United States
             Environmental
             Protection Agency
Office of Water
(4305)
Washington DC 20460
EPA 823-R-00-003
February 2000
             Regional BEACH Program
             Conferences—1999

             Proceedings
if;

-------

-------
Abstract
The goal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Beaches  Environmental  Assessment,
Closure and Health (BEACH) Program is to significantly reduce the risk of disease to users of
the nation's recreational waters through improvements in recreational water programs, com-
munication, and scientific  advances.  The BEACH Program applies to freshwater  recreational
areas such as lakes, ponds, and rivers, as well as marine waters like oceans and bays, as does
the Beach Action Plan.

The Beach Action Plan is  a dynamic, multiyear strategy governing  all EPA activities protect-
ing the public's health from pathogens  in recreational waters.  One  of the objectives  listed in
the Beach Action Plan is for EPA to arrange a series of technical conferences intended for
state and local  recreational water quality  managers.  EPA hosted two regional beach confer-
ences,  one  in San Diego,  California, August 31-September 1,  1999, and the second in Tampa,
Florida, October  18-19,  1999,  to emphasize regional issues and implementation of national
guidance.

The conferences provided  a forum for  learning  about beach health  initiatives across  the
country, identified unaddressed beach health needs, assigned priorities to short-term and
long-term actions, and recommended protocols  and procedures to  encourage  greater consis-
tency among jurisdictions.  The conference was organized into the following sessions:

Session One      Water Quality Standards, Indicators, and Implementation

Session Two      Risk Assessment, Exposure, and Health Effects

Session Three     Monitoring and Modeling

Session Four     Beach Advisories, Closures, and Risk Communication

Each session consisted of individual presentations and a discussion period with questions and
comments from the audience and responses by the  speakers.   This proceedings document
contains a  summary  of each speaker's  presentation, a selection of key graphics, summaries of
audience questions and responses,  and summaries of the breakout  group discussions from
each conference.

-------

-------
Acknowledgments
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Water funded the East and West Coast Regional Beach Conferences.  The Standards
and Applied  Science Division in OST organized the conferences.  Tetra Tech, Inc. provided
logistical support for the  conferences and production support for the proceedings under EPA
contract 68-C-98-111.

The planning workgroup  consisted of representatives from EPA Headquarters (Thomas
Armitage, Rick Hoffmann, Charles Kovatch, Melissa Melvin,  Steve Schaub, and Elizabeth
Southerland)  and the Regional Offices (Matt Liebman, Helen Grebe, Joel Hansel, Fred
Kopfler, Al Dufour, Holly Wirick, Mike Schaub, Jake Joyce,  Janet Hashimoto, Cat Kuhlman,
and Phil Woods). The contributions of these persons in planning the conferences are greatly
appreciated.

The contributions of the invited speakers and attendees during breakout sessions are grate-
fully acknowledged.  The efforts of these people were critical  to the success of the confer-
ences.  The material in this document has been subjected to Agency technical and policy
review and approved for publication as an EPA report.  The views expressed by individual
authors, however, are their own and do not necessarily reflect  those of EPA. Mention of trade
names, products,  or services does not convey,  and  should not be interpreted as conveying,
official  EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.

-------

-------
Contents
West Coast Regional Beach  Conferencee
DAY ONE
         Agenda	1

         Welcome	3
         Ms. Felicia Marcus

         EPA's Beach Plan	5
         Mr. Jim Hanlon

      Session One:  Water Quality Standards, Indicators, and Implementation

         Overview of Water Quality Indicator Microbes	11
         Dr. Jake Joyce

         New Microbiological Pathogen Indicators for Recreational Water Use	21
         Dr. Steve Schaub

         State-of-the-Art Indicator Research: Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain
         Reaction as a Method for Detection of Human Enteric Viruses in Coastal Seawater	26
         Dr. Rachel Noble

         Question-and-Answer Session	31

      Session Two:  Risk Assessment, Exposure, and Health Effects

         The Relationship of Microbial Measurement of Beach Water Quality to Human Health	39
         Dr. Al Dufour

         Qualitative Review of Epidemiology Studies	43
         Mr. David Gray

         Pathogen Risk Assessment Methods	50
         Dr. Steve Schaub

         Question-and-Answer Session	55

-------
West Coast Regional Beach Conference (cont)

       Session Three: Monitoring and Modeling

          New Jersey's Recreational Monitoring Program	59
          Mr. David Rosenblatt

          Monitoring Program at Lake Powell	67
          Mr. Mark Anderson

          California's Regulations and Guidance for Beaches and Recreational Waters	72
          Dr. Steven Book

          Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: Summer Shoreline
          Microbiology	77
          Mr. Charles McGee

          Question-and-Answer Session	86

DAY TWO

          NRDC's Testing the Waters, 1999	91
          Mr. David Beckman

       Session Four:  Beach Advisories, Closures, and Risk Communication

          Communicating About Risk	97
          Dr. Sharon Dunwoody

          The Aftermath of the Santa Monica Bay Epidemiology Study	101
          Dr. Mark Gold

          Beach Advisories and Closures	105
          Mr. Chris Gonaver
                                                                                         I

          Question-and-Answer Session	109

Summary of Breakout Groups	114

Speakers' Biographies	120

List of Attendees	124

-------
East  Coast Regional Beach Conferencee
DAY ONE

          Agenda	133

          Welcome	135
          Mr. Rick Hoffmann

          Water Quality Issues in the Gulf of Mexico	136
          Mr. Fred Kopfler

       Session One:  Water Quality Standards, Indicators, and Implementation

          Overview of Water Quality Indicator Microbes	139
          Dr. Jake Joyce

          Boston Harbor/Charles River Beach Monitoring Effort: Comparison of Two
          Indicator Methods	14°
          Dr. Matthew Liebman

          New Indicators of Water Quality for Recreational Water Use	146
          Dr. Stephen Schaub

          New Tools for Assessing Healthy Beaches	147
          Dr. Joan Rose

          EPA's  Beach Plan	150
          Mr. Geoffrey Grubbs

          Question-and-Answer Session	•	153

       Session Two:  Risk Assessment, Exposure, and Health Effects

          The Relationship of Microbial Measurement of Beach Water Quality to Human Health	163
          Dr. Al Dufour

          Qualitative Review of Epidemiology Studies	164
          Mr. Tom Mahin

          Epidemiologic Research on Bather Illness & Freshwater Microbial Contamination	165
          Dr. Rebecca Calderon

          Question-and-Answer Session	170

-------
East Coast Regional Beach Conference  (cont)

       Session Three:  Monitoring and Modeling
                                                                                          !
           Indiana's Escherichia coli Task Force	179
           Mr. Arnold Leder
                                                                                          \
           Predictive Modeling of Bacterial Indicators Along the South Shore of Lake Pontchartrain	187
           Mr. Jeff Waters

           A Regional Modeling Tool for Impacts of Spills and Bypasses	197
           Mr. Phil Heckler

           New Jersey's Recreational Monitoring Program	202
           Mr. David Rosenblatt
                                                                                          I
           Question-and-Answer Session	203

DAY TWO

           Great Lakes Monitoring Program	204
           Mr. Paul Horvatin                                                               \

           Factors Affecting E. coli Concentrations at Lake Erie Public Bathing Beaches	207
           Ms. Donna Francy

       Session Four:  Beach Advisories, Closures, and Risk Communication

           Recreational Rates, Fish Consumption, and Communication	215
           Dr. Joanna Burger

           Florida's Beachwater Web Site	223
           Mr. Robert Nobles

           Florida Monitoring and Coordination Efforts	227
           Mr. Paul Stanek

           Question-and-Answer Session	235

Summary of Breakout Groups	241

Speakers' Biographies	246

List of Attendees	251

-------
   West Coast Regional
    Beach Conference
August 31 and September 1, 1999
     San Diego, California


      Proceedings

-------

-------
                                                                                       Agencfa
West  Coast  Conference  Agenda

Goals:      To provide a forum for all levels of beach water quality managers and public health officials to share
           information and provide input on the future directions of EPA's BEACH Programs.
Objectives:  1)  Present EPA's BEACH Program.
           2)  Present the state of the science.
           3)  Discuss local and regional water quality management issues through case study presentations.
           4)  Obtain feedback on major topic areas for EPA's Beach Guidance document.
Tuesday, August 31-Day 1

8:30-9:30    Registration

9:30-9:45    Welcome
            Felicia Marcus, Administrator
            USEPA Region 9

9:45-10:30   EPA's Beach Plan
            Jim Hanlon, Deputy Director
            USEPA, Office of Science and Technology

10:30-12:30  Session 1: Water Quality Standards,
            Indicators, and Implementation

10:30-10:50  Overview of Water Quality Indicator
            Microbes
            Jake Joyce
            USEPA, Region 7

10:50-11:00  BREAK

11:00-11:20  New Indicators of Water Quality for
            Recreational Water Use
            Steve Schaub
            USEPA, Office of Science and Technology

11:20-12:00  State-of-the-Artof Indicator Research:
            RT-PCR as a Method for Detection of
            Human Enteric Virus in Coastal
            Seawater
            Rachel Noble
            Univ. of Southern California & Southern
            California Coastal Water Research Project

12:00-12:30  Q & A/Discussions

12:30-1:30   LUNCH

1:30-3:30    Session 2: Risk Assessment, Exposure,
            and Health Effects
1:30-2:00    The Relationship of Microbial
            Measurement of Beach Water
            Quality to Human Health
            Al Dufour
            USEPA, National Environmental
            Research Laboratory

2:00-2:20    Qualitative Review of Epidemiology
            Studies
            David Gray
            Massachusetts DEP

2:20-2:40    Pathogen Risk Assessment Methods
            Steve Schaub
            USEPA, Office of Science and Technology

2:40-3:20    Q & A/Discussions

3:20-3:30    BREAK

3:30-5:30    Session 3: Monitoring and Modeling

3:30-3:50    New Jersey's Recreational Monitoring
            Program
            David Rosenblatt
            New Jersey DEP

3:50-4:10    Monitoring Program at Lake Powell
            Mark Anderson
            Aquatic Ecologist, Glen Canyon
            National Recreational Area

4:10-4:30    California's Regulation & Guidance
            for Beaches  & Recreational Waters
            Steven Book
            California State DOH, Drinking Water
            Technical Programs Branch

4:30-4:50    Southern California Bight 1998
            Regional Monitoring Program
            Charles McGee
            Orange County, CA, Sanitation District
                                                 4:50-5:30   Q & A/Discussions

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conference
Wednesday, September 1-Day 2

9:00-9:20
NRDC's Testing the Waters, 1999
David Beckman, Senior Attorney
NRDC, Los Angeles Office
9:20-11:20   Session 4: Beach Advisories, Closures,
            and Risk Communication

9:20-9:40    Communicating About Risk
            Sharon Dunwoody
            University of Wisconsin, Department of
            Communication

9:40-9:50    BREAK

9:50-10:10   The Aftermath of the Santa Monica
            Bay Epidemiology Study
            Mark Gold
            Heal the Bay

10:10-10:30  Beach Advisories and Closures
            Chris Gonaver
            San Diego County Health Department
10:30-11:10  Q &A/Discussions

11:10-11:20  Organization of Breakout Groups
            Purpose: Discuss the major components
            of the Beach Guidance'. Provide
            recommendations and key elements to
            be included in the document.

11:20-12:30  BREAKOUT SESSIONS CONVENE

12:30-1:30   LUNCH

1:30-3:30    BREAKOUT SESSIONS CONTINUE

3:30-4:15    Feedback to Plenary from Breakout
            Sessions

4:15-5:15    Open Discussion and Information
            Synthesis

5:15-5:30    Closing Remarks and Adjourn
            Jim Hanlon, Deputy Director
            USEPA, Office of Science and
            Technology

-------
                                                                                 Day One: Wefcome
    Welcome
    Felicia Marcus
    US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
            Ms. Marcus welcomed the group and
            noted that many water quality regula-
            tors from all levels of government,
    public health leaders, researchers, facility
    managers, and water quality activists were in
    attendance.  She commented on the change in
    the discussions  about beach water quality,
    which are now  focused on what are the best
    and quickest indicators rather than whether
    sampling should be done at all. She noted that
    the consciousness has changed on the part of
    many people—local,  state, and federal offices— •
    and beach safety is now a main focus.  A case
    of the stomach  flu or an eye infection is a
    problem even though it  may not compare in
    scale to some of the other issues health depart-
    ments have to deal with.
         She also noted  that the discussion has
    changed to what is the best way to monitor,
    what are the best indicators, how do we best get
    this information to the public, how do we close
    beaches based on circumstances that we know
    are likely to cause a problem versus waiting for
    48 hours until we have  proof, after people have
    been at  the beach for two days.  Discussions
    now focus on how to get this information to the
    public reliably and quickly.  It is no longer left
    to regulators to decide behind closed doors
    whether to close a beach. Instead, the public
    has an opportunity to know  and to make their
    own informed choices as part of the  whole
    right-to-know movement.  Over the last 10
    years there have been changes in the way we
    find out about sewage spills.  To find out about
    spills, regulators once had to file a Freedom of
    Information Act Request or  a Public Records
	Ac1™Request—The~riexr^dv^hcement required
    regulators to have a  beeper that went off
    whenever there was  a sewage  spill and then
    they issued a press release.  Now information is
    available on the Web in real time so that the
public  can make their own choices  about
whether they want to go to the beach.
     The players have  also changed, not in
terms of who they are,  but in terms  of how they
are behaving.  There is  more work toward
building consensus  and working together to
solve these problems.  The time has come
politically to solve beach problems.   Last year
at the  President's Ocean Conference in
Monterey, there were a tremendous number of
announcements about the EPA BEACH Pro-
gram,  although they were overshadowed by
offshore drilling and other fish issues.  The
Bilbray bill is moving  through Congress as
well.   Things have moved even faster at the
state level, with the passage of the Howard
Wayne bill in California 2 years ago leading the
way in the nation.  It has resulted in a lot more
beach  closures in California.   Many  of Southern
California partners inside  and outside govern-
ment are developing a Web site that will give
public  access to information as to whether a
particular  beach is safe  for swimming that day.
The Southern California pilot  should be com-
pleted  shortly and then  move up the coast
before leaping the Pacific  to Hawaii.
     The TMDL effort, storm water regulations,
and other initiatives are being brought together
into preventive solutions to the other end of the
problem.  There are renewed efforts on com-
bined  sewer overflows  and sanitary  sewer
overflows to deal with  the sewage issue.  EPA
has a regulatory role in ensuring that states
adopt  protective standards and that discharges
to beaches meet water quality goals, and strong
water programs play a major role in keeping the
beaches clean.  TMDLs are the next wave and
finally give us a shot at integrating  point and
nonpoint sources in an  intelligent way  over a
given  geographic surface leading into a particu-
lar waterbody.

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
     In addition to the regulatory side, one of
the most important roles of EPA is to help
provide good  science to help set the standards
for pathogens  and for monitoring them.   EPA
also has the ability and responsibility to con-
vene interested parties  to share information not
only on the science but also on how beach
safety is communicated to the public. These
nonregulatory pieces of EPA's job  are the
reason for this conference and the  reason the
Agency is so pleased that so  many people
could attend.  Finally, EPA has put forth an
ambitious Action Plan, which Jim Hanlon will
discuss in detail, and hopes to get  feedback on
it from the participants.

