do their jobs properly is an essential component of a successful
monitoring program. Training is a dynamic process and does not simply begin and end with a
kickoff classroom session. For example, follow-up training should occur to resolve specific
operating problems discovered in an ongoing program. Even experienced staff benefit from
occasional continuing education sessions, which help everyone stay in touch with the program
and foster the ideal of team effort.
According to USEPA (1991), training should be planned from three basic perspectives:
1. Training new staff
2. Training experienced staff (teaching the use of new equipment or improved methods)
3. Solving specific operating problems
Each of the three training perspectives should include the presentation of unique material. The
training processes involved in presenting this material, however, are similar and consist of the
following components:
• Creating a job analysis
• Planning the training
• Presenting the training
• Evaluating the training
• Providing follow-up coaching, motivation, and feedback
I.I Creating a Job Analysis
The job analysis phase can be the hardest but most important part of training development. The
outcome of the job analysis is a list of all the tasks staff should accomplish when sampling a
parameter. The tasks should be identified to ensure that procedures are performed consistently
throughout the program. This list should include a list of sampling tasks, the required quality
level for each task, the job elements that compose each task, and a sampling protocol (standard
operating procedure) or job description handout that will be referred to and followed by staff
members each time they collect water samples or perform laboratory analyses.
June 2002 1-1
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
1.2 Planning the Training
Once the job analysis has been completed and the job description prepared, the actual training
session should be planned. Training might take place in a group setting or individually. Group
training saves money and time, especially when many staff are trained simultaneously. For
extensive water sampling efforts throughout a county, however, this approach has drawbacks.
Each beach has unique characteristics, and certain circumstances or problems can be addressed
only on an individual basis. In practice, it is often best to structure the training program so that
there are group sessions as well as individual follow-up sessions.
The training should stress the importance of samples being representative of the waterbody from
which they are taken, including the theory behind indicator organisms and quality samples,
QA/QC activities and following the protocols specified in SOPs and the monitoring program
plan. Ensuring that staff understand how to carry out the protocols to meet those requirements is
the primary concern. Training to collect water samples, for example, should also include how to
plan sampling activities, how to make field notes describing the sampling site and station, and
how to perform on-site inspections. The safety aspects of field sampling and laboratory analysis
are an important component as well.
1.3 Presenting the Training
A well-organized, well-paced training session is essential to facilitate understanding and
motivate staff. The lesson planning phase provides the trainer with the basic agenda for the
session. The trainer, however, is responsible for adapting the lesson to the expectations,
knowledge, and experience of the audience. The person presenting the training should know the
material and should be organized. Lectures, activities, and discussions should be planned and
kept to a timetable. Similarly, demonstration materials, audiovisual equipment, and handouts
should be accessible and easily incorporated into the presentation. The trainer should be able to
anticipate and respond to problems and questions that might occur during an actual training
session. A relaxed presentation that fulfills the education objectives is the basic goal. Although
trainers will bring their own styles to the training session, they should incorporate basic public
speaking techniques, such as establishing rapport with the audience, enunciating clearly and
distinctly, using effective body language and eye contact, and encouraging questions and
comments.
Whether in the classroom or in the field, staff should be allowed to demonstrate what they have
learned. The trainer should observe closely and offer immediate feedback in the form of positive
reinforcement or corrective assistance. This portion of the session is usually when the real
learning takes place. During the review portion of the training session, the trainer should
summarize what was learned and the staff have an opportunity to ask questions. The session
should close with the reassurance that staff will continue to receive training throughout their
tenure with the monitoring program.
T2 June 2002
-------
Appendix I
Volunteer Beach Monitoring Programs Across the Nation
Alabama Coastal Foundation volunteers data are used for trend research by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, and Mobile Bay National Estuary Program.
Alabama Water Watch is a statewide citizen volunteer water quality monitoring program. More than 50 active groups
monitor about 250 sites on 100 waterbodies in 20 to 30 counties in Alabama and Georgia. Six chemical parameters
are measured, and several groups are beginning to test for pathogen indicators. The program is coordinated from
Auburn University, where the central database is maintained.
The Surfrider Foundation is an environmental organization dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the world's
waves and beaches through conservation, research, education, and local activism. The Blue Water Task Force,
particularly chapters from Southern California coastal counties, analyzes water samples collected at beaches for
bacteria and posts results on the Internet.
The Citizen Stewards Program trains volunteers to assist the Casco Bay Keeper in monitoring the water quality of
Casco Bay, Maine. Volunteers gather data at more than 100 selected sites along the 500-mile shoreline, collecting
surface water and performing tests monthly from April through October. The data are entered into a comprehensive
computer database for management and interpretation. Water column profile data are also collected from the
Bay Keeper's boat at offshore sites, and water is sampled at closed clam flats to test for bacteria.
The Environmental Quality Laboratory at Coastal Carolina University monitors water and sediment quality in the
Waccamaw River and 45 sites from the North Carolina state line to Bucksports, South Carolina, using EPA-approved
methods. Monthly physical, chemical, and biological analyses are performed, and occasional measurements of
nutrients and heavy metals are taken. Results are interpreted using in situ instantaneous U.S. Geological Survey data
on water stage and flow. The sampling plan is designed to identify nonpoint pollution sources. Results are shared with
South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control.
The Salt Pond Watchers currently monitor fecal coliform bacteria levels in approximately 30 stations in seven coastal
salt ponds on Rhode Island's Atlantic coast. Data are provided to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management and local communities to help determine areas unsuitable for fishing and swimming.
In Maine the Clean Water/Partners in Monitoring program provides coordination, information, support, and technical
assistance to groups of volunteers and students who want to monitor their local waters. Active programs include water
quality, phytoplankton, and marine intertidal diversity monitoring. Training is also provided to certify volunteers to
monitor water quality in shellfish-growing areas.