-------
                                                                      Day One: EPA's Beach Plan
EPA's  Beach  Plan
Jim Hanlon
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
   Jim Hanlon presented background on where
   EPA is and has come from, and the EPA
   Beach Action Plan for beaches and recre-
   ational waters, and he offered an outline of
where that will lead EPA in the future.   The
conference, he noted, would provide a forum for
beach water quality managers and public health
officials  to share information and to provide
input to EPA that will assist in development of
the Agency's program to protect the public from
microbial pathogens  in  recreational waters.
EPA's objectives for the conference included
sharing information and gaining feedback on the
development of national guidance.  The confer-
ence would present ongoing and planned
recreational water program activities  and de-
scribe the current "state of science" in recre-
ational water standards, disease indicators, risk
assessment, monitoring, and risk communica-
tion. At the breakout sessions state, local, and
federal officials would discuss issues related to
the  guidance in order to enable national consis-
tency in managing beach water quality. The text
of Mr. Hanlon's comments follows.
     In  May 1997, Administrator Carol Browner
announced the establishment of the BEACH
(Beaches Environmental Assessment,  Closure
and Health) Program in response to concerns
 about water quality in recreational  areas. Persis-
tent water quality problems (evidenced by
 advisories and closings),  inconsistencies in
 monitoring between states,  inconsistent public
 notification programs, growing  concerns about
 microbial  contaminants, and increased pollution
 pressures all led to the development of the
 BEACH Program.
     In  1997, the Natural Resources Defense
 Council's  8th  annual survey on beach water
 quality reported at least 4,153 days of beach
 closings and  advisories caused by pollution.
 EPA's annual National Health Protection Survey
of Beaches, completed in 1998 and 1999,
indicates that many beaches continue to have
water quality problems.  In 1999, EPA gathered
information from more than 1,400 beaches, and
approximately 25 percent of the beaches were
associated with at least one advisory or closing
in the 1998 beach season.  The surveys were
issued to agencies  responsible for coastal
beaches, including  the Great Lakes.  Future
efforts will increase the scope to capture inland
beaches.
     Results of the survey confirmed that a wide
variety  of standards and monitoring approaches
are used at beaches throughout the United States.
There is no published technical guidance that
deals with protocols for monitoring,  depth to
sample, intervals for sampling, and so forth.
EPA surveys have indicated that because of
varying resources and diverse local  circum-
stances, the local agencies (county health
departments and sanitation districts)  responsible
for notifying the public of water quality prob-
lems use a wide range of risk communication
practices. There is a great need to communicate
more effectively with the public.
     There is growing concern about microbio-
logical  contamination.  There is now recognition
that recreational water users are at risk of infec-
tion from waterborne pathogens  through inges-
tion or  inhalation of contaminated water or
through contact with the water.  Some people
may face a disproportionate risk from exposure
to the pathogens because  of heightened suscepti-
bility.  For example, children may be more
vulnerable to environmental  exposure because
of their active behavior and developing immune
systems.
      Most of the recreational water  quality
problems are man-made.  More than 50 percent
of the U.S. population live within 50 miles of the
coast, where people are densely  packed into less

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 than 10 percent of the nation's land.  Serious
 overcrowding in the highly popular coastal
 locations, especially in the Northeast, mid-
 Atlantic region, and Southern California, has
 already caused water quality  problems, and
 demographers project continued increases  in the
 years ahead.  EPA's reaction has been to estab-
 lish open dialogue with local beach managers.
 To address these problems, EPA has organized a
 number of beach conferences.  The First Na-
 tional Beach  Conference was  held in October
 1997 in Annapolis,  Maryland.  The purpose of
 that conference was to identify important issues
 that must be addressed by  EPA's BEACH
 Program.  Now, with these regional conferences,
 EPA wants to focus on specific topics and
 concerns and has  invited representatives of state,
 local, and regional organizations to  participate.
      In March 1999, EPA published the
 Agency's Action Plan for  Beaches and Recre-
 ational Waters, which was derived from the
 1997 conference.  The Beach  Action Plan
 identifies EPA's multiyear strategy for monitor-
 ing recreational water quality  and communicat-
 ing public health risks associated with poten-
 tially pathogen-contaminated  recreational rivers,
 lakes, and ocean beaches.  An important part of
 this strategy is to improve and assist hi state,
 tribal, and local implementation of monitoring
 and  public notification programs.
     The plan strengthens  and supports state  and
 local programs.  Most of the programs are
 centrally  managed through compliance and
 monitoring. EPA will strengthen water quality
 standards implementation programs by estab-
 lishing appropriate policies (e.g., what should be
 done in tropical waters) and assisting local
 managers in their transition to  EPA's  currently
 recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria
 for Bacteria.
     Guidance and technology transfer are key
 components of the beach program. EPA will
 coordinate the planning and issuance  of national
 BEACH Program guidance documents  address-
 ing recreational water quality monitoring, risk
 assessment, risk management,  and risk commu-
 nication, incorporating input from state and local
participants. This conference will assist us in
developing the guidance.
     National  beach health survey and public
right-to-know  communication efforts will also
be an important part of the guidance develop-
ment.  EPA will continue to conduct an annual
national beach health survey to collect detailed
 national data on state and local beach monitoring
 efforts, applicable  standards, beach  water quality
 communication methods, the nature and extent
 of beach contamination problems, and any
 protection activities.  Surveys have been com-
 pleted during each  of the past 2 years, and the
 results have been made available to  the public on
 EPA's Beach Watch Internet Web site.  EPA will
 continue to maintain  this web site to provide
 timely recreational water quality information to
 the public and to local authorities. The current
 Web site will become a real-time electronic
 database with links to state and local beach
 health-related information. The Web site will
 also provide information identifying those
 beaches  where monitoring and assessment
 activities  are conducted in a manner consistent
 with EPA's national  guidance.
     An important part of EPA's effort to make
 beach information available to the public is to
 develop a national  digitized inventory of beach
 maps. EPA will develop a protocol for mapping
 beaches and begin  mapping in priority areas.
 These maps will ultimately be United to the
 location of pollution  sources through a geo-
 graphic information system. This will help
 beach managers visualize the resource and
 potential  threats.
     EPA has recognized the need for develop-
 ing better and faster indicators of water quality.
 Indicators  are needed to identify risk before
 exposure takes place  and to determine the
 potential presence of pathogens causing
 nonenteric diseases.  Work has begun to com-
 plete research to  reduce  sample processing and
 development of new  indicators.
     A number of mathematical models have
 been or are being developed to  assess the
 migration of pollution near recreational waters.
 These models can be  used to rapidly determine
 public health risks at  beaches following rainfall
 events or spills.  EPA has catalogued a range of
 predictive tools and is improving them.  A
 catalogue  and evaluation of existing  models is
 available on EPA's  Beach Watch Web  site.
 Models range from  rules of thumb for predicting
 risk, such  as the occurrence of intense rainfall, to
 complex  hydrodynamic models.
     Research is planned to investigate the risks
 of combined sewer overflows, the role  that
interstitial waters play in microbial exposure to
bathers (particularly children),  and human
exposure factors (such as  inhalation,  skin
contact, time spent in  the water, skin  abrasions or

-------
                                                                        Day One: EPA's Beach Plan
cuts, and crowding of swimmers at small recre-
ational areas) that contribute to adverse health
effects.  EPA has identified a need for epidemio-
logical studies to establish a link between water
quality indicators and disease  endpoints.  New
and innovative indicator methods will be used to
assess and validate their efficiency for determin-
ing health risks.
     EPA beach-related activities  have  taken
greater prominence because Beach Program
legislation has been proposed  in the U.S. Con-
gress.  The House of Representatives passed
H.R. 999, the Beach Environmental Awareness,
Cleanup and Health  Act, sponsored by  Con-
gressman Bilbray, on Earth Day.   Senator Chafee
chaired a Senate hearing on July 22 on two
beach bills, Senator Lautenberg's bill (S. 522)
and H.R. 999. There has been no  action yet on
these bills in the Senate, but they are being
reviewed and a vote on them may be taken'in
this session of Congress.
     It is hoped that there will be more action on
these bills in the fall. The proposed legislation
would require the adoption of revised state water
quality standards consistent with EPA's current
ambient criteria for bacteria (i.e., E. coli or
enterococcus) within 3.5 years.  The legislation
would establish  state or local beach monitoring
and notification programs.  EPA grants to states
and local governments would support monitor-
ing and notification programs.
     The legislation would provide for an
increased federal role in developing standards
for consistent monitoring and in monitoring
where state and  local governments fail to  act.
The legislation tasks EPA with the responsibility
for developing federal guidance and  regulations
for monitoring and notification.  EPA will  de-
velop a national public right-to-know database
with access to local beach data.  The agency
would also conduct monitoring  and notification
if it is not  done by state and local governments.
EPA will have to balance the requirement for
national consistency in monitoring and notifica-
tion with the need for flexibility to address site-
specific conditions.

-------

-------
        Session One:
        Water Quality
Standards, Indicators,
  and Implementation

-------

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session One
Overview of  Water  Quality  Indicator
Microbes
Jake Joyce
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
       An indicator is a parameter or a value
       derived from a parameter which pro-
       vides information about  the environ-
ment with a significance extending beyond that
which was measured, and is intended as a
surrogate for other unmeasured parameters.
Indicator microorganisms are  used to conduct
microbiological examinations  of water in order
to determine its sanitary quality.  Indicator
organisms are  used in drinking  waterj  shellfish
sanitation problems and in  recreational waters,
which is the topic of this presentation.  Al-
though waterborne disease can be caused by
viruses, protozoans, bacteria or helminthes,
only bacterial indicators are used to  assess
water quality.  This is because routine examina-
tion of water for pathogenic microorganisms is
not recommended,  except for special studies, or
for the examination of water-related illness, and
then, only certain pathogens are sought.  In
other words, the levels of indicator microorgan-
isms are measured hi lieu of looking directly for
a large suite of pathogenic microorganisms.  A
human fecal sample can contain as many as a
hundred different species of bacteria.  The
primary function of a water pollution indicator
organism is to provide evidence of recent fecal
contamination  from warm-blooded animals.  A
proper indicator of fecal pollution should
survive longer, but not much  longer than the
intestinal pathogens it is  intended to indicate.
In other words, if it doesn't survive as long as a
pathogen, then a false negative could result.  If
it  survives appreciably longer than the patho-
gens, it could  indicate false positive results.
     The concept of an indicator assumes that
the indicator bacteria are randomly dispersed in
the water body. In reality this is seldom, if
ever, the case.  Another major limitation with
bacterial indicators is that they are based upon
gastrointestinal disease  alone, while inhalation
and contact diseases can result from exposure
to the contaminated water.  The use of an
indicator is limited because a relatively  small
volume sample is used  to represent a much
larger quantity of water. Also, any indicator
chosen is  a surrogate for disease-causing
pathogens.
     The currently used bacterial indicators for
the presence of fecal contamination are as
follows:
     1. Total coliforms—includes several
genera of  gram(-), facultative anaerobic, non-
spore- forming rod-shaped bacteria, some of
which occur in the intestinal  tracts of animals
and humans, and some of  which occur  natu-
rally in soil and in fresh or marine waters.  The
coliform group is made up of a number of
bacteria including genera of  Klebsiella,
Citrobacter,  Ecsherichia, Serratia,  and Entero-
bacteria.   Although the total  coliforms test was
essentially a surrogate for E.  coli, it is the false
positives from this traditional water quality test
which have prompted the adoption of more
definitive indicators of  water pollution by fecal
matter. The total coliform test was used an
indicator until  1968 when the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration recommended
that a subgroup of the total coliforms (the fecal
coliforms) be adopted.
     2. Fecal coliforms—includes several
species of coliform bacteria that are able to
ferment lactose and produce  gas, and they
commonly occur in the feces of warm-blooded
animals.   The fecal coliform (or "elevated
temperature" test)  was developed in  1904  to
screen for E. coli.  The use of the term "fecal
coliforms" has proven to be  a poor choice,
                                                                                          11

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
 however, because it implies that all microorgan-
 isms responding to  the test come from fecal
 matter, which is an incorrect assumption.  In
 theory, the 44.5 °C temperature should inhibit
 the  growth of Citrobacteria and Enterobacters,
 but  many members of the Klebsiella group are
 thermotolerant and  can survive.  More  alarming
 was the discovery that some strains of E.  coli
 could be inhibited by  the elevated temperatures,
 leading to false positive results. The fecal
 coliform  indicator has  been used to measure
 water quality and has  been faulted because
 non-fecal  environmental  sources of Klebsiella,
 Citrobacter and Enterobacteria bacteria have
 been noted.  This could have the effect of
 causing a false positive or a false negative in
 the  water sample for sewage contamination.
 This lack of specificity for accurately differenti-
 ating between fecal and  non-fecal  contamina-
 tion also  compromises  the value of the  fecal
 coliform  method for assessing  water quality.
 Also, the fecal coliform method does not
 differentiate between fecal  organisms of human
 or animal origin.  The  standard for fecal
 coliforms is the logarithmic mean of five
 samples taken over a 30-day period should not
 exceed 200 fecal coliforms per 100 mL of
 water. In addition,  10 percent of the total
 samples during any 30-day period  should  not
 exceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 mL of
 water.
     Note: Studies have indicated that fecal  and
 total coliform counts do not correlate well  with
 levels of pathogenic bacteria and viruses
 actually measured in waters.  To account for
 this, two  new tests were proposed for determin-
 ing  fecal  contamination in waters in 1986:
     3. Enterococci—round coccoid  bacteria
 that  live in the intestinal tract.  Streptococcus
faecalis and S. feacium are two indicators of
 that  group that are more  human-specific than
 the other members  of the group, but can be
 isolated from  the intestinal  tract of  domestic
 animals.  These two microorganisms  were
 chosen because they are the main detected
 bacteria from this test.   For enterococci, the
 freshwater standard is the geometric mean of
 the bacterial densities of five samples taken
 over  a 30-day period which should not exceed
 33/100 mL. The marine water value should  not
 exceed 35/100 mL.  The single sample maxi-
 mum is 61/100 mL for  freshwater and 104/100
 mL for marine water.
     4. Escherichia coli—a member of the
 coliform group  whose presence indicates  fecal
 contamination since it is one of the ubiquitous
 coliform members  of the intestinal microflora of
 warm-blooded animals.  Under its previous
 name, Bacterium coli, it has been recom-
 mended as an indicator of fecal pollution  in
 waters since 1904,  but its use was delayed until
 a method specific to its  enumeration was
 developed.  In the  late 1980s scientific evi-
 dence was amassing that E. coli itself should be
 the bacterial indicator for fecal contamination in
 waters.  E. coli has been found to be universally
 present in the fecal matter  of warm-blooded
 animals at densities from 108 to 109 per gram
 and comprises nearly 95 percent of the
 coliforms in feces.  This indicates that E.  coli
 would always be present in fecal contamination
 incidents whereas the other members of the
 coliform group may or may not be present,
 even  though known  sewage contamination was
present.  The steady-state geometric mean
 indicator density (five samples equally spaced
 over a 30-day period) is  126 E. coli per 100 mL
 water.
     As a final  note, along  with sampling  and
analytical difficulties, perhaps  the greatest
problem with the use of indicator  data is people
who are unaware of the  limitations of the  tests
and interpret them  inappropriately.  Finally,
indicator microbe analytical data should not be
interpreted alone.  It  should always be used in
conjunction with a sanitary survey; however,
this step is often omitted.
12

-------
       WATER CONTAMINATION
              INDICATORS

         Jerome (Jake) Joyce, Ph.D.
                                                                                 Day One: Session One
Indicator—-a parameter, or a value derived
from a parameter, which provides information
about the environment with a significance
extending beyond that which was measured,
and is intended as a surrogate for other
unmeasured parameters.
Indicator organisms are used to conduct
microbiological examinations of water in
order to determine its sanitary quality.
Indicator organisms are used for determining
fecal contamination in:

• drinking water
• recreational waters
• shellfish sanitation
An ideal indicator organism should:

• be found only when pollution or pathogens
  are present
• be absent when pollution or pathogens are
  present
• occur in larger numbers than the pathogens
• increase in numbers in proportion to the
  degree of pollution
An ideal indicator organism should (cont):

• respond to routine testing procedures
• survive longer that the pathogens
• be applicable to multiple sanitary situations
• have consistent culture characteristics
                                                                                                    13

-------
                                                                       West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
   Although waterborne disease can be caused
   by viruses, protozoans, bacteria or helminthes,
   only bacterial indicators are used to assess
   water quality.
Routine examination of water for pathogenic
microorganisms is not recommended except
for special studies or for examination of
water-related illness, and then only specific
pathogens are sought.
   In other words, the levels of indicator
   microorganisms are measured in lieu of
   looking directly for a large suite of
   waterborne pathogenic organisms.
A human fecal sample can contain as many as
a hundred different species of bacteria.
    Human fecal bacteria include:

    • (primary species)
       - Bacteroides
       — Lactobacillus
       - Escherichia coli
       - Enterococcus
 Human fecal bacteria (cont)

 • (secondary species)
    - Citrobacter
    - Klebslella
    - Clostridium
    - Staphylococcus
    - Bacillus
14

-------
 Human fecal bacteria (cont)

 • (rare but can be found)
    - Proteus
    - Providencia
    - Pseudomonas
                                                                                    Day One: Session One
 A number of bacterial species have been
 proposed as indicators of fecal pollution:

 • Vibrio
 * Clostridium
 • Pseudomonas
 • Bifidobacterium
 • Bacteroides
 • Yersinia
A primary function of a water pollution
indicator microorganism is to provide
evidence of recent fecal contamination from
warm-blooded animals.
A proper indicator of fecal pollution should
not survive longer that the intestinal
pathogens it is intended to indicate.
The indicator concept assumes that the
indicator bacteria are randomly dispersed in
the water body. In reality, this is never the
case.
A simple cause-and-effect relationship
between pollution and human disease is often
difficult to substantiate.
                                                                                                       15

-------
                                                                      West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
   Another major limitation with bacterial
   indicators is that they are based upon
   gastrointestinal disease alone, while inhalation
   and contact diseases can also occur from
   contaminated water.
There is no indicator organism or group of
organisms that can predict the transmission of
disease by all possible waterborne routes.
   Some waterborne pathogens (viruses and
   protozoans) can survive in water longer than
   indicator bacteria, leading to false negatives.
 The use of an indicator is limited as:

 • the relatively small volume sample is used
  to represent a much larger quantity of water
 • any indicator chosen is a surrogate for
  disease-causing pathogens
    The major problem with the total coliform test
    is the false positive results from naturally
    occurring microbes.
 The total coliform group includes the
 following genera:

 •  Klebsiella—found in feces and natural
   environment
 •  Enterobacter—found in feces and natural
   environment
 •  Citrobacter—found in environmental
   sources
 •  Serratia—found in environmental sources
 •  Escherichia—always found in feces

16

-------
                                                                                   Day One: Session One
 The total coliform test was the standard until
 1968 when the Federal Water Pollution
 Control Administration recommended that a
 subset of the total coliforms (fecal coliforms)
 be used instead.
Fecal Coliform Test—roriginalry developed in
1904 to screen for Bacillus coli (now called E.
coli).
 The fecal coliform method does not
 differentiate between fecal organisms of
 human or animal origin.
 The fecal coliform test does distinguish
 between fecal and nonfecal contamination, but
 not between human and nonhuman sources.
The major drawback of the fecal coliform test
is that Klebsiella bacteria, which can be
naturally occurring, can survive the elevated
temperatures and give false positive results.
A final drawback of the fecal coliform test is
that some strains of E. coli are unable to
ferment lactose or are not thermotolerant; this
can lead to false negative results.
                                                                                                       17

-------
                                                                      West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
      In 1986, EPA issued a revision to the ambient
      water quality criteria to include new bacterial
      indicators which provide better correlation
      with gastrointestinal disease than does the
      previously used fecal coliform test:

      • Escherichia coli
      • Enterococci
Enterococci and E. coli are both
recommended for fresh recreational waters,
while enterococci are preferred for marine
waters.
      E. coli is an ideal indicator for fecal pollution
      because it:

      • is an obligate parasite of humans and
        animals
      • doesn't multiply out of the host's body
      * vastly outnumbers potential waterborne
        pathogens
      • dies off in the environment and indicates
        recent pollution
For fecal coliforms, the criterion is the
geometric mean of 200 fecal coliforms per
100 mL.
      For recreational fresh waters, the guideline is
      33 enterococci/100 mL water, while for
      marine waters it is 35/100 mL.
For full contact recreational waters, the
geometric mean of the indicated bacterial
densities of not less than 5 samples taken over
a 30-day period should not exceed one or the
other of the following:

 •  E. coli 126 per 100 mL
 •  Enterococci 33 per 100 mL
18

-------
                                                                                     Day One: Session One
 Fecal streptococci have generally been found
 to be more persistent than fecal coliforms in
 natural waters.
 The fecal streptococcus group consists of a
 number of species of the genus including:

 • S.faecalis
 • S.faecium
 • S. avium
 • S. bovis
 • S. equinus
 • S. gallinarum
The enterococcus group is a subgroup of the
fecal streptococci and includes:

• S.faecalis
• S.faecium
• S. gallinarum
• S. avium
 The fecal streptococci are favored as
 indicators because:

 •  consistently present in feces of warm-
   blooded animals
 •  survive longer than pathogens in
   environment
 •  are not frankly pathogenic
 •  do not seem to multiply appreciably in
   polluted waters
Enterococci are round coccoid bacteria that
live in the intestinal tract of warm blooded
animals.

• Streptococcus faecalis
• Streptococcus faecium
These two streptococci are used as they are
considered more human specific than others
which can be found in wild and domestic
animals' intestinal tracts.
                                                                                                        19

-------
                                                                       West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
     No assumptions can be made concerning
     indicator/pathogen ratios; therefore:

     • A water with indicators exceeding certain
       levels may be considered unsafe.
     • A water with indicators below certain levels
       is not necessarily free of risk.
Along with sampling and analytical
difficulties, perhaps the greatest problem with
the use of indicators is people who are
unaware of the limitations of the tests and
interpret them in inappropriate ways.
      Indicator microbe analytical data should not
      be interpreted alone. It should invariably be
      used in conjunction with a thorough sanitary
      survey; however, this second step is often
      omitted.
20

-------
                                                                      Day One: Session One
New  Microbial  Pathogen Indicators
for  Recreational  Water  Use
Steve Schaub
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
       use of enterococci and E. coli for
     determining  the safety of recreational
     waters was established by EPA in its 1986
recreational water criteria. These indicator
organisms were  selected  after epidemiological
studies on recreational exposures demonstrated
that they correlated with  acute gastrointestinal
disease (AGI). The  indicators  and the associ-
ated pathogens that  cause AGIs  are typically of
fecal origin.  Recently, a  number of new
concerns  about the  sources  of indicators, their
relationship to other diseases and types of
exposures, and their adequacy to provide water
quality information  in a meaningful time frame
have been identified.
    There are a  number  of specific require-
ments for improvements to  the capabilities of
indicators used in recreational water monitor-
ing, such as rapid or real  time indicator meth-
ods to  detect fecal contamination; capabilities to
discriminate animal  vs human fecal contamina-
tion;  expanded ability  to determine the potential
for more serious diseases risks than just acute
diarrhea; new capabilities to determine risks
from skin, ear, eye, and upper respiratory tract
infection; and better indicators for use to
determine disease risks in tropical waters
(current indicators  are suspect because of
environmental regrowth).
     When enhanced or new indicator capabili-
ties are available, it will be  important to ensure
that they are easy to  use, are affordable, and
have adequate precision and accuracy to
provide  results that health professionals  and the
public will have confidence  in. To ensure that
the methods  will allow risk-based decision
making, it is important to demonstrate that they
reflect the potential and magnitude of disease
risks they have been designed for. However,  in
the final analysis, the new indicator methods
will only be  as instructive about  health risks as
the monitoring programs will allow  for assess-
ments of the temporal and spatial variability
typically found in  recreational waters.
                                                                                     21

-------
     New Indicators of Recreational
                Water Quality
                Stephen A. Schaub
                     USEPA
                  Office of Water
          Office of Science and Technology
                                                                 West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
 Classical Criteria for Ideal Fecal
     Contamination Indicators

1 Numbers in water are associated with risks
 of enteric illness to swimmers (a dose-
 response relationship).
1 Survival => than pathogens and stable
 characteristics.
' Don't regrow environmentally and harmless
 to humans.
          Classical Criteria for Ideal
               Indicators (cont)

       Apply to all waters and detection/assay is
       simple and fast.
       Always in fecally contaminated samples
       when pathogens are present - correlated
       with degree of fecal contamination.
  Problems with Fecal Indicators


  Analyses take too long for many
  applications and for public health decisions.
  Distribution of indicators and many
  pathogens becomes divergent once excreted
  from gut.
  - Different environmental fate and transport
  - Different effectiveness of wastewater treatment
   and disinfection
      Concerns About Indicators (cont)

      • Analyses impacted by interference from
       water matrices.
      • Methods don't discriminate fecal sources.
     Why Not Direct Pathogen
            Monitoring?

  Typically costly and sophisticated.
  Too many to monitor, even for multiplex
  probes and PCR.
  Occurrence in population/wastewaters is
  sporadic or cyclical.
22


-------
                                                                                     Day One: Session One
No Direct Pathogen Monitoring (cont)

• Water constituents interfere with sampling and
  assay, reducing recovery and reproducibility:
  - turbidity, soluble and colloidal organics, non-target
    organisms, salts, and extreme pH.
• Low concentrations require large sample
  volumes -
  - 10 -1000 L.
• Difficult to determine significance of isolates -
  detection often mandates knowledge of viability
  and human infectivity, etc.
 Improved Indicator Tools To Meet
      Future Monitoring Needs

 •  CRITERIA FOR IMPROVEMENTS:
   - Risk-based: Indicate potential for disease in
     exposed population.
   - Adaptable to multiple usages/media.
   - Fast, inexpensive, easy to perform and to
     interpret.
   Improved Indicator Tools (cont)

  1 Allow field analyses.
  1 High precision and accuracy.
  1 Accommodate water matrices
   (interferences).
         Recreational Water
            Indicator Needs

  Real-Time Recreational Indicators:
   - Requirement: rapidly determine potential risks
    before exposure occurs. 18-48 hr indicators
    won't prevent exposures.
   - Development approach is "dipstick" or other
    rapid, easy-to-use, inexpensive technology, e.g.,
    fecal chemicals or microbes.
      Real-Time Indicators (cont)

   Representative candidates: caffeine, fecal
   sterols, detergents, IgA, immunological
   tests for antigens (elisa).
   Can use frequently at the beach. Positive
   samples may trigger more sampling,
   possibly tiered with more sophisticated
   indicators.
   Recreational Water Indicator
                 Needs

Differentiation of Human vs Animal Fecal
Contamination:
  • Requirement: Track sources of contamination
    to eliminate them or determine potential for
    exposures and risk of illness.
    - Domestic/feral animals excrete fecal
     indicators and pathogens: AFO/CAFO and
     runoff levels in water may exceed human
     source indicators.
                                                                                                       23

-------
             Differentiation of Fecal
             Contamination: (cont)

       Representative candidates: DNA
       fingerprinting, phage typing, PCR/probes
       fecal chemicals.
       From a public health perspective, are
       pathogens from animals really less of a
       concern for swimming if they infect
       humans?
       Bird or animal droppings can close beach
       because of resulting high indicator levels.
                                                                      West Coast Regional Beach Conferences
         Recreational Water
           Indicator Needs

Tropical Water Indicators:
   • Requirement: Evidence that coliforms
    (including E. coli) and enterococci can grow in
    soil/water in tropics. May result in false
    positive indications of fecal contamination.
   • Confirm regrowth and determine essential
    conditions; also establish the minimum
    "tropical" temperature and period of growth.
      Tropical Water Indicators: (cont)

      •  Potential candidates: Clostridium
        perfringens, phage, genetic markers of re-
        growth capability.
      •  Establish tropical criteria on regrowth
        factors and ID tropical range that states
        could use for implementing alternative
        methods.
         Recreational Water
            Indicator Needs

Indicators of Nonenteric Diseases:
• Requirement: many swimming-associated
  diseases are not necessarily of fecal origin,
  e.g., ear, upper respiratory tract, and skin
  infections. Fecal indicators are not
  appropriate.
   - Other sewage (grey water), industrial and food
    wastes contain nonenteric pathogens that
    swimmers are exposed to.
            Indicators of Nonenteric
                  Diseases (cont)

        Potential indicators: Pseudomonas spp.,
        Staphylococcus spp., fungi, and others.
        Can a single indicator represent risks for all
        nonenteric diseases and their sources?
        Anthropogenically derived indicators are
        not suitable for water-based pathogens.
          Recreational Water
            Indicator Needs

  Enhanced Methods for Serious Enteric
  Disease and Sequella:
   • Requirement: Some enteric diseases of a severe
     nature may pose swimming risks, e.g., hepatitis,
     diabetes, sequella from viral infections,
     campylobacteriosis. Enterococci and E. coli
     have demonstrated relationship only for AGIs.

24

-------
                                                                                  Day One: Session One
  Methods for Serious Disease:
                (cont)

 •  Potential candidates: ?? What approach would
   provide relevance to severe diseases having low
   infectious dose, long incubation time, or
   sequella?
 •  Look for novel indicator approaches that
   correspond to presence and magnitude of these
   types of disease risks.  Could indicators capture
   the range of diseases of concern considering
   different sources, infective dose, fate and
   survival factors?
         Recreational Water
           Indicator Needs

Other Needs:
• Applicability to emerging disease risks.
• Tiered indicator approaches - positive
  indicator sample triggers additional definitive
  indicator or pathogen assessments.
• Indicators of poor environmental conditions,
  e.g., high nutrients (V. parahemoliticus and
  V. vulnificus).
        Other Needs (cont)


Establish disease correlations for beaches
using sensory approaches: smell, color,
sewage debris, dead birds and animals, etc.
Establish significance of viable, but non-
culturable - discount, or resuscitate and
count?
Determine appropriate sample volumes - is
100 mL adequate? What are upper volume
limits?
         Other Needs (cont)

  Determine method's precision, accuracy,
  and bias.
  Establish indicator - disease risk
  relationships for criteria development.
Monitoring Issues for Assessing
          Water Quality

Monitoring requirements are naive to
dynamic indicator or pathogen loadings
(seasonal and event-driven changes).
Monitoring strategies can detect excess risk
- but lack cohesive strategies to determine
when water is safe  again.
      Monitoring Issues (cont)

Low-frequency monitoring may not adequately
determine local spatial/temporal effects:
 — changing hydraulic flows and underwater
   topography.
 — wind and wave action.
 - sediment dispersal into water column.
 - tides.
 - variable water column distribution, e.g., salinity
   gradients.
                                                                                                     25

-------
                                                    West Coast Regional Beach Conference
State~of-the~Art  Indicator  Research:
Reverse  Transcriptase   Polymerase
Chain  Reaction  as a Method  for
Detection  of  Human  Enteric Viruses
in Coastal Seawater
Rachel Noble
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
       Microbial pathogens introduced into the
       coastal environment, from storm
       drains, are a major concern for those
using the ocean for food and recreation. Ques-
tions related to the presence of pathogens in the
sea take on particular significance in an area
like Southern  California where beach-going and
marine recreation  are very popular and occur
year-round. Also, storm drains in Southern
California are known contributors of microbial
contamination to  adjacent beaches and have
been demonstrated to adversely affect the
health of those using  coastal waters for recre-
ation (Haile et al. 1999).
    For decades, bacterial indicators have
been used to infer microbiological water quality
in  recreational waters. However, viruses have
long been known  to be important etiological
agents of waterborne  disease.  Human patho-
genic viruses can  be found in coastal waters
contaminated by urban runoff and sewage, but
currently used microbiological standards for
recreational waters do not include viruses.
Shortcomings  in bacteriological water quality
standards have been revealed on several
occasions where viruses were isolated from
seawater that met current standards of bacterial
indices.  Previous studies indicated that several
dangerous viruses can be contracted by swim-
ming or diving in contaminated ocean waters
(Cabelli et al.  1982, Seyfried et al. 1985, Haile
et al. 1999).
    A major goal of this project was to study
viral indicators, human enteric viruses, along
the coast of southern California, with a focus on
storm drains. We  were interested in  optimizing
the methods for detection of human  enteric
viruses by Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase
Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in seawater and
learning if the presence of human enteric
viruses was related to concentrations of indica-
tor bacteria.  Total and fecal coliform, and
enterococci were  assayed by standard detection
methods performed by a state-certified labora-
tory. Enteroviruses are members of the
picornaviridae,  a family of  single-stranded
RNA viruses, including poliovirus,
coxsackievirus, echovirus, and other enterovi-
ruses.
    For detection of human enteric  viruses  by
RT-PCR, a large-volume seawater sample (20-
40 L) was retrieved  in ankle-deep waters,
concentrated with  the use of spiral cartridge and
Centriprep-30 centrifugal ultraconcentration
units.  RT-PCR was  performed with the use of
pan-enterovirus "universal"  primers for total
enterovirus nucleic acid amplification.
    RT-PCR was successfully used  to detect
human enteric viruses in coastal seawater
samples, and results  were attainable  within
18 hours.  Detection of human enteric viruses
was positive in 23 (35%), negative in 35 (54%),
and inconclusive in 7 (11%) seawater samples,
(n = 65). There was  no direct correlation
26

-------
                                                                            Day One: Session One
between RT-PCR  results  and measurable
rainfall, but our analyses  demonstrated that
positive results for human enteric viruses were
significantly more likely during the winter
"wet" season than during the summer "dry"
season.  Results of 62 and 56 samples  did not
demonstrate any overall significant logistical
correlation to total and fecal coliforms, respec-
tively (p > 0.05). However, a subset of samples
analyzed during August 1998 were taken from
15 randomly selected  year-round  flowing storm
drains in the Southern California Bight, and
revealed a weak logistical correlation to fecal
coliforms. In 73 percent of the samples, the
presence of human enteric virus  coincided with
the exceedance of the fecal coliform threshold
of 400 cfu/100 mL.  Results of 14 samples
taken from within Santa Monica Bay showed a
significant, but weak,  logistical correlation to
levels of enterococci (R = 0.50., p  < 0.05).
Inconclusive results occurred about one-ninth
of the time where inhibition of PCR occurred
due to substances  in the seawater.   Optimization
of our concentration procedure has improved
the RT-PCR method over time and  has reduced
the incidence of inconclusive results;  e.g.,
during the last  two years, only one  analysis was
inconclusive.
     Our results demonstrate that RT-PCR is an
effective method for the detection of human
enteric virus genomes  in  coastal  seawater, and
that viruses from fecal contamination  may
degrade or decay quite differently than their
bacterial counterparts.  It is useful to use direct
approaches to determine the presence and
quantity  of human  enteric viruses introduced
into the marine environment.  At this time,  there
is  no strong correlation between the presence of
human enteric viruses and routinely  monitored
coliforms at storm drain locations.  Our re-
search demonstrates that virus  testing may be
advisable at high-use beaches, especially those
influenced by storm drains.
References