In Hawaii the Hanalei Heritage River Program uses volunteers from the community help take a "snapshot" of the
Hanalei's waters by simultaneous sampling all along the bay, up the river, and in its tributaries. This sampling has
identified "hotspots" where bacteria counts far exceed standards. The volunteer program provides these data to the
Department of Health, which then conducts its own bacterial sampling.
1.4 Evaluating the Training
Training evaluation should encompass the entire training process. It includes the trainee's
perspective, as well as that of the training program designer and trainer, on how effective the
session has been. To gain immediate feedback about training, staff should fill out evaluation
forms at the end of the session. If possible, it is often effective if a 'hands-on' session can be
June 2002 1-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
included where trainees can observe staff in action as they collect or process samples. If there are
problems or if techniques are not performed according to the desired protocol, trainers might
need to apply new methods in subsequent training sessions.
1.5 Providing Follow-up Coaching, Motivation, and Feedback
As stated previously, training should be conducted throughout the life of the monitoring program.
Follow-up coaching is an integral part of the training process. Coaching usually occurs on a one-
on-one basis to maintain communication between team members, resolve problems, instill
motivation, and implement new or improved techniques. The key to follow-up coaching is
personal contact to increase staff satisfaction. That personal contact should be maintained
throughout the life of the program.
1.6 Volunteer Monitoring Programs
EPA acknowledges that citizen volunteers often can be used to perform some beach monitoring
program functions. Using volunteers to collect water samples and transport them to a laboratory
for analysis is one way to save on program monitoring costs and, at the same time, establish a
partnership with local citizens. Some citizen monitoring programs also perform water quality
analyses, and a few determine bacterial indicator levels. Program planning officials, however,
need to be aware that establishing a volunteer monitoring program requires a commitment of
time and resources to ensure that volunteers are properly trained and managed and that data
quality objectives are met. Officials should not view citizen volunteers as unpaid adjunct staff.
Typically, their motivation to participate in a monitoring program is not based on a desire to help
reduce agency costs; rather, they donate their time and energy to serve as guardians and stewards
of their local waters. This recognition should be considered in every aspect of the volunteer
monitoring program development process.
The EPA document Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers (USEPA, 1990)
lists seven "basic ingredients" for developing a successful volunteer program:
1. Develop and articulate a clear purpose for the use of the data.
2. Produce "data of known quality" that meet the stated data quality objectives.
3. Be aware that volunteer monitoring is cost-effective, but not free.
4. Thoroughly train and retrain volunteers.
5. Give the volunteers praise and feedback (the psychological equivalent of a salary).
6. Use the data volunteers collect.
7. Be flexible, open, and realistic with volunteers.
Including these seven basic ingredients in the development of a volunteer monitoring program
has produced many success stories across the United States. The latest edition of the National
Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs (RISG and USEPA, 1994)
T4 June 2002
-------
Appendix I
documents a total of 772 programs currently in operation. The National Directory also provides a
list of volunteer organizations around the country engaged in monitoring rivers, lakes, estuaries,
beaches, wetlands, and ground water. The National Directory can be found at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/volmon.nsf. In addition, EPA's Volunteer Monitoring web site
provides information on various monitoring programs as newsletters that contain information on
bacterial methods and how they are used by various volunteer groups. This information is
currently available at http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/.
A frequent criticism of volunteer monitoring programs is that using the services of volunteers
yields data of less certainty than the data obtained when professionals do the job. In general,
however, if the seven "basic ingredients" of a successful program are included, data quality
should be the same for both groups. Putting this theory to the test for any particular program
includes running parallel water sampling tests that compare data collected by professionals those
collected by volunteers. Periodic parallel testing serves two purposes. First, it assures the
sponsoring agency that volunteers' data are reliable and can be used for the program's purposes.
Second, it helps identify areas where the volunteer program can be improved, especially if the
results indicate there is a difference in quality between the volunteers' data and the professionals'
data.
EPA's volunteer monitoring guide also discusses several other ways to maintain volunteers'
interest:
Sending volunteers regular data reports.
Keeping volunteers informed about all uses of their data.
Preparing a regular newsletter.
Making program officials easily accessible for questions and requests.
Providing volunteers with educational opportunities.
• Keeping the local media informed of the goals and findings of the monitoring effort.
Recognizing the efforts of volunteers through certificates, awards, or other means.
• Providing volunteers with opportunities to grow with the program through additional
training, learning opportunities, and changing responsibilities.
June 2002 1-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
1.7 References
RISG and USEPA. 1994. National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring
Programs, 4th ed. EPA 841-B-94-001. Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island,
Narragansett, RI, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010.
U.S. Environmental Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
1-6 June 2002
-------
Appendix J
Appendix J: Sample Collection
This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may
be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in
the main guidance document.
J.I Sample Containers
The sample bottles used to collect water for bacterial density analyses should be able to
withstand sterilizing conditions and the solvent action of water. USEPA (1978) suggested wide-
mouth borosilicate glass bottles with screw caps or ground-glass stoppers; however, glass bottles
can break, causing loss of the sample. Heat-resistant polypropylene bottles may be used if they
can be sterilized without producing toxic materials when autoclaved.
Sample bottles should be at least 125-milliliter (mL) volume for adequate sampling and for good
mixing. Bottles of 250-mL, 500-mL, and 1,000-mL volume are often used for multiple analyses,
such as when determining the density of two or more bacterial indicators. Discard bottles that
have chips, cracks, or etched surfaces. Bottle closures should be watertight. Before use, bottles
and closures should be cleaned with detergent and hot water, followed by a hot water rinse to
remove all traces of detergent. Then rinse three times with laboratory-pure water.
Autoclave glass or heat-resistant polypropylene bottles at 121 °C for 15 minutes. Alternatively,
dry glassware may be sterilized in a hot air oven at 170 °C for not less than 2 hours. Ethylene
oxide gas sterilization should be acceptable for plastic containers that are not heat-resistant.
Sample bottles should be stored overnight before they are used to allow the last traces of gas to
dissipate.