     Cabelli, V.J., A.P. Dufour, LJ. McCabe,
and M.A. Levin.  1982.  Swimming-associated
gastroenteritis and water quality.  American
Journal of Epidemiology 115:606-616.
     Haile, R.W., J.S. Witte, 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-Y. Wang.  1999.  The health effects of
swimming in ocean water contaminated by
storm drain  runoff.  Epidemiology  10: 355-363.
     Seyfried, D.L., R.S. Tobin, W.E. Brown,
and P.F.  Ness. 1985.   A prospective study of
swimming-related illness. II. Morbidity and the
microbiological quality  of water.  American
Journal of Public Health 75:1071-1075.
                                                                                             27

-------
                                                                          West Coast Regional Beach Conference
       State-of-the-Art Science: RT-PCR as
      a method for detecting enteroviruses
                     Rachel T. Noble
      University of Southern California, Wrigley Institute
          for Environmental Studies and the Southern
          California Coastal Water Research Project
                                                                        Microbiological Testing of
                                                                     Recreational Waters in the U.S.
                Bacterial Indicators
• Are used to infer microbiological water quality as
  indicators of human fecal contamination
• Indicators are not all pathogens themselves
• Tests are relatively rapid, standardized, inexpensive,
  and simple to perform
• Currently no standardization between labs, but results
  show that performance-based approach is acceptable
• Southern California beaches are some of the most
  extensively monitored in the country
             Microbiological Testing of
      Recreational Waters in the U.S., cont'd
                     Viral Indicators
      • Pathogens in sewage and runoff include viruses
      • Viral indicators are direct indicators of
        pathogens; some of the currently used are
        enteric viruses, adenoviruses, Hepatitis A virus
      • Testing by molecular methods is rapid, but
        expensive and not yet standardized for routine
        monitoring purposes
      • No water quality standards set for viral
        indicators
      Assays for Viral Indicators
• Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
  (RT-PCR) is used to detect specific virus genes
• Much faster and more sensitive than assays that
  require cultivating of viruses, and can detect some
  viruses that culture assays cannot
• Might be more suitable for management decisions
• Caveat:  Because it detects the presence of viral genes,
  not infectivity, positive results could include inactive
  viruses.  Positive results are still probably a
  reasonable indicator of active viruses
       Virus Concentration Protocol
    20 liters   procuration
    scawatcr           Tangential
                      Flow Filtration
                                  * "Virus Concentrate"

                                    Volume ca. 150 mL
     1) Virus concentrate is further concentrated with centrifugal
     ultrnconcenlration units

     2) Final volume of virus concentrate is 0.1 mL, concentration
     factor of 200,000 X
          Sampling Locations
  > Locations tested are mainly storm drain or high-
   use sandy beach sites in the Southern California
   Bight
  i More intensive sampling in Santa Monica Bay
  i Most sample sites have a routine bacteriological
   monitoring program associated with them
  > Coordination with agencies for routine sampling
   provides information on bacterial indicators
28

-------
                                                                                         Day One: Session One
    Relation between viral and bacterial
                   indicators?
• Perform RT-PCRfor presence/absence of viral
  indicators: enteroviruses
• With presence/absence values for enteroviruses
  perform logistical correlation analyses with levels of
  bacterial indicators
• Logistical correlation based upon bacterial indicator
  thresholds
• With quantitation of enterovirus genes, analyze  rank
  correlation between bacterial and viral indicators
  and total viral and bacterial abundance
      Logistical Regression of Enteroviruses vs.
     Fecal Coliforms during the Summer Season
ce/Absence
Enteric Viru
Hum
                  ••;       '»»       ft«0

              Fecal Coliforms (per 100 ml)
i!u»
        Logistical Regression of Enteroviruses vs.
                   Total Coliforms

 \
                 is)     WW    UKRi   10000
                 Total Coliforms (per 100 ml)
      Fecal Coliforms versus Enterovirus
       Levels during the Summer Season
                                                               «, g   "'  •:.
                                                              II   <*\
 &?.
 a o
 £
                   >:}       tm      I'M

               Fecal Coliforms (per 100 ml)
          Results of RT-PCR Work
• 65 samples analyzed over 5-year period
• Inconclusive results in early tests indicated problems
  with inhibition of PCR, likely due to humic acids and
  changing ionic conditions
• Positive results seen at high-use sandy beaches and
  storm drain locations
• Positive results seen more than 50% of the time after
  measurable heavy rain (> 0.5 inch)
• Positive results about 50% of the time at storm drains,
  even during the summer "low flow" periods
   Relation between viral and bacterial
                  indicators
• No strong significant logistical correlation between any
 of the bacterial indicators (total and fecal coliforms,
 total/fecal coliform ratio, or entcrococcus) and the
 presence of enteroviruses
' Only a weak logistical correlation (p < 0.1) between
 fecal coliforms and enteroviruses during the summer
 season, weak logistical correlation between
 enterococcus and enterovirus only in Santa Monica
 Bay
1 No significant rank correlation between bacterial
 indicator and enterovirus levels at storm drains
                                                                                                              29

-------
                                                                        West Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Implications for use of viral indicators
            for water quality testing
 • Results demonstrate that virus testing may be
   necessary under specific circumstances (e.g., at high-
   use sandy beaches or areas adjacent to flowing storm
   drains)
 • RT-PCR permits detection of specific types of viruses
 • Improve concentration methods - no way to
   successfully separate viruses from other particles
 • Use chelation beads to chelate away humics and other
   materials that inhibit PCR.
 • Use "Molecular Beacons" as a way to quantify virus
   products without having to run gels.

30


-------
                                                                     Day One: Session One
 Questk>n~and~ Answer  Session
 Panel: Jake Joyce, Steve Schaub, and Rachel Noble
 Q (Sydney Harvey, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services): This question is for
 Dr. Noble.  Your slides showed a good array of viruses that are not, by definition, enteric
 viruses other than they are shed in the feces.  Are you multiplexing for all of these RNA
 viruses or are you looking for an individual virus? In other words,  if it is negative for
 adenoviruses, do you go on to hepatitis A?

 Rachel Noble:
     I did not want to give the impression that I was testing for hepatitis A or adenovirus,
 although I have done that work in the lab. The results are solely from the use of primers
 that were designed to only detect human enteric viruses.

 Q (Sydney Harvey): Are you looking for coxsackiesvirus, echovirus, poliovirus?  Are you
 looking for all of them in every sample or are you honing in on something like poliovirus
 that is most commonly seen because of oral vaccines?

 Rachel Noble:
     I was looking for them in every sample as a family because the primers  are just a
 single primer pair that is based on a human enteric virus sample. The primer pair that was
 used has been shown, in the past, to detect 25 serotypes of the human enteric virus family.

 Q (Sydney Harvey):   Have you tried to differentiate when you have  a positive PCR?

 Rachel Noble:
     Only in specific cases, not overwhelmingly.

 Q  (Sydney Harvey):  In California,  we have not seen, in terms of culturing, a lot of en-
 teroviruses.  So it might be interesting to see specifically what kinds of enteroviruses you
 are finding in the water.  How did you put 40 liters of seawater through a 0.2-micron filter?
 Do you centrifuge it first?

 Rachel Noble:
     We use  a stainless steel pressure filtration unit, and it goes up to many pounds per
 square inch so the water is being forced through the filter.  For some of these storm drain
 samples,  it can take 8 to 10 hours just to filter.

 Q (Dr. Jack Skinner,  Stop Polluting Our Newport):  In the medical profession, we use
 enteroviruses  as coxsackiesvirus, echovirus, poliovirus.  When we talk about  enteric vi-
 ruses, it  represents a  whole collection that might also include Norwalk  and rotaviruses.  Are
 you measuring enteric viruses  that would include the ones that are believed to be a problem
for swimmers, like rotavirus or Norwalk-type  virus?  Or are you measuring enteroviruses
 where you might be  dealing with attenuated poliovirus?
                                                                                    31

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Rachel  Noble:
         The primers that were designed for the work that I was doing were for the pan-en-
    terovirus family.  So, it is the enterovirus family that is the subset of the human enteric
    viruses that we  are detecting, namely,  coxsackiesvirus,  echovirus, and poliovirus.

    Q (Dr. Jack Skinner):  So there is a big group out there that probably is responsible for the
    illnesses that we are concerned about with swimming.   Which would probably be mostly
    Nor\valk-type virus and rotavirus.

    Rachel  Noble:
         Right.

    Q (Dr. Jack Skinner):  My second question has to do with F-specific phage.  From what I
    understand, F-specific phage  is not found in the human intestinal tract, except in maybe 2
    percent of people.  [This information was from a Japanese study  of 100 people and does not
    represent a global distribution.]  It is wastewater-related, but not fecal-related.   Does this
    throw off your monitoring?  If you are  looking for wastewater, you could find F-specific
    phage. If you are looking at swimmer density or for boat discharges in a harbor where this
    is direct fecal input, you would not find F-specific phage because it does  not multiply in the
    gastrointestinal  tract.

    Rachel  Noble:
         Right.  I have done some work in  conjunction with a professor at UCI and we are
    trying to relate the presence of the  F-specific phage infectivity to our PCR research on
    enteroviruses.  It's a really good question, and in Los Angeles some  of the problems that we
    have seen are like what you're talking about.  Septic system overflows and things like that
    might come from the natural  population and not from the treatment plant.  I think that in
    doing this work, the intent was to be looking for human fecal contamination via a poliovi-
    rus.  In  some cases, we are making the  assumption that poliovirus will still be found in  those
    samples, but I don't know how much of it will be found in  different  treatment scenarios. I
    am not sure how the enteric viruses, as  a group, relate to one another in relation  to what
    type  of treatment process they've gone  through as far  as the numbers are concerned.  There
    is no way for me,  at this point, to differentiate between the ocean and the storm drain in the
    ocean.  The material is probably coming from a variety of sources.  It is a difficult question
    to answer because there are different types of scenarios  where we see different levels of
    different types of viruses or different phages.

    Q (Clay Clifton, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health):  Since the
    implementation of AB411 on July 26, which is  the  new state regulation and guidance for
    monitoring  and posting for California beaches, in San Diego, we have had about six
    exceedances of the enterococcus indicator that have subsequently required a posting of a
    beach.  In  those same  sample results, the fecal coliform counts are lower than the entero-
    coccus counts.  How do you  explain lower fecal  coliform counts than enterococcus counts if
    the enterococcus are within the fecal coliform group?  Also,  is it possible for the fecal
    coliform indicator to give a false negative for  enterococcus?

    Jake Joyce:
         Coh'forms  are a rod-shaped bacteria, bacilli, not cocci  like enterococcus.  They both
    are enterobacteria,  but they are not  the same thing.  Some fecal coliforms can die off, where
    enterococcus  can survive much longer in the natural environment.  That may have  some-
    thing to do with the time of the sampling or where you  sampled.  Enterococci can persist
32

-------
                                                                          Day One: Session One
longer in the environment than many of the fecal coliforms.  Due to the natural attenuation
process, a lot of them can't outlast the natural microbes in the environment.   Sometimes
fecal coliforms  can be attenuated by natural processes, including other microbes and things
that they give off and so forth, where enterococci live longer than the  fecal coliform in
certain  situations. A lot of it again has to do with sampling.  That is the reason why  we are
moving into the enterococcus  and  E. coli rather than fecal coliforms.  Enterococcus  persist
much longer in marine water  also.

Q (Clay Clifton): Is the fecal coliform test specific for bacillus and does not include the
enterococcus as a  class of bacteria?

Jake Joyce:
     Enterococci used to be called the Lancefield Group D streptococcus years ago.
Coliforms and enterococci belong  to the Eubacteriales.  Enterococci are shaped differently
from coliform  and are an entirely different microorganism.

Q (Roger Fujioka,  University of Hawaii):   The problem is to get an assay that is fast and
detects  health risks, which are the  viruses that Dr. Noble has been testing for.  How  do you
correlate volume testing of bacteria  to viruses  with larger numbers? What is real-time, if
the RT-PCR takes 17 hours and you can get a  coliform result in 18 hours with Colilert®.  Is
that sufficient for real-time?  With the 1C integrated cell culture PCR, where do you  think
that we should  be  heading for monitoring purposes for these pathogens?  Dr.  Noble, I hope
that you would look for PCR  with  Clostridium because your correlation with enterococcus
probably relates to their stability and since Clostridium is more stable you might find a
correlation also.

Steve Schaub:
     I don't think there are any fecally borne  microbial indicator candidates  that occur at
levels in the water  that would  allow  us to use them as tools for very rapid analysis.  We will
probably have to rely on chemicals or possibly other types of antigens that are specific to
feces, and which would be present in fecally contaminated waters at higher concentrations
which we can detect with rapid analytical methods.  I think that the rapid dip-stick method-
ologies  can be  developed and linked in a tiered approach whereby a positive dip-stick
would trigger a more sophisticated indicator or possibly  pathogen measurements of  water
samples.  Also, at  the International Calicivirus Conference held'la'st March, it became
apparent that one of the things public health practitioners had theorized,  that the rotaviruses
and the caliciviruses were  a major  component of the gastrointestinal disease burden for
recreational waters, was not likely  to be an accurate assessment.  To the contrary, at  least
internationally, it seems that calicivirus and rotaviruses predominate during the winter
months  both in the  northern and southern hemispheres  and not in the summer during the
swimming season, so we may have to look for new culprits as the causative agents for acute
gastrointestinal disease in swimmers.  Our two prime candidates would  appear not to be at
high levels during  the  summer swimming  months.

Rachel Noble:
     I will address the detection that is related  to the infectivity.  My work has been  done on
RNA viruses.   When we detect RNA in these samples, we are pretty certain that human
enteric viruses  were in the sample  relatively recently, if not intact at the time we detected
them, because RNA  degrades rapidly.  This can be very different for DNA viruses.   The
processes that affect  DNA and RNA are very different. This  may be a situation where a
more logical process of monitoring is needed,  where we  have indicators or a developed dip-
                                                                                           33

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conference
   stick method and the results read to a flow chart on what to do next;  Then you go after
   specific types of bacterial indicators and then viral indicators.  If the bacterial indicators are
   down to about 5-10 per 100 mL and you are  detecting human enteric viruses,  especially in
   some areas of Santa Monica Bay where there's been some demonstrated relation between
   the viruses and health risk from an epidemiological study that was conducted there, then
   there is good evidence that we should have a more logical flow chart of sampling where we
   are going  in different directions for different types of scenarios.  Temperate versus tropical
   is going to give you different results just based upon the indicator that you used.  I think
   that there  are some possibilities out there for combining some probe  and PCR  detection of
   viruses specifically that haven't been completely  eliminated from the possibilities.  The
   combination of using fluorescent probe quantification with amplification using PCR over  a
   short time span may get the samples down to  a couple  of hours rather than 24 hours.

   Steve Schaub:
         Regarding sample volume requkements, as a corollary,  we are starting to look at larger
   sample volumes for bacteriophage indicators in groundwater.  We  are thinking of increasing
   from a 100 mL to  a liter-size sample  to increase our sensitivity to detect the potential for
   virus contamination.  We  need to address the  question: why do we have proportionally low
   sample volumes to look for indicators which themselves may be significantly reduced  in the
   groundwater environment when we  are trying  to estimate  low levels  of viruses but for
   which only one infectious unit may cause disease.  We may have to increase our sample
   volumes for some  of the new  indicator candidates to achieve the sensitivity we need to
   detect potential presence of disease organisms for recreational waters.

   Q (Frank  Alvarez,  Santa Barbara County Public Health):  This question is a follow-up on
   the infectivity of the viruses and determining health risk.  We should  not only look at the
   type of virus, but consider the viability of the virus.  Did you do any follow-up viral cultures
   to look at any correlation between the lack of correlation between the viruses  that you were
   detecting and fecal coliform counts in some of the samples?

   Rachel Noble:
         I have pursued some work in relating the  RT-PCR results to cell culture that was  done
   out of house because we do not have the capabilities to do cell culture at USC.  More
   recently, we have taken water samples  to analyze for multiple groups such as adenovirus,
   enterovirus, coliphage, and coliphage infectivity to find the  relation  between those  samples.
   We  have not finished analyzing all of those samples, but in terms of relating all of the
   different groups of viruses, the processes that  go into the degradation and loss of viability or
   infectivity are  very complex, but they definitely need to be teased out.  It had been shown
   before that different viruses, for example, respond much differently to different types of
   inactivation. Those types of experiments are going to be  very  important in the future.  The
   relationship between the MS2 and poliovirus has shown that the poliovirus  is extremely
   hardy where MS2 will fall apart easily.  There are very big differences between different
   types of viruses and taxa  of viruses.