Commercially available sterile plastic sampling bags (Whirl-pak) are a practical substitute for
polypropylene or glass sample bottles when sampling soil or sediment. The bags are sealed by the
manufacturer and opened only at the time of sampling.
If water samples are being collected for the determination of other environmental parameters
(e.g., temperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen), nonsterile containers may be used. It is
important that the sterile and nonsterile containers are clearly labeled and used for the particular
sample for which they were intended.
J.2 Sampling Method
A grab sample of water is obtained using a sample bottle that has been prepared as described
above. The basic steps for this procedure, derived from Bordner et al. (1978) and IITF (1999),
are as follows.
June 2002 J-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
1. Identify the sampling site on a chain of custody tag, if required, or on the bottle label and on a
field log sheet.
2. Remove the bottle covering and closure just before obtaining each sample and protect them
from contamination. Be careful not to touch the inside of the bottle itself or the inside of the
cover.
3. The first sample to be prepared is the trip or field blank (at least one per sampling day for
routine sampling is recommended). Open one of the sampling bottles and fill it with 100 mL
of sterile buffered dilution solution (see EPA Method 1103.1) when collecting freshwater,
estuarine, or marine water samples. Cap the bottle and place it in a cooler.
4. To collect the surface water samples, carefully move to the first sampling location. If wading
in the water, try to avoid kicking up bottom material at the sampling station. The sampler
should be positioned downstream of any water current to take the sample from the incoming
flow.
5. Open a sampling bottle and grasp it at the base with one hand and plunge the bottle mouth
downward into the water to avoid introducing surface scum. Position the mouth of the bottle
into the current away from the hand of the sampler and away from the side of the sampling
platform or boat. The sampling depth should be 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) below
the water surface, depending on the depth from which the sample must be taken. If the
waterbody is static, an artificial current can be created by moving the bottle horizontally with
the direction of the bottle pointed away from the sampler. Tip the bottle slightly upward to
allow air to exit and the bottle to fill.
6. Remove the bottle from the waterbody.
7. Pour out a small portion of the sample to allow an air space of 2.5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches)
above each sample for proper mixing of the sample before analysis.
8. Tightly close the stopper and label the bottle.
9. Enter specific details to identify the sample on a permanent label. Take care in transcribing
sampling information to the label. The label should be clean, waterproof, nonsmearing, and
large enough for the necessary information. The label must be securely attached to the sample
bottle but removable when necessary. Preprinting standard information on the label can save
time in the field. The marking pen or other device must be nonsmearing and maintain a
permanent legible mark.
10. Complete a field record for each sample to record the full details on sampling and other
pertinent remarks, such as flooding, rain, or extreme temperature, that are relevant to
J-2 June 2002
-------
Appendix J
interpretation of the results. This record also provides a back-up record of sample
identification.
11. Place the samples in a suitable container and transport them to the laboratory as soon as
possible. Adhering to sample preservation and holding time limits is critical to the
production of valid data. Bacteriological samples should be iced or refrigerated at 1 to 4 °C
during transit to the laboratory. Use insulated containers such as plastic or styrofoam coolers,
if possible, to ensure proper maintenance of storage temperature. Take care to ensure that
sample bottles are not totally immersed in water during transit or storage. Examine samples
as soon as possible after collection. Do not hold samples longer than 6 hours between
collection and initiation of analysis (USEPA, 2000). Do not analyze samples that exceed
holding time limits.
12. Collect water samples for analyses of other parameters in separate appropriate containers at
the same time and perform analyses as specified in the particular methods.
13. After collecting samples from a station, wash hands and arms with alcohol wipes, a
disinfectant lotion, or soap and water, and dry to reduce exposure to potentially harmful
bacteria or other microorganisms.
J.3 Sample Handling
In cases where an agency must demonstrate the reliability of its evidence in legal cases involving
pollution, it is important to document the chain of possession and custody of samples that are
offered for evidence or that form the basis of analytical results introduced into evidence (Bordner
et al., 1978). Although the analytical results of the water samples collected at a swimming beach
are being used to make a decision for the protection of human health, a decision to close the
beach might be unpopular with local businesses and could be contested. It is thus important that
the agency collecting the samples and the laboratory performing the analysis prepare written
procedures to be followed whenever evidence samples are collected, transferred, stored,
analyzed, or destroyed. These are known as "chain of custody" (COC) procedures.
The sampling agency should have procedures to ensure the custody and integrity of the samples
beginning at the time of sampling and continuing through transport and sample receipt. The
laboratory should have procedures for sample receipt, preparation, analysis and storage, data
generation and reporting, and sample disposal.
A COC form filled out by the person conducting the sampling should provide information such
as the following: sampling location (site ID), time of collection, date of collection, time of near
or high tide, air temperature, water temperature, rainfall history, collector's name and signature,
agency, and other notes or comments. A Chain-of-Custody Review List and a Sample Handling,
Preparation, and Analysis List are provided at the end of this appendix.
June 2002 7-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Samples are usually transported to the laboratory by the person collecting the sample or picked
up by laboratory personnel. Because of the 6-hour holding time limitation, the laboratory should
be conveniently located near the sampling site and should be notified a few days in advance of
the sampling effort so that it will be ready to process the samples promptly. COC procedures
should be followed at the laboratory for all samples. Laboratory personnel receiving samples
should do the following:
1. Check the shipping container for damage and a custody seal. Note whether the custody seal is
intact and record any anomalies on the sample log-in form.
2. Open the container and inspect the sample containers, noting any damage or breakage.
Immediately take the temperature of the samples. Place a calibrated thermometer or
temperature probe in the cooler in a representative location (not directly touching any ice or
cold packs and not inside a sample bottle). Record the temperature on the sample log-in form
and the COC form enclosed with the sample.
3. Remove the individual containers from the shipping container and inspect each one for
damage, leakage, or any other problem. Note the condition of each container, the date
received, the project number, the batch number, and the airbill or shipping identification
number on the sample log-in form and the COC form.
4. Compare each sample container to those listed on the COC form to ascertain whether all the
samples are present and whether all the labels on the sample containers match those on the
COC form.
5. If no COC form accompanies the samples, complete a COC form and confirm all sample
information with the agency that collected the samples. Document any contact with the
agency regarding problems or confirmation on the sample log-in and COC forms.
6. Notify the laboratory manager if any problems with the samples are noted. Sign and date the
COC form upon completion of the sample inspection.
7. Assign each sample a sample ID code. For example, the sample ID code should include a
sequential log-in number, a sample type code (e.g., U for upstream, S for site, L for
laboratory), a code to identify the collecting agency, the sampling date, and the analysis
required. Assign replicate samples from the same site the same code with a suffix such as -
A,- B, or -C to indicate their replicate status.
8. Record each sample's code on the sample log-in form, the COC form, and the corresponding
sample container. Indicate on the form where the samples will be held (e.g., which room in
the laboratory). When samples are removed for final disposition, the removal should be
documented on the sample log-in form.
J-4 June 2002
-------
Appendix J
9. Record additional information on the sample log-in form, including the collecting agency
contact, sample analyses required, and due dates of analyses.
10. Store samples not used immediately at 4 °C.
Table J-l. Chain-of-Custody Review List
Task
Sample custodian designated
Name of sample custodian
Sample custodian's procedures and responsibilities documented
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) developed for receipt of samples
Where are the SOPs documented (laboratory manual, written instructions...)?
Receipt of chain-of-custody record(s) with samples documented
Nonreceipt of chain-of-custody record(s) with samples documented
Integrity of the shipping container(s) documented
Where is security documented?
Lack of integrity of the shipping container(s) documented
Where is nonsecurity documented?
Agreement between chain-of-custody records and sample tags verified and documented
Source of verification and location of documentation
Sample tag numbers recorded by the sample custodian
Where are they located?
Samples stored in a secure area
Where are they stored?
Sample identification maintained
Sample extract (or inorganics concentrate) identification
Samples maintained. How?
June 2002 J-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table J-2. Sample Handling, Preparation, and Analysis List
Category
Field Logs
Chain-of-Custody
Records
Task
Project name/ID and location
Sampling personnel identified
Map
Geological observations
Atmospheric conditions
Field measurements
Sample dates, times, and locations
Sample identifications noted
Sample matrix identified
Sample descriptions (e.g., odors, colors)
Number of samples taken per location
Sampling method/equipment
Description of any QC samples
Deviations from the sampling plan
Difficulties or unusual circumstances
Project name/ID and location
Sample custodian's procedures and responsibilities documented
Sample custodians' signatures verified and on file
Date and time of each transfer
Carrier ID number
Integrity of shipping container and seals verified
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for receipt on file
Samples stored in same area
Holding time protocol verified
SOPs for sample preservation on file
Identification of proposed analytical method verified
Proposed analytical method documentation verified
J-6
June 2002
-------
Appendix J
Table J-2. (continued)
Category
Chain-of-Custody
Records
Sample Labels
Sample Receipt Log
Sample Preparation
Logs
Sample Analysis
Logs
Task
QA plan for proposed analytical method on file
Sample ID
Date and time of collection
Sampler's signature
Characteristic or parameter investigated
Preservative used
Date and time of receipt
Sample collection date
Client sample ID
Number of samples
Sample matrices
Requested analysis, including method number(s)
Signature of the sample custodian or designee
Sampling kit code (if applicable)
Sampling condition
Chain-of-custody violations and identities
Parameter/analyte of investigation
Method number
Date and time of preparation
Analyst's initials or signature
Initial sample volume or weight
Final sample volume
Concentration and amount of spiking solutions used
QC samples included with the sample batch
ID for reagents, standards, and spiking solutions used
Parameter/analyte of investigation
June 2002
J-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table J-2. (continued)
Category
Instrument Run
Logs
Chemical/Standard
Receipt Logs
Task
Method number/reference
Date and time of analysis
Analyst's initials or signature
Laboratory sample ID
Sample aliquot
Dilution factors and final sample volumes (if applicable)
Absorbance values, peak heights, or initial concentrations reading
Final analyte concentration
Calibration data (if applicable)
Correlation coefficient (including parameters)
Calculations of key quantities available
Comments on interferences or unusual observations
QC information, including percent recovery
Name/type of instrument
Instrument manufacturer and model number
Serial number
Date received and date placed in service
Instrument ID assigned by the laboratory (if used)
Service contract information, including service
representative details
Description of each maintenance or repair activity performed
Date and time of each maintenance or repair activity
Initials of maintenance or repair technicians
Laboratory control number
Date of receipt
Initials or signature of person receiving chemical
Chemical name and catalog number
J-8
June 2002
-------
Appendix J
Table J-2. (continued)
Category
Standards/Reagent
Preparation Log
Task
Vendor name and log number
Concentration or purity of standard
Expiration date
Date of preparation
Initials of analyst preparing the standard solution or reagent
Concentration or purity of standard or reagent
Volume or weight of the stock solution
Final volume of the solution being prepared
Laboratory ID/control number assigned to the new
solution
Name of standard reagent
Standardization of reagents, titrants, etc. (if applicable)
Expiration date
June 2002
J-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
J.4 References
Bordner, R., J.A. Winter, andP.V. Scarpino, eds. \91%.MicrobiologicalMethods for Monitoring
the Environment, Water and Wastes. EPA-600/8-78-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
IITF. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of
E. coli on Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Wastewater. Indiana Interagency Task Force on E. coli.
LaPorte County Health Department, LaPorte, IN.
USEPA. 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment, Water and Wastes.
EPA 600/8-78-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Improved Enumeration Methods for the Recreational Water Quality Indicators:
Enterococci andEscherichia coli. EPA 821/R-97-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
J-10 June 2002
-------
Appendix K
Appendix K: Predictive Tools
This appendix provides supplemental discussions, examples, and additional references that may
be helpful to beach program managers. It does not create additional requirements beyond those in
the main guidance document.