   Q (Ken Burger, East Bay Regional Park District):  We  are in the process of struggling with
   the new emphasis on beach monitoring.  As you are aware, the marine  regulations have
   gone into  effect and there is a freshwater guidance document also  in the process.  This has
   increased  our  monitoring costs by approximately $200,000 a year to implement these new
   regulations.  We have  eight freshwater beaches and two marine water beaches that we
   monitor.   Concerning the issue of rapid response, do you have a preferred method?  Are
   MPN, Colilert®, and Millipore filter all acceptable?
34

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session One
 Jake Joyce:
      One of the big problems when you use membrane filtration techniques is turbidity.  If
 you  have a turbid sample,  you may want to consider using the  multiple-tube fermentation
 technique since you  will probably clog your filter and not get a good colony count.

 Q (Ken Burger):  Our concern is that the MPN, the multiple- tube method,  is a much longer
 test,  so it puts you back in that scenario where you are testing on Saturday and getting
 results on Wednesday and trying to figure out what it means.  It is too late after the monitor-
 ing to  be an effective management tool.

 Jake Joyce:
      I  have some pictures of Millipore filters that are just clogged from natural turbidity.
 So, you would want  to use a multiple-tube fermentation technique.  It is much easier to do  a
 membrane filtration technique, but sometimes you can't do it.

 Q (Charles Kovatch,  US EPA Office  of Science  and Technology): As we saw from all three
 presentations today, there is a need to establish consistent sampling.   How close to sewer
 outfalls did you sample and how did you select  those sites?  Did you utilize any plume
 modeling?  What depth of the water  did you sample?  How did you derive  that sampling
 methodology?

 Rachel Noble:
      In southern California, the storm drain  systems are separate from the sewer systems
 although  at some low-flow  periods, some storm drains are directed into  the sewer system.
 All of the samples that I have taken are not from sewer outfalls.  They have been from
 freshwater outlets such as concrete lined storm drains, creeks, and rivers. They were
 sampled at locations  where the  bacteriological monitoring was actually done.  Except from
 bridges, most of the samples were taken in 3-18 inches of surf zone water,  in areas where
 the waves were  actually meeting the creek.  Not in the storm drains. This is because I
 wanted to reduce the amount  of variability in trying to relate some of the bacterial  numbers.
 I tried to take the samples at the same time on an incoming wave, as written in the  standard
 methods.   The salinity of the  seawater samples was between 32 and 33.5 parts per thousand.

 Q (Charles Kovatch):  Has research  been performed  on the path of the  contaminants once
 the plume meets the ocean?

 Rachel Noble:
     There has been a great deal of research regarding water quality, such as total sus-
 pended  solids, for example,  in Santa Monica Bay to try to map the plumes.  It is something
 that we are very interested in doing, but we haven't gotten out to do the  sampling.  We want
 to try to relate all of  the satellite and remote sensing,  total suspended solids, and current
 measurements to the pathogen levels and the  bacterial indicator levels all the way out into a
plume.  This is the work that will be going on this fall  and spring in Santa Monica Bay. At
this time,  I have only done a very limited scenario of detection of the specific viruses by
PCR upstream through downcoast because it  takes a long time.  Modeling fate and  dispersal
of the pathogens is one of our main problems and goals for the future.
                                                                                        35

-------

-------
              Session Two:
Risk Assessment, Exposure,
         and Health Effects

-------

-------
                                                                      Day One: Session Two
The  Relationship   of  Microbial
Measurement  of  Beach  Water
Quality to  Human  Health

Al Dufour
US Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory
^•Jhe bacterial indicator concept has been
  •  used for more than 100 years and is today
 M. a key element in maintaining the quality of
recreational waters. Early use of bacterial
indicators was not risk-based. The presence of
bacterial indicators signaled the  presence of
fecal material, and this alone was considered
hazardous enough to disqualify the use of the
contaminated water. In the late 1940s indicator
bacteria were used quantitatively to measure the
quality of recreational water, and these data
were used to determine whether the water
quality was related to health effects associated
with swimming  activity.  Health effects were
found to be related to contaminated recreational
water.   These findings were extended and
refined by U.S.  EPA studies in the 1970s on the
relationship between water quality and swim-
ming-associated health effects.   These data
were used by EPA to develop guidelines for
maintaining the quality of recreational water.
The findings  of the EPA studies have been
confirmed in studies around the world and lend
credence to the  approach used in the United
States to protect the health of swimmers.
     The establishment of a risk-based ap-
proach to protecting the health of swimmers has
not, however, solved all of the issues related to
maintaining  high-quality recreational  waters.
The U.S. EPA's Action Plan for Beaches and
Recreational  Water has discussed a number of
these issues, many of which are related to
indicator bacteria.  Three  of these issues, which
frequently raise questions from  water resource
managers, involve indicator bacteria.   All
currently recommended indicator bacteria
demonstrate the presence of fecal material from
warm-blooded animals without distinguishing
whether the source is human or animal.  Re-
search findings regarding health effects  associ-
ated with nonpoint sources of pollution,  i.e.,
animal  or bird contamination of water, are
equivocal.  Data from past research will  be used
to further define this issue.  Another issue
which frequently raises questions  is whether the
risk of  swimming in waters that receive dis-
charges  from a combined sewer overflow
(CSO) is the same as that encountered in waters
affected by  treated wastewater from a point
source.   Health data associated with exposure  to
CSO discharges that affect recreational waters  is
not available; however, it is possible to specu-
late on the risk due to this type of exposure
using microbial data from the analysis of
wastewaters that pass through sewage treatment
plants and data from studies on storm water
runoff.   The last issue to be discussed in this
presentation will address the question of new
indicators for measuring recreational water
quality  and  whether a new indicator can be
substituted for a standard indicator without
establishing its relationship to health effects.
This is especially important because of the
rapid proliferation  of new  technologies for
measuring the quality of surface waters.   The
foregoing issues will be discussed with regard
to currently used indicator bacteria, fecal
coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci.
                                                                                      39

-------
                                                                         West Coast Regional Beach Conference
                     Al Dufour
            USEPA ORD, Cincinnati
       Epidemiological Studies Connecting Microbial
          Load in Beach Water to Human Illness
                 Indicator Concept

         Intestinal disease linked to water
         Pathogen cannot be cultured
         How to measure risk?
         Measure easily cultured microorganism
         constantly associated with feces
         Bacterial indicator = feces
         Feces = pathogen
         Pathogen = disease
        HCOI Total 01
        9   A Erie 1979
        €   A Erie 1S80
        O   A Erie 1682
        O   A Keystone 1979
        •   A Keystone 19BO
             Mean E. coWdenslty par 100 mL
Estimate regression lines for highly credible and total gastrointestinal
symptom rates on E. coll densities.
       Nonpoint Source Pollution and Swimming-
                   Associated Illness
                  
-------
                                                                                               Day One: Session Two
Indicator Bacteria and Enteroviruses in Raw
          Sewage and Storm Water
  .8.4-
In
                       I      ll
       plant     post-      slorm    by-p
       Innuciit    clilorlnallon  water


Correlation Coefficients-Enterococci Regressed on
Fecal Coliforms

Beach

Erie
Erie
Keystone
Keystone
Erie
Erie
Keystone
Keystone
Year

1980
1982
1980
1979
1979
1980
1980
1979
Correlation Coefficient

0.45
-0.24
0.45*
0.83*

0.98*
0.79*
0.71*
*Correiation Coefficient Significantly Different from Zero



                                                                        Regression of Enterococci on Fecal Coliforms
                                                                            MO*
                                                                            •10'
                                                                             10"
                                                                                       101       10*
                                                                                       FECAL COLIFORMS / dL
 Relationship Between Swimming-associated Illness
	and Water Quality Indicators	
                      O CIRCLES-ENTEROCOCCI
                      D SQUARES-FECALCOUFOflMS
                                 •a*—.
              QEOMETRIC MEAN INDICATORS
Ratio
in^

of Thermotolerant Klebsiella to Fecal Coliforms
fater Samples from Freshwater Bathing Beaches
Thermotolerant Klebsiella as a Percentage of Fecal Colifoims
N
















Klebsiella' 1 Fecal Coliforms
	 16/92 	
170/760
66/279
15/61

30/93
24/72
60/165
8/220
34/89
	 24/44 	
122/205
75/121
62/98


Percent Klebstelta
1 -







: i.



a



'Density per mix 100

                                                                                                                     41

-------
                                                                                                    West Coast Regional Beach Conference
               Recreational Water Quality - Issues for
                             Future Research
                  Water Quality Indicators
                    	Rapid Methods for o/iantifying fecal contamination
                    	Methods for delecting intestinal pathogens
                    	l^ihods for Identifying fecal sources
                    	Indicators of fecal contamination in tropical climates*
                  Modeling and Monitoring
                    	Improvement of predictive models
                    	Validate available models
                    —— Develop monitoring strategies*

                  Exposure and Health Effects
                 .   	Combined sewer overflows
                    	Shoreline interstitial waters
                    —— Human exposure factors
                           Epidemlological studies	
42

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session Two
Qualitative  Review  of Epidemiology
Studies
David Gray
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Regional Office
PWfhe Massachusetts Department of Environ-
  I  mental Protection (DEP) has conducted a
 M. review of epidemiological  studies  relative
to pathogen indicators and illness rates  in
recreational water users.   The work was con-
ducted as a state match to a federally funded
Clean Water Act Section 104(b)(3) grant.  The
project involved reviewing published literature
and  in some cases nonpublished epidemiologi-
cal studies.  Both the methodologies and the
conclusions of the studies were  reviewed in
detail.  The review was  primarily conducted by
Tom Mahin, the Co-chair of DEP's Pathogen
Work Group.  David Gray of DEP has  assisted
with issues raised relative to  microbiological
sampling QA/QC issues, as well as DEP's storm
water-related issues, and has acted as an advi-
sor during the review. It should be noted that
the opinions expressed in this summary are not
intended to represent DEP's formal policy
relative to this  complicated and important issue.
Rather, they are presented as part of  an ongoing
dialogue between USEPA, the states  and other
stakeholders.
     In 1986 the USEPA recommended that
states use enterococci as the  bacterial indicator
for marine waters and either enterococci or  E.
coli as the indicator for freshwaters (Dufour,
1986).  We have summarized some of the most
important epidemiological studies since that
1986 recommendation:
     During 1989-1992  during  four  consecu-
tive summers, epidemiological studies (the  "UK
beach studies") were carried out at marine
beaches in England (Kay, 1994; Fleisher,
1996).  The UK beach studies differed  from
previous epidemiological studies in two impor-
tant ways. First, volunteers were randomly
assigned as either bathers or non-bathers.
Second, rather than relying on self-describing
of symptoms, clinical examinations were
included as part of the study. The studies
involved a total of 1216 participants.  The
studies found a dose-response  relationship
between fecal streptococci (FS) and gastrointes-
tinal (GI) illness.  (It should be noted that the
definition of fecal streptococci  as used in these
studies is very similar to or the same  as entero-
cocci as used in the U.S.)  An increase in GI
illness rates was observed when FS levels
exceeded 32 colony  forming units (cfu)/100
mL.
     The studies also reported  what was de-
scribed as a "clear dose-response relationship"
between respiratory illness and fecal  strepto-
cocci levels. The threshold level for increased
illness was 60 cfu/100 mL. While these studies
only dealt with marine waters and not fresh
waters, the results  appear consistent with the
work done for USEPA by Cabelli (Cabelli,
1983)  that indicated  that enterococci  works well
as an indicator of rates of GI illness in marine
waters whereas fecal coliform does not. It
should be noted, however, that these  studies in
England did find that only fecal coliform
demonstrated a significant statistical  correlation
with ear infections.
     A major  epidemiological  study was
conducted in Hong Kong in 1992 involving
25,000 beach-goers at coastal  beaches  (Kueh,
1995). Unfortunately the study did not include
analyses  of fecal streptococci/enterococci
densities. The study did find that "no direct
relationship between GI symptoms and E.  coli
or fecal coliforms could be identified in this
study." The findings of the  study appear
consistent with USEPA's position that fecal
coliform and E. coli are not effective at predict-
                                                                                          43

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 ing GI illness in users of marine waters. The
 1992 study did contradict a 1987 study
 (Cheung, 1989) of coastal beach-goers in Hong
 Kong that had found that E. coli was the best
 indicator for predicting  illness.
      An  epidemiological study was conducted
 in  1995 of swimmers in the marine waters of
 Santa Monica Bay (Haile, 1996).  The study
 included  11,686 subjects.  Illness rates were
 compared for those swimming near storm water
 outfalls versus those swimming farther away.
 Illness rates were also compared to various
 bacterial  indicators.   Fecal coliform levels >
 400/100 mL correlated only to skin rash and E .
 coli correlated only with earache and nasal
 congestion.  Enterococci levels > 106/100  mL
 were statistically correlated with "highly cred-
 ible GI illness" and also with "diarrhea with
 blood."
 Conclusions and Unresolved Issues

     How much of a risk does wet weather
 storm  water/urban  runoff pose to recreational
 beach-goers?  The Santa Monica study doesn't
 appear to  have  answered this question because
 the samples appear to have been collected
 daily,  which would presumably  include mostly
 dry weather flow contributions.   The dry
 weather flow presumably could  have included
 significant amounts of illicit sanitary connec-
 tions that could have been responsible  for a
 significant percentage  of the illness rates
 detected.   None  of the epidemiological studies
 reviewed appear to have differentiated between
 dry and wet weather conditions.  Many of the
 high bacterial indicators detected at Massachu-
 setts beaches appear to be the result of urban
 runoff conveyed by municipal storm water
 drainage systems.  Given the high enterococci
 counts that can  be  commonly detected  in storm
 water and  the general presumption that animal
 waste is a lesser cause of illness than human
 sewage, this issue is of critical importance.
     Should a single  indicator or multiple
 indicators be used for  marine waters?   USEPA
 recommends the  use of either E.  coli or entero-
 cocci for freshwaters  but only enterococci for
 marine waters.   The UK beach studies  found
 that only increased levels of fecal coliform
 organisms  were  predictive of ear ailments
 among bathers in the coastal waters studied.  In
 addition, the Santa Monica epidemiological
 study found that E.  coli was the best predictor
 of earache  after swimming in the marine waters
 involved  in the study.
      It is unclear what the source is of contami-
 nation in many of the studies reviewed.  It
 appears that some of the  major epidemiological
 studies involve contamination resulting  mostly,
 or in part, to chlorinated effluents. This would
 result in the' potential to significantly decrease
 the indicator-pathogen ratio in  receiving waters.
 In addition, this could alter the  ratio of various
 indicators to each other depending on their
 relative susceptibility to chlorination.  Since one
 could generally presume that storm water-
 impacted waters  are unchlorinated, they may
 exhibit higher bacterial indicator-pathogen
 ratios than  those found in  many of the studies
 (which  are  equivalent to lower pathogen-
 indicator ratios).   Such a lower pathogen-
 indicator ratio  (if confirmed) when added  to the
 issue of risk from animal  source contamination
 versus human  source would have the potential
 to  overestimate the risk relative to many of the
 previous  epidemiological  studies.
      In conclusion,  the  authors  believe that
 additional research is required relative to
 unresolved  issues  such  as  the issues raised
 above relative  to wet weather (municipal storm
 water) events and the relative risk of indicators
 originating  from  animal sources versus human
 sources.
References

     CabelhV V.J. 1983. Health Effects  Criteria
for Marine Recreational Waters.  EPA 600/1-
80-031.  U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency.
     Cheung, W.H.S., K.C.K.  Chang, and
R.P.S. Hung.  1991. Variations in microbial
indicator densities in beach water and health-
related assessment of bathing water quality.
Epidemiol  Infect 106:329-44.
     Dufour, A., and R. Ballentine. 1986.
Ambient Water Quality  Criteria for Bacteria -
1986.  EPA  440/5-84-002. US Environmental
Protection  Agency.
     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.  Am J
Public Health  86:1228-34.
44

-------
                                                                            Day One: Session Two
     Haile, W., et al.  1996. An Epidemiological
Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of
Swimming in Santa Monica Bay.  Final Report.
California.
     Kay, D., J.M. Fleisher, R.L. Salmon, et al.
1994. Predicting  likelihood  of gastroenteritis
from sea bathing;  results from randomized
exposure. Lancet  344:905-09.
     Kueh, C.S.W., T. Tarn, T. Lee, et al. 1995.
Epidemiological Study of  Swimming-Associ-
ated Ulnesses  Relating to Bathing-Beach Water
Quality.  Water Science Technology 31(5-6): 1-4.
                                                                                             45

-------
                                                                                West Coast Regional Beach Conference
        Qualitative Review  of
        Epidemiological Studies
           Tom Mahin & David Gray
           Massachusetts Department of
           Environmental Protection
        Background
         Epidemiological studies reviewed relative to pathogen
         indicators and illness rates in recreational water users