K.1 Screening Factors for Model Selection
Selection of an appropriate water quality model for helping to determine beach advisories and
closings depends on the site conditions of the waterbody of concern. The selection of the
appropriate model can be based on the following screening factors:
• Combined point and nonpoint sources. An important screening factor is how the model
handles the loadings from point and nonpoint sources. Models based on water quality data
implicitly take the point and nonpoint sources into account, whereas models that use
continuous simulation of the water quality directly account for the sources. Typically, the
sources are part of the input parameters. For example, the rainfall-based alert curves
discussed later in this chapter are models based on water quality conditions. Those models do
not explicitly account for point and nonpoint sources; instead, the sources affect the water
quality parameters used in the model. In the case of the CORMIX and PLUME models
(described below), point sources are a component of the model input; the flow and
concentration also must be included.
• Pathogen source characterization. Pathogens found at a beach site of interest might be from
point sources, including sewage treatment plants, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), septic systems, and storm water outfalls, or nonpoint sources.
Accounting for the different sources of pathogens might require the use and integration of a
variety of models. Once pathogen loads from point and nonpoint sources are determined, the
next step is the routing of the pathogen through the system using a representative model of
the dominant mixing and transport processes to estimate the pathogen concentration at the
location of interest.
• Dominant mixing and transport processes. The waterbody type dictates the dominant
mixing and transport processes of a pollutant. In rivers and streams the dominant processes
are advection and dispersion. In estuaries these processes are influenced by tidal cycles and
flows. Waterbody size and net freshwater flow are also important in determining the
dominant processes. For discharges in the ocean surf zone, dominant dispersion processes
include mixture due to breaking waves and transport from nearshore currents.
• Pathogen concentration prediction. This factor describes the ability of the model to predict
the pathogen concentration in the receiving water at the location of interest, which in this
June 2002 K-l
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
case is a beach site. Transformation processes such as bacterial kinetics must also be
accounted for in the model to allow for a realistic prediction.
• Ability to provide time-relevant analysis, decisionmaking, and guideline establishment.
Timely or time-relevant analysis is needed for an effective advisory. Models applied to
predict water quality conditions can be used as a basis for decision making and as
management tools. For example, a beach authority can use such tools as a basis for beach
advisories following a rainfall event or an accidental sewage spill.
Time-relevant use. Under this category the input data needed, processing time, and
postprocessing abilities of the model are evaluated. Potential predictive tools for beach
advisories must be able to predict pathogen concentration at the site of interest in a relatively
short. This means that the data input requirements and processing time need to be minimal.
Also crucial to the success of the predictive tool is the postprocessing of the output data.
Tabular or graphical representation of the output data provides a quick, easy way to interpret
results and might serve as a basis for making time-relevant decisions concerning beach
advisories.
• Evaluation of unplanned and localized spills. Spills of a pollutant can be caused
accidentally by equipment failure or rainfall. In either case, this factor describes how the
model handles the additional loading. Models based on water quality data do not account for
this increased loading unless samples were collected during rainfall or a spill event and
analyzed, and the data were then entered into the model database. Models that account for
point sources can easily account for the increased loading by including the spill as an input
parameter.
• Documented application to beach and shellfish closure. This factor describes the ability of
the model to predict the water quality condition surrounding swimming and shellfish areas.
Models can be used as water quality predictive tools and as a basis for decisionmaking. For
example, several communities use rainfall models, and the New York City metropolitan area
uses the Regional Bypass Model (discussed later in this chapter). These models have proven
to be effective tools to protect people from exposure to pathogens following rainfall events or
sewage spills.
• Ease of use. The level of user experience is an important factor in determining whether a
model is easy to use. Some complex models require a great deal of training and experience;
simple methods require only a conceptual understanding of the processes, and results can be
readily obtained.
• Input data requirements. Input data requirements are a function of a model's complexity. In
general, complex models require more specific and complex input data than simple models.
Some of these data might not be readily available, and acquiring such data might require
K-2 June 2002
-------
Appendix K
expending resources. Therefore, the objective of the model application can be very important
in this step.
• Calibration requirements. Decision making and management alternatives based on modeling
results require that the model outcome be acceptable and reliable. Not all models can be
calibrated. Models that simulate water quality conditions are calibrated against in-stream
monitoring stations. Simple models such as the rainfall alert curves are continuously updated
to provide accurate results. This is done by continually updating the model's database.
• Pollutant routing. Pollutant routing addresses how a model deals with the fate and
transformation of pollutants. Simpler models might not include processes that describe
pollutant transformation. More complex models vary in their description of the processes.
The range can be from a gross or a net estimate of the process to a detailed mechanism of the
process. The focus is on bacterial processes. In general, most environmental models use the
first-order decay rate to represent microbial die-off rate.
• Kinetics of pathogen decay. The survival of pathogens (and pathogen indicators) in the
environment is influenced by many variables, such as age of the fecal deposit, temperature,
sunlight, pH, soil type, salinity, and moisture conditions. In general, the death rate of
pathogens can be estimated as a first-order rate, which is incorporated into water quality
models.
Predictive models are effective tools to supplement actual sampling. It is important, however, to
consider that models do not provide perfect predictions of actual conditions but instead provide
estimates of current conditions. A public health manager should account for inaccuracies in
models when making decisions related to public health.
K.2 Predictive Methods Currently Used by Beach Managers
Two approaches were used to identify the predictive tools currently in use by local agencies.
First, EPA's National Health Protection Survey of Beaches was used to identify local agencies
that currently base their beach advisories on water quality model prediction. Those agencies were
contacted regarding the types of models they use and information about the extent of use, model
development, and availability.
The second approach was a review of literature and information from previous EPA programs.
This approach included reviewing the models and guidelines provided in the CWA section
301(h) program, identifying tools used in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, and
reviewing other EPA publications that relate to water quality modeling. The beach closure
predictive tools identified were characterized based on modeling or prediction application
techniques and on modeling components.