         Main focus was to evaluate studies completed since
         USEPA's 1986 recommendations relative to the use of
         enterococci (in marine waters) and E cotfor
         enterococci (in freshwaters) as bacterial indicators for
         ambient water quality criteria

            Marine Water:  enterocooci < 35/100ml
            Fresh Water:   enterococci < 33/100ml or E. co/i <126/100ml
           Select  Epidemiological Studies


           Marine Water
       --)   •  United Kingdom (Fleisher, 1996; Kay, 1994)
             Santa Monica Bay (Haile, 1996)
        '   •  Hong Kong (Kueh, 1995)
           •  Hong Kong (Cheung, 1989)

           Freshwater
             Yale University/New Haven, CT (Calderon, 1991)
   1 Epidemiological Study Designs
    I Retrospective
  »-4
        - attempt to relate existing/past cases of illness to swimming
    '    - data is collected "after the fact"
            ;
     Prospective
    -    - participants are recruited from the beaches, but follow their
          own bathing/non-bathing routine
        - participants are screened for confounding factors, and
          interviewed regarding symptoms of illness
 __   Randomized Controlled
  _~l    - participants are recruited and randomly assigned to
         swimming or non-swimming groups
 IP™    - Universally accepted as the strongest of all epi-study designs
          Definitions of Illness

          Enteric Illness
          • Gastroenteritis (Gl) - combinations of vomiting,
           diarrhea, nausea

          Nonenieric Illness
          • Respiratory illness - fever, headache/body ache,
           fatigue, sore throat, runny nose, congestion, cough
          • Eye ailments - sore, red eyes, with or without
           discharge
           Ear ailments - pain with or without discharge
           Skin ailments - rash, ulcers/sores, irritation with
           itching
_
•I
      Past  Review of Epi-Studies
      Pruss (1998) published a review of 22 studies
        completed between 1953 and1996 and concluded:

      • Studies strongly suggest a causal dose-related
        relationship between Gl symptoms and bacterial
        indicator counts in recreational waters.
      • Few studies showed relationship with other
        symptoms
   i  • Relative risk for swimming in polluted vs. clean
        waters ranged from  1 to 3
46

-------
                                                                                               Day One: Session Two
     Past Review  of Epi-Studies
     (cont)
       Indicators showing best correlation with illness
        — marine waters:  enterococci/fecal streptococci
        - fresh waters:   enterococci/fecal streptococci and E. coll
       No relationships identified between severity of
       symptoms and variation in indicator densities
       Symptom rates were usually higher in the lower age
       groups
       The higher indicator thresholds for increased illness
       rates observed in some countries may be due to
       endemicity or lower pathogen-to-indicator ratios
                                                                 UK Studies
                                                          rtfl
                                                              |  Design
                                                                  Joint US and English research effort, randomized
                                                                  controlled studies
                                                                  1216 participants, age 18+, at 4 separate marine
                                                                  beaches in England
                                                                  Conducted during 4 summers between 1989-1992
                                                                  Intensive water sampling (every 30 minutes) at 3
                                                                  depths every 60 feet
                                                                  Sampled for fecal coliform, total coliform, fecal
                                                                  streptococci (similar to enterococci), staphylcocci,
                                                                  pseudomonas aeruginosa. E. coli not enumerated
      UK Studies (cont)
        Only fecal streptococci demonstrated a significant
        trend relating concentration to gastroenteritis rates
        "Only fecal streptococci exposure ...  showed any
        evidence of a statistically significant trend" for acute
        respiratory illness
        Only fecal coliform showed statistically significant
        trend in the incidence of ear ailments
                                                                 Santa  Monica Bay Study

                                                                 Design

                                                                 • In the summer of 1995, first large-scale
                                                                   epidemiological study in the U.S. conducted to
                                                                   investigate health effects associated with swimming
                                                                   in ocean waters impacted by  stormwater outfalls
                                                                 B Included over 11,000 swimmers and non-swimmers
                                                                 • Water analyzed for fecal & total conforms,
                                                                   enterococci, and  E col!
                                                                jut
a  I
Santa  Monica Bay Study

(cont)

Findings

• Study found an increased risk of illness associated
  with swimming near flowing storm drain outfalls (37
  additional illnesses per 1,000 swimmers)
• Fecal coliform was only statistically associated with
  skin rashes
• E. coli was only statistically associated with earaches
  & nasal congestion
 Santa Monica Bay Study

 (cont)

Findings teonU

• Enterococci statistically associated with diarrhea-
  with-blood and "highly credible gastrointestinal
  illness"
• Conclusion - Enterococci was the best indicator for
  predicting Gl illness in swimmers, which was the the
  most common adverse health impact found
• Contamination probably included significant
  contribution from illicit sewage connections
                                                                "SBf
                                                                                                                      47

-------
                                                                     West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 Hong Kong -1992 Study


  Design


  • 18,000 participants, between the ages of 10 and 49,
    at 2 popular coastal beaches during the Summer
    1992
  • Water samples were composited from three samples,
    at three sites, at each beach
  • Sampling included fecal conforms, E.  coll, clostridium
    perfringens, Aeromonas spp., Vibrio cholerae
    Did not include analyses for enterococci/fecal
    streptococci
 Hong Kong -1992 Study

 (cont)

Findings


• No direct relationship found between Gl symptoms
  and fecal coliform or E. coll.
• However, significant relationship found between Gl
  symptoms and clostridium perfringens, Aeromonas,
  and turbidity
• No significant relationship between indicators and
  respiratory, eye, or skin illness
  Total additional (swimming-related) illness rates - 41
  per 1,000
 Hong  Kong -1987 Study
 Design


 •  1987 study of coastal beach-goers that included over
   18,000 useable responses at 9 beaches
 •  Samples taken every 2 hours, at three sampling
   points, at each beach on the weekends
 •  Samples analyzed for fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal
   streptococci, enterococci, stapylococci and other
   Indicators
 Hong  Kong - 1987 Study

 (cont)

 Findings


 • Total additional (swimming-related) illness rates - 30
  per 1,000
 • E. co//correlated best with Gl illness and skin
  symptoms (threshold value of 180/100 ml)
 • Relatively low correlation found between
  enterococci/fecal streptococci and Gl illness
 • Staphylococci correlated best ear, sore throats, and
  total illness (threshold value of 1,000/100 ml)
Yale/New Haven,  CT Study
Design


• 104 families resulting in 1,310 exposure person-days
  for swimmers and 8,356 exposure person-days for
  non-swimmers during summer months
• 3-acre river-dammed pond with no point sources of
  pollution
• Daily samples collected 3 times per day at two
  locations
  Precipitation measured daily
  Participants mailed-in self-completed questionnaires
Yale/New Haven, CT Study
Findings


• Swimmer illness was not associated with elevated
  common fecal indicator densities or
  rainfall/stormwater runoff

• Swimmer illness was associated with high swimmer
  densities and high Staphylococci densities (illness
  probably transmitted swimmer-to-swimmer via water
  column)

• Currently recommended indicators are ineffective at
  predicting health effects associated by non-point
  source (i.e., animal source) fecal pollution


-------
                                                                                                     Day One: Session Two
Unresolved Issues
Wet Weather Stormwater/Runoff
 - How much of a risk does wet weather stormwater/urban runoff
   pose to recreational water users?
 - How much of a relative risk are equivalent levels of indicators
   when the source is animals versus humans?
 - Calderon (1991) showed no association with increased illness


Marine vs. Freshwater Waters
 - Many of the more recent studies have been on marine waters,
   there have been less recent studies relative to freshwater
   beaches
                                                                   ji  Unresolved Issues (cont)

                                                                    •S~r I  • Use of Single or Multiple Indicators
                                                                   'IRS     - Is a single indicator adequate or should more than one
                                                                               bacterial indicator be used for respiratory or eye, ear and skin
                                                                               illness?
                                                                             - UK studies indicated that fecal coliform were the best
                                                                               indicator for predicting ear ailments/earaches
                                                                             - Santa Monica Bay study indicated that E. coli was the best
                                                                               indicator for predicting ear ailments/earaches
                                                                             - Original EPA studies showed no increase in ear infections
                                                                               and only a slight (non-significant) increase in respiratory
                                                                               illness when the average fecal coliform concentration  =
                                                                               200/100ml (PC/Dufour)
                                                                             - Literature has shown slight relationships  between fecal
                                                                               coliformand non-GI symptoms, but only at the outer-limits of
                                                                               significance (PC/Dufour)
Unresolved Issues (cont)
 Chlorinated vs. Unchlorinated Waters
 - Several of the studies were based on chlorinated waters
 - Indicators are eliminated at a much higher rate than viruses
   during treatment and disinfection
 - Therefore, chlorinated waters will result in lower indlcator-to-
   pathogen ratios
 - Indicators more valid when pollution source is not disinfected,
   resulting in a higher indlcator-to-pathogen ratio
                                                                          Unresolved Issues (cont)
                                                                         •  Transferability of Study Results
                                                                        !

                                                                        f    Results valid for different countries/continents?
                                                                             - Different climates - temperate vs. tropical
                                                                             - Different endemicity rates
                                                                             - Different indicator-to-pathogen ratios


                                                                            Results valid for different contributing populations?
                                                                             - Indicator-to-pathogen ratios may vary greatly as population
                                                                               contributing to the pollution source decreases
                                                                                                                                49

-------
                                                            West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 Pathogen  Risk  Assessment  Methods

 Steve Schaub
 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
^•^he current recreational  water quality
  • criteria are considered risk-based in that
  M. they were established after studies demon-
strated a relationship of the magnitude  of fecal
indicator organism levels  (enterococci and E.
colt) and relative incidence of disease in per-
sons swimming  at contaminated beaches.
Improvements in indicators and additional
health  studies  may allow further refinements or
new criteria to protect the health of persons
swimming  in our nation's waters. To maximize
our ability  to provide risk-based criteria or to
determine the  safety of beach waters, improved
risk assessment approaches should be applied.
These  should consider  the unique features  of
microbial pathogens in water  that lead to
human exposure and also the unique features
associated  with human infection and disease.
     A framework has been developed  for
conducting pathogen risk  assessments for water
media  and  various types of exposure settings.
The framework follows  a classic risk assess-
ment approach in that there is a Problem
Formulation stage, an Analysis stage, and
finally a Risk  Characterization stage which
provide the risk manager or user with answers
to problems identified during problem forma-
tion. One of the key features  of the  pathogen
risk assessment is that iterative  loops are
considered  important throughout the process,
both to obtain the appropriate problem  formula-
tion and to properly assess the factors used for
the analysis.
     The analysis phase is broken down into
two major  divisions: Characterization of Expo-
 sure and Characterization of Human Health
 Effects. There are a number of tools and meth-
 ods to use in data collection for the two major
 divisions of the analysis phase.  For Character-
 ization of Exposure the process is broken down
 into  four blocks of data collection and analysis:
 Pathogen Characterization;  Exposure Analysis;
 Pathogen Occurrence; and  finally Exposure
 Profile (a synthesis of findings and associated
 uncertainties observed with  the first  three
 groups). Under the Characterization  of Human
 Health Effects division there are also four
 blocks for analysis:  Host Characterization;  Dose
 Response Analysis; Health Effects; and  again, a
 synthesis of findings  and uncertainty in the
 Host Pathogen Profile.
     The final step,  Risk Characterization, is  an
 exercise of evaluating all of the exposure and
 host-pathogen profile data inputs along with  the
 uncertainty, estimates, and modeling that were
 used during  the analysis phase.  The  estimates
 of risk take into account the quality and vari-
 ability of the data^ uncertainty of the informa-
 tion, and lack of data and can, apply  a sensitiv-
 ity analysis to provide the risk manager with  a
 sense of what the risk assessment will allow
 him to do in his management decisions.
     Risk assessment is a very iterative  process
 and improved analysis tools and improved  data
 will  significantly improve subsequent Risk
 Characterization outputs, especially for recre-
 ational waters where  there are sparse data on
pathogen occurrence, exposure  assessment, and
health  effects.
50

-------
Pathogen Risk Assessment
          Methodology

          Stephen A. Schaub
               USEPA
            Office of Water
   Office of Science and Technology
                                                                              Day One: Session Two
 Risk Assessment Approach and
 Process for Recreational Waters

1 Typically, environmental risk assessments
 are conducted for a single pathogen and
 type of exposure profile.
• For recreational waters risk assessments and
 criteria have utilized surrogates of fecal
 contamination.
  - Have been very few formal risk assessments for
    U.S. recreational waters.
  Approach and Process (cont)

The current risk-based recreational water
health criteria:
 - Apply bacterial indicators to detect and assess
  risks considering the magnitude of fecal
  contamination.
 - Estimate fecal contamination relationship to
  acute gastrointestinal (AGI) disease from oral
  exposure by head immersion.
 - Protect against AGI disease, a general
  syndrome expressed by a number of viral and
  bacterial pathogens of fecal origin.
   Approach and Process (cont)


  Future recreational water risk assessments
  may use fecal or other indicators for other
  exposures (skin, eye, ear, and URT).
  - A limiting factor is the lack of data on pathogen
    exposure response.
  Typical recreational water applications:
  - Develop new "risk-based" standards/criteria.
  - Determine risks from rainfall or pollution
    events at specific beaches.
   Pathogen Risk Assessment
             for Waters

ILSI coop with EPA has established a
pathogen RA framework.
 - Risk analysis, vol. 16.6, 1996. pp 841-848.
 - Fully considers unique aspects of microbial
   pathogen exposures and human health effects.
 - Resembles EPA's ecological risk assessment
   process.
   Pathogen Risk Assessment for
             Water (cont)

  New approach needed because NAS
  chemical paradigm does not adequately
  consider:
   - Pathogen amplification for die-off factors.
   - Environmental and treatment impacts on nature,
    fate, and transport of microbials.
   - Human infection vs. disease, secondary spread,
    and susceptible populations.
                                                                                                   51

-------
                                                                           West Coast Regional Beach Conference
             RISK ASSESSMENT FOR WATERBORNE PATHOGENS!
                     Problem Formulation
             ^^
Chwitfirfiitten

«l
•"T*
[ CtanttiitittlM

{ Hunun H.ifih

               ^^
                     Bisk Characterization
   Characterization of Exposure

Pathogen characterization: evaluate
characteristics of pathogen that affect its ability
for transmission to, and cause disease in host.
For recreational use, rely on surrogates for
assessing the range of viral and bacterial
pathogens causing AGI disease:
 - Virulence and pathogenicity.
 - Survival and amplification of pathogens (in the
  environment).
 - Ecology of pathogens in the water system that
  impacts on occurrence-at beach.
      Pathogen Characterization (cont)


        — Pathogen source responses to water treatment
          or intervention.
        - Pathology on infection and strain differences on
          relationship to exposed population.
        — Host specificity (animal vs. human strains).
        - Route(s) of infection (oral for AGIs); also
          secondary spread.
   Characterization of Exposure
  Pathogen (hazard) occurrence: frequency of
  appearance of a pathogen (or relation to the
  surrogates):
  - Spatial distribution, e.g., clumping, adsorption
    to particles, settling.
  - Concentration and distribution (depth,
    hydrology, gradients).
  - Frequency of distribution: pollution spills,
    rainfall runoff, diurnal events, seasons.
       Pathogen (Hazard) Occurrence:
                       (cont)

        - Niche or habitat (e.g., accumulation in swash
         zone or growth in sand).
        — Environmental amplification, die-off,
         persistence, e.g., temperature, predation, UV
         light, nutrients, suspension of sediments.
 Pathogen (Hazard) Occurrence:
                 (cont)

Exposure analysis: Characterize the source
and temporal nature of human recreational
exposure to pathogens:
 - Type of recreation.
 - Measured unit of exposure (assume 100ml for
  swimming event).
 - Temporal nature of exposure (single or multiple).
 - Route of exposure and related transmission
  potential (oral for AGIs).
52

-------
     Exposure Analysis: (cont)
   - Population demographics (age, susceptible,
    sensitive population).
   - Size of exposed population.
   - Behavior of exposed population.
   - Location of bathers in the water (swash zone or
    deep water).
                                                                                    Day One: Session Two
Exposure profile: qualitative or quantitative
evaluation of the magnitude, frequency, and
pattern of exposure to fecal contamination (Or
pathogen).

• Integrate pathogen characteristics, hazard
  occurrence and exposure analysis.
• Provide statements regarding:
   - Analysis of likely pathogen occurrence and
    exposure of the population.
     • For recreational water assess the relationship of the
      surrogates to the pathogens/illnesses of concern.
      Exposure Profile: (cont)
  Statements (cont)
  - Assumptions used in assessment: define
    when/where used and the range of impacts on
    the outcome of the assessment.
  - Uncertainties and data gaps: how dealt with and
    the impacts of poor quality data or lack of data
    on the analysis.
     Characterization of Human
              Health Effects

   Evaluate the ability of pathogen (or
   indicator relationship) to cause adverse
   health effects under a set of conditions.
   Dependent on tools and methods available
   such as:
   - Disease outcomes and potential for sequella.
   - Epidemiology studies: cohort/intervention.
   - Clinical studies human feeding.
   - Animal model systems.
Host characterization: evaluate the
characteristics of potentially exposed
population that influence susceptibility to a
pathogen.
• Collect and analyze data pertaining to the
  pathogen characteristics used in the
  exposure compartment.
• Examine data on host characteristics that
  influence susceptibility.
• Analysis of susceptible populations and
  characteristics that influence effects of
  pathogens (or groups of pathogens).
    Characteristics That Influence
              Effects (cont)

   Age and Gender.
   Immunity.
   Pregnancy.
   Diet.
   Exposure Behavior in the Water.
   Sensitive  Subpopulations.
                                                                                                         53

-------
     Health effects: clinical manifestations of
     disease associated with a specific pathogen.

     • Health effects: characterize clinical illnesses
       associated with pathogen single or multiple
       organs (e.g., heart, URT, liver, ear, skin
       diseases).
        - Characterize the potential extent and magnitude
          of illnesses from a pathogen, including
          secondary spread:
           • Seroconversion or subclinical severity and duration
            of frank disease.
             - Scquella.
             - Mortality.
                                                                            ', West Coast Regional Beach Conference
  Dose response analysis: characterize the
  relation between pathogen dose, infectivity,
  effects in exposed population.

  • Establish relationship between dose,
    infectivity, and response.
     - Epidemiological studies.
        • Outbreaks
        • Cohorts/case control studies
     - Feeding studies
     - Animal studies (animal models for dose
      response estimation). Are they valid?
   Host-pathogen Profile: Qualitative or Quantitative
   Evaluation of Nature and Potential Magnitude of
   Human Health Effects from a Specific Exposure.
   Developed from Integration of:

    • Host-pathogen interactions.
    • Health effects.
    • Dose-response.
       - As was done for exposure characterization,
         characterize and make statements concerning:
         health effects data analysis; assumptions used;
         and uncertainties around data and data gaps.
    Pathogen Risk Assessment (RA)
                  for Water

Risk characterization:
• Estimation of the likelihood of adverse human
  health effects occurring as a result of a defined
  exposure to microbial contamination or
  medium' (beach).
• Exposure profile and host-pathogen profile are
  integrated.
   - Determine the likelihood of adverse human health
     effects occurring from the defined recreational
     exposure scenario.
         Risk Characterization (cont)

       - Perform risk estimation to describe types and
        magnitude of effects anticipated (include all
        assumptions and uncertainty and an assessment of
        their impact on the ra).
       - Prepare risk description to identify the confidence
        of the risk estimates and include consideration of
        the sufficiency and quality of the data and
        evidence of causality.
       - Describe the adequacy of the assessment to
        adequately resolve the questions from the problem
        formulation questions, goals, and endpoints (e.g.,
        Sensitivity analysis).












M
E
T
H
O
n
T
o
o
L •
S
Chtf«ct*tSi»ilen (.[ Expoiun ' j ChunciwiiM




P.lhffl.0



Expo
Ant

*uc«
/lit
' 1




_p.lh






/


• Piotila



Figure 2. Analysis


MMItan^


ChutcttrluttOR




Dot,
Roponi* ->
i
Hi
Efl


th
Cll


\i J



Ho


P.uW.



M
F
T
H
O
n
T
O
0
L
S
	










phase of risk assessment for waterborne pathogens.
54


-------
                                                                    Day One: Session Two
Question-and-Answer  Session
Panel: AI Dufour, David Gray, and Steve Schaub
Q (Fred Lee,  G. Fred Lee Associates):  A number of California cities face the removal of
fecal coliforms from storm water runoff where there is limited sanitary sewage in the runoff.
We know that highways have very high concentrations of fecal coliforms where we suspect
that there is no sanitary sewage, except in leaking RVs.  What is EPA's position on the need
to remove fecal coliforms from  storm water runoff where we have limited sanitary sewage
and no CSOs?

Steve Schaub:
     I don't think that we will  be able to treat all  environmental  contamination monitoring
problems using indicators in a one-size-fits-all approach.  However, if you do have a storm
water runoff situation and it does have high concentrations of fecal coliforms  and there is a
downstream use which will be  impacted, then obviously it needs  to be controlled and
regulated.   If  the runoff is going to some area where there is no considered use down-
stream, then it could be handled differently.  I am  not the  authority on local discharge
requirements,  but my perspective is that it will be  handled based  on the downstream re-
quirement of  whether or  not it is going to be used for a human exposure scenario.

Q (Fred Lee): Would that be focused because of it?

Steve Schaub:
     That is one of the problems.  If we have a downstream use  and until somebody can
show that roadside waste runoff does  not have a pathogen component, then we can't ignore
it.

Comment (Patty Vainik, City of San Diego,  Metropolitan Wastewater Department):   It's my
understanding of the Santa Monica Bay Epidemiological Study that total conform and  fecal
coliform did have a relationship to health risk, not  individually, but as a ratio.  That has
formed the implementation of our recent legislation, AB411, and  two of the authors of the
epi-study report are present, Mark Gold and Charlie McGee, who can probably speak to
that.

David Gray:
     That is correct.  I was recently informed that the study was just published.  As far as I
read in the actual report  and the summary, I didn't see that information. I do apologize for
not including  these findings in my presentation.

Comment (Mark Gold, Heal the Bay):   I am one of the authors of that report and that was
one of the findings of the study.  Everyone on that study thought that the  total-to-fecal ratio
was going  to show nothing, but we were shocked  to see that it had the strongest correlation
with the incidence of adverse health effects, including upper respiratory infections and
stomach  flu.
                                                                                    55

-------
JTF
                                                                 West Coast Regional Beach Conference
       Q (Mark Gold):  In the last presentation, there was some discussion on the fate and trans-
       port of runoff plumes and some of the impacts they have on exposure. Has EPA done
       anything in  this arena to look at plume dispersion studies to see what the bacterial densities
       are with various differences from flowing drains and how this relates to  current as well as
       how it relates to what the flow is coming out of the drain or stream?

       AI Dufour:
            EPA has not done that kind of study. As far as I know, that kind of study has not been
       done for years.  There were a few studies done in the late 1960s off the  California  coast that
       looked at dispersion and transport. Somehow it came into disfavor due to  the expense of
       such a study and other reasons.   There is one study that has been conducted in the UK by
       the same team that did the  health study.  I don't know at what stage they are in of their
       research, but I suspect that it will be published one of these days.

       Q (Ken Theisen, Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board):  Does EPA  know of any risk
       assessment models  that have used MS2 phage as  the indicator  of pathogenic pollution?
       Also, what are your thoughts on the pros and cons of using MS2 phage in a risk assess-
       ment?

       Steve Schaub:
            Arie Havelaar of the Netherlands may have developed some information on that.  MS2
       phage falls within the group  of our candidate bacteriophages that may be  promoted as
       indicators if we  can demonstrate that there is some correlation with a disease endpoint.  I
       don't think that  he has ever done an assessment specifically looking at a particular disease
       endpoint through a risk assessment e.g., comparing  MS2 phage  against  acute gastrointesti-
       nal disease incidence.  If phage can be demonstrated to be good indicators or any  particular
       disease endpoints associated with fecal contamination then I would be in favor  of  using
       them.

       Al Dufour:
            None of the F-specific phage, to the best of my knowledge, have been used in studies
       relating water quality as measured with phage to health effects in swimmers.  I think that is
       one of the reasons your question cannot be answered.  The data are not there to do a good
       risk assessment.
   56

-------
 Session Three:
Monitoring and
     Modeling

-------

-------
                                                                       Day One: Session Three
New  Jersey's   Recreational

Monitoring  Program

David  Rosenblatt
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management,
Atlantic Coastal Bureau
     Local and state environmental health
     agencies that participate in the New Jersey
     Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program
perform sanitary surveys of beach areas and
monitor concentrations of bacteria  in nearshore
coastal and estuarine waters to assess the
acceptability of these waters for recreational
bathing. These activities  and the resulting data
are used to respond to immediate public health
concerns associated with recreational water
quality and to eliminate the sources  of fecal
contamination that  impact coastal waters. As
part of this program, New  Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP)  routinely
inspects the 17  wastewater treatment facilities
that discharge to the ocean. NJDEP  also per-
forms daily aerial surveillance of New Jersey
nearshore coastal waters  and the Hudson-
Raritan  estuaries to observe changing coastal
water quality conditions  and potential pollution
sources.
     The municipal utilities authorities, which
manage the sewage treatment facilities and their
ocean discharges, are an  integral part of the
overall monitoring  program in New Jersey,  and
they are key to  the improvement in  and the
current good quality of the state's coastal
waters. Because of their unique observational
positioning, lifeguards  provide NJDEP with
firsthand information regarding water and
beach conditions.  Citizen participation, particu-
larly through reports of pollution sightings to
NJDEP, is  encouraged.
     To implement the more comprehensive
approach to the improvement of New Jersey's
coastal water quality that the reduction of
nonpoint sources of bacteria requires, NJDEP is
working with private and public sectors to
promote watershed management. The water
quality data  and beach closing numbers,
therefore, will be used as indicators of the
success of the  strategies implemented to resolve
water quality problems  of various origins. To
support this  effort,  the  Cooperative Coastal
Monitoring Program manager and staff were
transferred from the Division of Compliance
and Enforcement into the new Division of
Watershed Management's Atlantic Coastal
Bureau.
Monitoring Program Procedures

     The State Sanitary Code N.J.A.C. 8:26 and
the DEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual
prescribe the sampling techniques and beach
opening and closing procedures  the  agencies
use for the Cooperative Coastal  Monitoring
Program. The agencies perform routine sam-
pling from mid-May through mid-September on
Mondays.  Samples  are analyzed  for fecal
coliform  concentrations using  DEP-certified
laboratories, including those of the utilities
authorities; MPN or membrane filter methods
provide results within 24 hours of sampling.  In
1998, as in a number of previous years,
samples were collected and analyzed for
enterococci from a  subset of ocean and bay
stations in all of the coastal counties as the state
prepares for further federal direction in beach
management.
     The recreational  bathing standard for all
waters in New Jersey  is 200 fecal coliforms per
100 mL Of sample, and closings  are based on
two consecutive single samples. If the results
from the first sampling of the week are within
the standard, sampling is complete until the
following week. If  a sample from a  station
                                                                                        59

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 exceeds the standard,  the water at that station is
 immediately resampled, and adjacent beaches
 are also sampled to determine the extent of the
 pollution. A sanitary survey of the area is also
 conducted.  A  second consecutive fecal
 coliform concentration exceeding the standard
 or the identification of a source requires closing
 of the beach. Health officials retain the discre-
 tion to close beaches  for any public health
 reason, with or without water quality data.
     In  1998,  the program included water
 quality monitoring stations at 179 ocean
 beaches and 138 monitoring stations  in bay
 areas.  Most ocean stations  are sampled to
 evaluate the water quality  at several  lifeguarded
 beaches in an  "area" rather than just  one
 lifeguarded beach. These areas consist of
 contiguous, similar beaches with no  permanent
 pollution sources. Individual beaches with
 permanent sources are assigned monitoring
stations.  A monitoring station is assigned to
each recreational bay beach because of their
locations on noncontiguous shorelines.
Results

     Ocean beach closings due to floatables
have been controlled for the past eight years,
while closings in the ocean and bays due to
bacteria have fluctuated with lower numbers in
recent years (Table 1, Graph  1, and Graph 2).
Ocean  beach closings due to floatables  have
been controlled for the past eight years, while
closings in the ocean and bays due to bacteria
have fluctuated with  lower numbers in recent
years (Table  1, Graph 1, and Graph 2). Fecal
coliform concentrations as  geometric  means
have remained relatively consistent (Graph  3).
Table 1
Ocean
Closings
bacteria
floatables
total
Bay Closings
jacteria
floatables
total
1988
784
19
803
1988
0
52
52
1989
35
9
44
1989
0
232
232
1990
22
10
32
1990
0
202
202
1991
10
0
10
1991
0
97
97
1992
27
0
27
1992
0
84
84
1993
34
0
34
1993
0
54
54
1994
50
0
50
1994
0
171
171
1995
4
0
4
1995
0
73
73
1996
10
0
10
1996
0
75
75
1997
18
0
18
1997
0
24
24
1998
3
0
3
1998
0
36
36
60

-------
                                                                       Day One: Session Three
Graph 1
                       Ocean Beach  Closings 1988 - 1998
                                                     E3beaches closed due to floatable debris




                                                      for bacteria in excess of standard
      1988     1989    1990    1981    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    -1997     1998
 Graph 2
                    Bay Beach  Closings 1988 -  1998
      1988    1989    1990    1991    1992    1993     1994    1995    199S    1997    1998
                                                                                         61

-------
                                                West Coast Regional Beach Conference
Graph 3
   Geometric Means of Fecal Coliform at 179 Ocean Sampling Stations
                               1995 -  1998
62

-------
                                                                       Day One.- Session Three
New Jgrsey'sBeach Program
                     ^Source Rerm&ttkn
                     
-------
                                                                         West Coast Regional Beach Conference
                                                               Geometric Means at 179 Ocean Stations from North to South
                                                                          1990 Fecal Coliform v. Enteroccus
64

-------
                                                                                               Day One: Session Three
       1991 Fecal Coliform v. Enterococcus

                                                                             1992 Fecal Coliform v. Enterococcus
fater Quality at New Jersey Recreational Beaches
                                                                                                                        65

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
66

-------
                                                                       Day One: Session Three
Monitoring  Program at  Lake  Powell

Presented by Mark Anderson for Lewis Boobar
National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
^•Whe beach-monitoring program at Glen
  I  Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA)
 m began in  1988  to protect visitor health by
detecting fecal coliform bacterial contamination
that might occur at  popular beaches on Lake
Powell. Monitoring is conducted at least every
other week at  approximately 50 sites  lakewide.
A routine  sampling  site list is maintained based
on historical bacterial counts. Each sampling
event also includes at least two  randomly
determined beaches  to increase  the program's
coverage of the lake.  Additional beaches,
besides the routine  and random beaches, are
sampled based on known or suspected prob-
lems.  Protocols exist to add random or other
sampled beaches to  our routine sampling
schedule.  Arc View  is used to randomly select
beaches. The  lake is currently stratified into
two areas  for sampling.  Future plans  will
stratify the lake into 13  zones, which coincide
with visitor use.  The two-level  stratification
system was established to minimize distances
between sample sites and the laboratories.  The
two laboratories are located 112 km apart, one
at Wahweap,  Arizona, and the other at Bullfrog,
Utah.  The laboratories are  certified with the
Utah  Department of Health.
     There are two  major questions that need to
be resolved. The first question is what is the
best method for estimating the bacterial popula-
tion along a beach?   The NRA is switching
from a single  fixed  sampling location, which
provides us with little information about the
bacterial population  along  the beach,  to a
random sampling  scheme.  Although  the
number of samples  is currently limited to three,
the arithmetic  mean of those samples provides a
better estimate of the condition  along the beach
than a single sample from a fixed location.
Random sampling provides a better estimate
because the causes  of an elevated bacterial
count cannot be consistently associated with a
single point along a beach.  Elevated counts are
related to a combination of events, such as
weather, beach orientation, drainage, grazing,
recreation, and sediment load.
     The second  question is what is an appro-
priate beach closure model?  The current model
at Lake Powell is that re-sampling occurs if 200
colony-forming units (cfu) per 100 mL Mem-
brane Filtration (MF) or 126 Most Probable
Number per 100  mL using Colilert® is ob-
tained. If Colilert® is being used, then the
method is  immediately switched  to MF for
regulatory  purposes.  A re-sample count of 200
cfu MF causes closure.  The beach remains
closed until the 2, 3, 4, and 5-day geometric
mean and  the last day of sampling are below
200 cfu.  The problem is that only 25 percent of
the beaches found high on day one  are high on
day three and only 35 percent of the beaches
that are high on day three are high on day four.
In other words, 65 percent of the beaches  are
below 200 cfu on the day the beach is closed.
The beach will remain closed for 5  additional
days until  a 5-day geo-mean below  200 cfu is
achieved.  Only  8.75 percent of the beaches
found high initially  are high on  day four.
     In conclusion,  the determination of the
threat along a beach should be based on sound
statistical sampling methods.  The beach
closure policy  should be conservative in favor
of public health; however, the model should
also be predictive of pollution events that  exist
for longer than four days.  Closing a beach
causes economic loss to the local community
due to canceled  vacations.  Additionally,
people recreating are unduly  alarmed over a
short-term threat,  which has corrected itself
before any protective action can occur.  Devel-
opment of a meaningful beach closure  model is
paramount.
                                                                                         67