June 2002 K-3
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
The tools currently in use by local and state agencies vary in their complexity and approach to
minimizing exposure to pathogens. The cities of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Stamford,
Connecticut, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) used regression analysis to relate rainfall to pathogen concentration. Models developed
using this approach are site-specific because they are derived from locally observed water quality
and rainfall data.
Simulation of water quality conditions under a variety of scenarios of untreated or partially
treated sewage also can be used. Comparison of the simulated water quality conditions to the
established criteria can serve as the basis for a beach closure. The metropolitan Boston area in
Massachusetts is undertaking such a project. A predictive model that can predict water quality
conditions resulting from bypasses of sewage at preselected locations was developed for the New
York-New Jersey Harbor. Beaches surrounding the discharge locations are closed whenever the
predicted pathogen concentrations exceed the water quality criteria.
Closure of beaches based on water quality modeling is also practiced in Virginia and
Washington. Computer models that predict pathogen concentration by simulating the dominant
mixing and transport processes in the receiving water range from simple to very complex. The
Virginia Department of Health uses a simple mixing and transport model to predict water quality
conditions surrounding wastewater treatment plant outfalls. The state of Washington uses a more
complex model, CORMIX, to predict water quality conditions surrounding wastewater treatment
plant outfalls. Rhode Island is also developing predictive models for its beaches. Review of
Potential Modeling Tools and Approaches to Support the Beach Program (USEPA, 1999)
provides a detailed description of these tools and their attributes, limitations, data requirements,
and availability. A summary of the capabilities and applicability of these models is provided in
table K-l.
Table K-l. Evaluation of Model Capabilities and Applicability
Model
Rainfall-
based
Bypass
SMTM
PLUMES
CORMIX
JPEFDC
Combined
PS/NPS •
XXX
x(PS)
x(PS)
x(PS)
x(PS)
XX
(NPS/PS)
Real Time
and
Decision
Making
XXX
XXX
XX
X
X
X
Spills
0
XXX
XX
XX
X
XXX
Application to
Beach or
Shellfish
Closure
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
XXX
Ease of
Use
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
XX
X
Input Data
Required
X
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
Calib.
XX
X
X
X
X
XX
Developing
Guidelines
XX
XX
0
X
X
X
Pollutant
Routing
0
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
0 Not applicable.
xx Medium applicability.
x Low applicability.
xxx High applicability.
* Point Source/Nonpoint Source.
K-4
June 2002
-------
Appendix K
K.3 Rainfall-Based Alert Curves
K.3.1 Objectives
The objective of a rainfall-based alert curve model is to establish a statistical relationship
between rainfall events and bacterial indicator concentrations. This relationship can then serve as
a management tool for developing operating (advisory and closures) guidelines based on
predicted pathogen concentrations that suggest the need to restrict or prohibit contact uses of
recreation waters. Several agencies have developed beach operating rules based on analysis of
site-specific relationships between rainfall and water quality monitoring data. Delaware
(DNREC, 1997) and Connecticut (Kuntz, 1998) have successfully used this approach (USEPA,
1999).
K.3.2 Benefits
The use of rainfall-based alert curves are highly recommended as predictive tools to determine
the need for beach advisories or closings. They are recommended because of their simplicity,
ease of development and use, economic feasibility, and virtually instantaneous run time. A great
advantage of rainfall-based alert curves is that they can be easily translated to decision logic that
a beach manager can use without prior advanced training or a high level of technical skill.
K.3.3 Limitations
It is important to update these models with changes in watershed or weather pattern. Weather
patterns are typically cyclical, so predictive models must reflect this variance or acknowledge this
limitation. For example, rainfall-based alert curves may not be appropriate for use along the arid
southern California coast because of an "impact lag" effect where discharges from storm water
outfalls can continue for several weeks following substantial rain events.
K.3.4 Overview of Rainfall-Based Alert Curves Technical Approach
Rainfall-based alert curves are developed in three phases: collecting data, analyzing data (linking
the rainfall events to bacterial indicators), and developing operating rules for advisories or
closings of recreational waters. Although EPA is currently supporting continued efforts in
research and development of these techniques, the Agency recommends that state, tribal, and
local beach managers consider developing scientifically based and easy-to-use site-specific
decision rules based on the technical approaches summarized below:
• Rainfall-based models are site-specific, and their development requires relatively large sets of
monitoring data for both rainfall and water quality. The overall relationship can be described
by a statistical regression/estimation model. Depending on the number of rainfall stations
June 2002 K-5
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
considered and the number of rainfall characteristics (amount, duration, lag time), the
relationship might require a more complex multiple-regression model. Because of the
statistical nature of these types of models, they cannot distinguish between point sources and
nonpoint sources of pathogens and do not explicitly incorporate advection, transport, and
decay processes. Also, because their use is limited to assisting in the development of decision
rules for advisories and closings of recreational waters, they do not attempt to provide the
spatial and vertical distribution of pathogens.
• Frequency of exceedance analysis is another rainfall-based method that can be used to
develop rainfall-based alert curves. An exceedance is defined as any time the observed
pathogen concentration exceeds the action level, such as the state water quality standard,
specified by a responsible agency. The objective of this method is to determine the minimum
amount of rainfall that causes the pathogen concentration to exceed the action level. This
amount can be determined by dividing cumulative rainfall amounts over a period of 24 hours
or more into segments that range from no rainfall to an upper limit that is representative of
the rainfall record, types of storms, and season. For each rainfall amount category, the
observed pathogen concentration or the geometric mean of multiple samples is compared to
the action level.
• After establishing a relationship between rainfall amounts and pathogen concentrations,
developing decision rules for advisories and closings is the next step. An advisory or closing
threshold is determined based on the least amount of rainfall that would result in an
exceedance of the action level. This method applies to situations where historical rainfall data
and water quality records exist. Decision rules also should be developed to include seasonal
variation in rainfall.
K.3.5 Case Studies
Rainfall-based alert curves based on regression analysis have been used for preemptive beach
closures in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Stamford, Connecticut; Sussex County, Delaware; and the
Boston, Massachusetts, area. In the cases of the city of Milwaukee, city of Stamford, and the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the approach taken was
regression analysis to relate rainfall to pathogen concentration. Models developed based on this
approach are site-specific because they are derived from locally observed water quality and
rainfall data as well as beach location/configuration relative to pathogen sources.
K-6 June 2002
-------
Appendix K
Components
Pathogen Point
and Nonpoint
Source Loading
Pathogen
Concentration
Prediction
Potential Models
•HSPF
•SWMM
•STORM
Stream (Run of the river):
• CE-QUAL-RIV1
• QUAL-2E
•HSPF
Lake -Estuary:
• CE-QUAL-ICM
• CE-QUAL-W2
•WASP
•TPM
•EFDC
Figure K-l. Predictive tool summary.
K.4 Other Predictive Tools to Supplement Sampling
Supplemental Sampling
The overall objective of beach closure predictive tools is to minimize the population's exposure
to pathogens. The tools currently in use by local agencies vary in their complexity and approach
to minimizing exposure but are generally simple, reliable tools. Figure K-l shows other
predictive tools that can be used to determine the need for a beach closing. The listed models are
divided into two categories—watershed pathogen loading models and pathogen concentration
prediction models. The latter category is divided into two additional groups to reflect the
waterbody types: (1) rivers and streams and (2) lakes and estuaries. Currently, there are no
readily available models that address the coastal nearshore environment; therefore, surf zone
models are not included in this appendix.
June 2002
K-7
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Pathogen Loading Estimates
Watershed loading models that can be used to estimate pathogen loadings to receiving waters are
presented in table K-2. Three considerations are taken into account in the table—real-time
prediction, source type, and land use type.
Table K-2. Watershed-scale Loading Models
Model Type
Watershed-scale
loading
Model Name
HSPF:
Hydrological
Simulation
Program-Fortran
SWMM:
Storm Water
Management
Model
STORM: Storage,
Treatment,
Overflow, Runoff
Model
Real- time Prediction
Data
Needs
X
X
X
Processing
Time
X
X
X
Source Type
PS
XX
X
X
NFS
X
X
X
CSO
XX
X
Land Use Type
Urban
X
XX
XX
Rural
XXX
X
x Low data requirements/applicability.
xx Medium data requirements/applicability.
xxx High data requirements/applicability.
Potential sources of pathogens include point sources (including CSOs) and nonpoint sources.
Models differ in their ability to account for these various source types. Models that simulate
nonpoint sources are capable of describing the pathogen buildup processes during dry weather
and washoff processes related to rainfall-generated runoff Accounting for various land uses is
very important in estimating nonpoint source loadings because the processes of buildup and
washoff are land-use-specific. CSO loading is a function of the hydraulic routing and the storage
capacity in the publicly owned treatment works, consisting of the treatment plant and collection
system. Therefore, a model's ability to deal with the complex land uses in the watershed is an
important factor in model selection and applicability. The key loading models suited for real-time
prediction summarized in table K-2 are briefly described below.
HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran. HSPF is a comprehensive watershed-scale
model developed by EPA. The model uses continuous simulation of water balance and pollutant
buildup and washoff processes to generate time series of runoff flow rates, as well as pollutant
concentration at any given point in the watershed. Runoff from both urban and rural areas can be
simulated using HSPF; however, simulation of CSOs is not possible. Because of the
comprehensive nature of the model, data requirements for HSPF are extensive and using this
model requires highly trained personnel.
June 2002
-------
Appendix K
SWMM: Storm Water Management Model. SWMM is a comprehensive watershed-scale model
developed by EPA. It can be used to model several types of pollutants on either a continuous or
storm event basis. Simulation of mixed land uses is possible using SWMM, but the model's
capabilities are limited for rural areas. SWMM can simulate loadings from CSOs. The model
requires both intensive data input and a special effort for validation and calibration. The output of
the model is time series of flow, storage, and contaminant concentrations at any point in the
watershed.
STORM: Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model. STORM is a watershed loading model
developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for continuous simulation of runoff quantity and
quality. The model was primarily designed for modeling storm water runoff from urban areas,
but it also can simulate combined sewer systems. It requires relatively moderate to high
calibration and input data. The simulation output is hourly hydrographs and pollutographs.
Pathogen Concentration Prediction
Loading models, depending on the simulation type, provide estimates of either the total water and
pollutant loading or a time series loading of water and pollutants. Pathogen concentration
prediction is the process of describing the response of the waterbody to pollutant loadings, flows,
and ambient conditions. Because the response is specific to the waterbody, different types of
models are required for accurate simulation, as shown in table K-3. The models are divided into
two categories on the table—rivers and streams, and lakes and estuaries.
Rivers and Streams. Prediction of pathogen concentration in rivers and streams is dominated by
the processes of advection and dispersion and the bacterial indicator degradation. One-, two-, and
three-dimensional models have been developed to describe these processes, as shown in table K-
3. Waterbody type and data availability are the two most important factors that determine model
applicability. For most small and shallow rivers, one-dimensional models are sufficient to
simulate the waterbody's response to pathogen loading. For large and deep rivers and streams,
however, the one-dimensional approach falls short of describing the processes of advection and
dispersion. Assumptions that the pathogen concentration is uniform both vertically and laterally
are no longer valid. In such cases two- or three-dimensional models that include a description of
the hydrodynamics are used. The river and stream models summarized in table K-3 are briefly
described below.
June 2002 K-9
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Table K-3. Potential Pathogen Fate and Transport Models
Model Name
HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program — Fortran
CE-QUAL-RIV1: Hydrodynamic and Water
Quality Model for Streams
CE-QUAL-ICM: A Three-Dimensional, Time-
Variable, Integrated-Compartment Eutrophication
Model
CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally
Averaged, Hydrodynamic and Water Quality
Model
WASPS: Water Quality Analysis Simulation
Program
EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer
Code
QUAL2E: Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model
TPM: Tidal Prism Model
Time-Relevant Prediction
Data Needs
XX
XX
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
X
Processing
Time
X
XX
XXX
XX
XX
XX
X
X
Waterbody Type
Rivers and
Streams
X
X
X
XX
XX
XX
X
N/A
Lakes and
Estuaries
N/A
N/A
XX
X
XX
XX
N/A
X
x Low applicability.
xx Medium applicability.
xxx High applicability.
HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program^Fortran . HSPF is a comprehensive water shed-scale
model developed by EPA. The receiving water component allows dynamic simulation of one-
dimensional stream channels, and several hydrodynamic routing options are available. The model
output is time series of runoff flow rate, as well as pollutant concentration at any given point in
the watershed. Because of the model's comprehensive nature, the data requirements for HSPF
are extensive and running the model requires highly trained personnel.
CE-QUAL-RIV1: Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model for Streams. CE-QUAL-RIV1 is a
dynamic, one-dimensional model for rivers and estuaries consisting of two codes—one for
hydraulic routing and another for dynamic water quality simulation. CE-QUAL-RIV1 allows
simulation of unsteady flow of branched river systems. The input data requirements include the
river geometry, boundary conditions, initial in-stream and inflow boundary water quality
concentrations, and meteorological data. The model predicts time-varying concentrations of
water quality constituents.
K-10
June 2002
-------
Appendix K
Lakes and Estuaries. Predicting the response of lakes and estuaries to pathogen loading requires
an understanding of the hydrodynamic processes. Shallow lakes can be simulated as a simplified,
completely mixed system with an inflow stream and an outflow stream. However, simulating
deep lakes or estuaries with multiple inflows and outflows that are affected by tidal cycles is not
a simple task. Pathogen concentration prediction is dominated by the processes of advection and
dispersion, and these processes are affected by the tidal flow. The size of the lake or the estuary,
the net freshwater flow, and wind conditions are some of the factors that determine the
applicability of the models. The lake and estuary models summarized in table K-3 are briefly
described below.
ASPS: Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program. WASPS is a general-purpose modeling
system for assessing the fate and transport of pollutants in surface water. The model can be
applied in one, two, or three dimensions and can be linked to other hydrodynamic models.
WASPS simulates the time-varying processes of advection and dispersion while considering
point and nonpoint source loadings and boundary exchange. The waterbody to be simulated is
divided into a series of completely mixed segments, and the loads, boundary concentrations, and
initial concentrations must be specified for each state variable.
CE-QUAL-ICM: A Three-Dimensional Time-Variable Integrated-Compartment Eutrophication
Model. CE-QUAL-ICM is a dynamic water quality model that can be applied to most
waterbodies in one, two, or three dimensions. The model can be coupled with three-dimensional
hydrodynamic and benthic-sediment model components. CE-QUAL-ICM predicts time-varying
concentrations of water quality constituents. The input requirements for the model include 140
parameters to specify the kinetic interactions, initial and boundary conditions, and geometric data
to define the waterbody to be simulated. Model use might require significant expertise in aquatic
biology and chemistry.
EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code. EFDC is a general three-dimensional
hydrodynamic model developed by Hamrick (1992). EFDC is applicable to rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal regions where complex water circulation, mixing, and
transport conditions are present. EFDC must be linked to a water quality model to predict the
receiving water quality conditions. HEM-3D is a three-dimensional hydrodynamic eutrophication
model that was developed by integrating EFDC with a water quality model. Considerable
technical expertise in hydrodynamics and eutrophi cation processes is required to use the EFDC
model.
CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged Hydrodynamic and Water Quality
Model. CE-QUAL-W2 is a hydrodynamic water quality model that can be applied to most
waterbodies in one dimension or laterally averaged in two dimensions. The model is suited for
simulating long, narrow waterbodies like reservoirs and long estuaries, where stratification might
occur. The model application is flexible because the constituents are arranged in four levels of
complexity. Also, the water quality and hydrodynamic routines are directly coupled, allowing for
June 2002 K-ll
-------
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
more frequent updating of the water quality routines. This feature can reduce the computational
burden for complex systems. The input requirements for CE-QUAL-W2 include geometric data
to define the waterbody, specific initial boundary conditions, and specification of approximately
60 coefficients for the simulation of water quality.
QUAL2E: The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model. QUAL2E is a steady-state receiving
water model. The basic equation used in QUAL2E is the one-dimensional advective-dispersive
mass transport equation. Although the model assumes a steady-state flow, it allows simulation of
diurnal variations in meteorological inputs. The input requirements of QUAL2E include the
stream reach physical representation and the chemical and biological properties for each reach.
7PM: Tidal Prism Model. TPM is a steady-state receiving water quality model applicable only to
small coastal basins. In such locations the tidal cycles dominate the mixing and transport of
pollutants. The model assumes that the tide rises and falls simultaneously throughout the
waterbody and that the system is in hydrodynamic equilibrium. Two types of input data are
required to run TPM. The geometric data that define the system being simulated are the returning
ratio, initial concentration, and boundary conditions. The physical data required are the water
temperature, reaction rate, point and nonpoint sources, and initial boundary conditions for water
quality parameters modeled.
K-12 June 2002
-------
Appendix K
K.5 References
DNREC. 1997. Swimming (Primary Body Contact) Water Quality Attainability for Priority
Watersheds in Sussex County. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Kuntz, I.E. 1998. Non-point Sources of Bacteria at Beaches. City of Stamford Health
Department, Stamford, CT.
USEPA. 1999. Review of Potential Modeling Tools and Approaches to Support the BEACH
Program. EPA 823/R-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology, Washington, DC.
Hamrick, J.M. 1992. A Three-dimensional Environmental Fluid Dynamics Computer Code:
Theoretical and Computational Aspects. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester, VA. Special Report 317.
June 2002 K-13
------- |