-------
                                                                                                     West Coast Regional Beach Conference
               Beach-Mcr,;t:r.g Program
Late tell MirM -Advisor
                                        "
                        Chairman
                    Dr. William Moellmer
                 Utah DKtelon of Water Quality

                    Executive Secretary
                      Dr. Lewis Boobar
              Glen Canyon National Recreation Atea
                                                                                           Ncv*]o Nation EPA, Water Quality Program
                                                                                           Mr. Steve Auatln
                                                                                           Northern Arizona University
                                                                                           Dr. Dean Slim
                                                                                           Dr. Gordan Southam

                                                                                           UtohDept of Health
                                                                                           Mr. FBchard Clark
                                                                                           Mr. Ron Me
                                                                                           National Park Service, bttermountata Ileglon
                                                                                           Mr Barry Davis
                                                                                           SoutltwaBtUtati Puttie Health Dopt
                                                                                           Mr. BtU Damon
                                 University of Utah
                                 Dr. Donald Hayes
                                 Arizona D«pt of Envtronmantat Qualtiy
                                 Mr. Tom Trent
                                 Mr, Troy Day
                                 NaUonal Park Service, WRD
                                 Mr, Barry Long
                                 Southeast Utah Public Heal* Dspt
                                 Mr. Rick Meyer

                                 Utah state University
                                 Dr. Ron Stna
                                 Dr. Darwin Sorensen
                                                                                           Utah Division of Water Ctuaffly
                                                                                           Mr. Richard Demon
                                                                                           Mr. Jay PHk!n

                                                                                                          US EPA, Region VIII Mr. Doug Johnson
                                 National Park Service, GLCA
                                 Mr. Mart*. Anderson
                                 Mr.JohnHftenour
68

-------
                                                                          Day One: Session Three
                   Routine Sample Sites
                                                             Random Beach Selection
          Glen Canyon NRA
Current Saving Zones          Strafe] info 13Za
Random Beach Selection
Random        Location
                                                                         CoHlert (126 MPN/lOOml)

                                                                         MF-FC(200cfii/100ml)
                                                                                             69

-------
          Estimating Bac^fe! Concentrations
              Beach
   Depth (ft) I
              BOOcfn 25»cfii  BOcfu
                                                             West Coast Regional Beach Conference
Water Sits Event
Sample
Date
20 July
22 My
23 My
24 July
25 Inly
26 July
Count
Date
21 My
23 My
24 Inly
25 Inly
26 My
27 My
Test
Method
Colitat
KteSoa
MeBtane
FUtxadaii
Membrane
Rltradon
Membrane
Filtration
Membrane
Bactea&l
Count
209.8
759.1
500.6
155.9
15.3
5.4
Geometric Mean
2-Day
NA
NA
616.4
279.4
•48:8
9.1
3-Day
NA
NA
NA
389.8
106.1
234
4-Day
NA
NA
NA
NA
173.5
504
5-Day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
86.7
Recommended
Action
Resample
Cloaute
Reaample
Remain dosed
Re&ooplo
Remain Closed
Bfi38m0e
Re-open Beach
         Fecal Cofifcr.T: cr* c Canyon Beach
               Riss and Craiua] Fall
100ml
        soo
        700
        MO-
        S«9
        4og,
        300
        200
        100
.            I.
            20    21    22   23    24   25    26
                        July
                                                      Fecal Coliform in a Large Bay
                                                          Series of Rtelng and Falling
                                                   1200

                                                   1000
                                                100ml
                                                    400

                                                    200

                                                     0
                                                               1,1,
h...
                                                                                  l'» 3'4 S'6 T

                                                                                  August
70


-------
                                                                                    Day One: Sessfon Three
Conclusions:
JRandom sampling should
replace fixed station stun pi ii
 The beach closure model .should
 be conservative but not respond
 to"short term episodic events.
                                                                                                           71

-------
                                                        West Coast Regional Beach Conference
California's  Regulations and
Guidance  for  Beaches and
Recreational  Waters
Steven Book
California Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and
Environmental Management
^•phe Department of Health Services (DHS)
  •  recently expanded its regulations for
 ML  public beaches and ocean water-contact
sports areas in response to requirements of
Health and Safety Code §115880, Assembly
Bill (AB) 411, Statutes of 1997, Chapter 765.
The regulations (in Title 17 of the California
Code of Regulations)  consist of §7956 (new),
§7958 (amended), §7961  (new) and §7962
(new), which  became  effective July 26, 1999.
Other regulations, §7957,  §7959, and §7960,
were  unchanged.  The regulations are repro-
duced below.

     7956. Storm Drain.  "Storm drain" means
a conveyance through which water flows onto
or adjacent to a public beach and includes
rivers, creeks, and streams, whether in natural
or in man-made channels.

     7957. Physical Standard.  No sewage,
sludge, grease, or other physical  evidence of
sewage discharge shall be visible at any time on
any public beaches or water-contact sports
areas.

     7958. Bacteriological Standards,  (a) The
minimum protective bacteriological standards
for waters adjacent to public beaches  and
public water-contact sports areas  shall be as
follows:
     (1) Based on a single sample, the density
of bacteria in water from each sampling station
at a public beach or public water-contact sports
area shall not exceed:
     (A) 1,000 total coliform bacteria per 100
milliliters, if the ratio of fecal/total coliform
bacteria exceeds 0.1; or
     (B) 10,000 total coliform bacteria per 100
milliliters; or
     (C) 400 fecal coliform bacteria per  100
milliliters; or
     (D) 104 enterococcus bacteria per 100
milliliters.
     (2) Based on the mean of the logarithms of
the results of at least five weekly samples
during any  30-day sampling period, the  density
of bacteria in water from  any sampling station
at a public beach or public water-contact sports
area, shall not  exceed:
     (A) 1,000 total coliform bacteria per 100
milliliters; or
     (B) 200 fecal coliform bacteria per  100
milliliters; or
     (C) 35 enterococcus  bacteria per  100
milliliters.
     (b) Water-tramples" slMFWiuTbrruttedTfor
bacteriological  analyses to a laboratory certified
in microbiology by the California Department
of Health Services, Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program, for methods  for the
analysis of  the sample type.

     7959. Bacteriological Sampling,  (a) In
order to determine that the bacteriological
standards  specified in Section 7958  above are
being met in a water-contact sports  area  desig-
nated by a Regional Water Quality Control
Board in waters affected by a waste discharge,
water samples shall be collected at such  sam-
 72

-------
                                                                            Day One: Session Three
pling stations and at such frequencies as may
be specified by said board in its waste dis-
charge requirements.
     (b)  In waters of a public beach or water-
contact sports area that has not been so desig-
nated by a Regional Water Quality Control
Board, water samples  shall be collected at such
frequencies as may  be determined by the local
health officer or  Department. Local health
officers shall be  responsible for the proper
collection and analysis of water samples in such
areas.

     7960. Corrective Action,  (a) When a
public beach or public water-contact sports area
fails to meet any of the standards as set forth in
Section  7957 or  7958 above, the local health
officer or the Department, after taking into
consideration the causes therefor, may at his or
its discretion close,  post with warning signs, or
otherwise restrict use of said public beach  or
public water-contact sports area, until such  time
as corrective action has been taken and the
standards as  set forth  in 7957 and 7958 above
are met.

     7961. Public Beaches Visited by More
than 50,000 People Annually and Adjacent to
Storm Drains,  (a) Waters adjacent to a public
beach shall be tested for  bacteria identified  in
Section 7958 on  at least .a .weekly basis from
April 1 to October 31, inclusive, if the beach is
     (1)  Visited by more than 50,000 people
annually, and
     (2)  Located adjacent to a storm drain that
flows in  the  summer.
     (b)  Water samples shall be taken from
locations that include  areas affected by storm
drains. Samples shall be taken in ankle- to
knee-deep water, approximately 4 to  24 inches
below the water  surface.
     (c)  When testing reveals that the waters
adjacent  to a public beach fail to meet any of
the standards  set forth in Section 7958(a)(l),
the local health officer shall post the beach
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
115915, and shall use the standards of Sections
7958(a)(l) and (2) in determining the  necessity
to restrict the use of or close the public beach or
portion thereof.
     (d) In the event of  a known release of
untreated  sewage into waters adjacent to a
public beach,  the  local health officer shall:
     (1) Immediately post and close the beach
or a portion thereof, or otherwise restrict its use
until the source of the sewage release is elimi-
nated;
     (2) Sample the affected waters; and
     (3) Continue closure or restriction of the
beach or a portion thereof and posting the
beach until testing results establish  that the
standards  of Sections 7958(a)(l)  are satisfied.

     7962. Duties Imposed on a Local  Public
Officer or Agency,  (a) Pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Sections 115880(h),  115885(g),
and  115915(c), any  duty imposed upon a local
public officer or agency by  Section 7961  shall
be mandatory only during a fiscal year in which
the Legislature has  appropriated sufficient
funds, as determined by  the State Director  of
Health Services, in the annual Budget Act or
otherwise for  local agencies to cover the costs
to those  agencies associated  with performance
of these duties.

     DHS  also prepared draft guidance docu-
ments for local health departments  seeking to
improve their programs for both saltwater and
freshwater beaches and  recreational waters.
These  guidance documents are available from
the DHS Web site.
     For more information:   http://
www. dhs. ca. gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/
beachesindex.htm
                                                                                               73

-------
                                                                           West Coast Regional Beach Conference
         California's Regulations and
          Guidance for Beaches and
               Recreational Waters

                   Steven Book, Ph.D.
                Division of Drinking Water
             and Environmental Management
             California Department of Health
                         Services
                     August 31, 1999
                E-mail: sbook@dhs.ca.gov
AB 411 [(Statutes of 1997, Chapter 765), amended Health
and Safety Code Sections 115880, 115885, and 115915)]
requires DHS to develop regulations:
•  Standards for three indicator organisms for all public beaches:
   - Total coliforms
   - Fecal coliforms
   — Enterococcus
•  Procedures for closing and posting public beaches that are
   - Adjacent to storm drains that flow during the summer
   - Visited by 50,000 visitors
   - Coastal (not within San Francisco Bay)
•  Implementation not required if legislature does not provide
  adequate funding in the annual budget. (~ $1 million is in
  annual budget)
          Standards for Microbiological
                      Indicators
     The most recent single measurement is to be used
     for determining the need for beach posting.
        - Total coliforra bacteria:  1,000 per 100 milliliters,
         if the fecal/total ratio exceeds 0.1.
        - Total coliform bacteria:  10,000 per 100 milliliters.
        - Fecal coliform bacteria:    400 per 100 milliliters.
          • Enterococcus bacteria:     104 per 100 milliliters.
    Microbiological Standards (cont)

  The 30-day average of measurements of the level (the
  log mean of the results of 5 weekly samples) is to be
  used by the local health officer along with the single
  sample standards to determine if closing and/or other
  restrictions are appropriate.
     - Total coliform bacteria: 1,000 per 100 milliliters
     - Fecal coliform bacteria:   200 per 100 milliliters
     - Enterococcus bacteria:    35 per 100 milliliters
       Locations, Frequency, & Depth of
                 Sample Collection

      For AB 411 public beaches
      • At least weekly sampling from April 1 to October 31
      • Sampling is to include waters affected by storm
        drains
      • Samples to be taken in ankle- to knee-deep water,
        approximately 4 to 24 inches below the water
        surface
      For others: At the discretion of the local health officer.
                 Definitions

  Storm drain (Regulation): A conveyance through
  which water flows onto or adjacent to a public
  beach, and includes rivers, creeks, and streams,
  whether in natural or in man-made channels.
74

-------
                                                                                        Day One.- Session Three
             Definitions (cont)

Posting:  Signs at an area of a public beach that inform the
public of contamination of recreational water and the risk of
possible illness (AB411).
Posting may be (1) temporary, when a single standard is
exceeded for a short period, or (2) more permanent, where
monitoring indicates regular or sporadic contamination (e.g.,
storm drain), or where contamination sources are identifiable
and can be explained (e.g., storm drain water, or residential
marine mammals or seabirds) (Guidance).
Posting is required at public beaches subject to AB411
whenever standards for microbiological indicator organisms
are exceeded.
              Definitions (cont)

Closure (Guidance): Signs that inform the public that the
beach area is closed to swimming and water contact. They
should indicate the nature of the concern (e.g., sewage spill),
and should, by language, color, and design, enable
differentiation from advisories provided by posting.
Closure is envisioned to occur when health risks are
considered greater than those associated with posting, as with
sewage spills or at areas at which monitoring results show that
multiple indicator organism standards are exceeded, for both
single sample and 30-day average values.
Closure is required by AB 411 when an untreated sewage
release is known to have reached recreational waters at a
public beach.
  Beach Is Required To Be Closed...

 • with a known release of untreated sewage (AB 411)
 • otherwise at the discretion of the local health officer


   Beach Is Required To Be Posted
          With Warning Signs...
 • whenever an applicable standard is exceeded (AB
   411)
 • otherwise at the discretion of the local health officer
       Sample Language For Signs
                  (Guidance)

                  WARNING!
              Untreated Sewage Spill
                   Beach Closed

                  WARNING!
       Storm Drain Water May Cause Illness
        No Swimming In Storm Drain Water
          Other Means of Public
                Information

    Telephone Hotline (required by AB 411)
    Press Release (Guidance)
    Electronic Access (e.g., Internet or local
    television) (Guidance)
              Future Activities


    Freshwater beaches and certain other
    beaches
    Reporting of beach closures/postings
    (SWRCB)
                                                                                                             75

-------
                                                                  West Coast Regional Beach Conference
                              For More Information:

                       Regulations for implementing AB411
                       Guidance documents for saltwater and
                       freshwater beaches
                       Can be accessed via:
                       http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/bea
                       chesindex.htm
76


-------
                                                                    Day One: Session Three
Southern California Bight 1998

Regional  Monitoring  Program:

Summer  Shoreline  Microbiology

Charles McGee
Orange County Sanitation District

Noble, R.T.1'2, J.H. Dorsey3, M.K. Leecaster1, M. Mazur4, CD. McGee5, D. Moore6, V. Orozco-
Borbon7, D. Reid8, K. SchifP, P.M. Vanik9, and S.B. Weisberg1 (alphabetical order)

1 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project; 2 Wrigley Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Southern California; 3City of Los Angeles, Stormwater Management
Division; 4Orange County Environmental Health Division; 5Orange County Sanitation District;
6Orange County Public Health Laboratory; 7Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanologicas,
Universidad Autonoma de Baja California; 8Santa Barbara County Public Health Department; 9City
of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department
        More than 80,000 shoreline bacteriological
        samples are collected annually in south-
        ern California, representing roughly one-
half of the total bacteriological monitoring con-
ducted in the United States. Despite this impres-
sive amount of monitoring, these data are difficult
to integrate for the purpose of making a regional
assessment of water quality.  Integration is diffi-
cult because the data are collected by 22 different
organizations with different sampling strategies
and different data management systems. Addition-
ally, because the sample locations are assigned to
focus on known "problem areas" or to comply
with a specific monitoring objective, the strategy
does not allow for an assessment of typical re-
gional shoreline microbiological water quality. To
overcome these limitations, all of the organizations
that perform routine monitoring in the Southern
California Bight (SCB) conducted an integrated
survey during the summer of 1998 that assessed
the overall microbiological water quality of the
southern California shoreline. The primary goals
of the survey were:
      •  To  determine  the percent of shoreline
        mile-days in the SCB that exceeded
        bacterial indicator thresholds  during
        August  of  1998;
    •  To compare the response among three
       bacterial indicators commonly used in
       California; and
    •  To determine how well these bacterial
       indicator measures correlated with detec-
       tion of human enteric virus genetic
       material.
    Samples were collected on a weekly basis at
307 sites between Point Conception, California,
and Punta Banda, Mexico, beginning August 1,
1998, and continuing for five weeks. Sampling
sites were selected using a stratified random
design. Strata included high- and low-use sandy
beaches, high- and low-use rocky shoreline,
ephemeral freshwater outlets and perennial
freshwater outlets. Samples were collected
according to standardized protocols.  Total and
fecal coliform were measured in all samples.
Enterococci were measured in approximately 70
percent of the samples. Molecular analyses to
detect the presence of human enteric virus genetic
material were performed on samples collected
from 15 randomly selected perennial freshwater
outlets. Analysis for the presence of this genetic
material was used as a tool to detect human fecal
contamination in the coastal zone. It was not
intended to be used to infer health risk.
                                                                                      77

-------
                                                                West Coast Regional Beach Conference
      Prior to starting the project, the 22 partici-
 pating laboratories conducted intercalibration
 studies to assess data comparability.  Thirteen
 common samples  were analyzed by each
 laboratory to define  variability among laborato-
 ries, within  laboratories, and among methods.
 Three quantitative analytical methods, multiple
 tube fermentation (MTF),  membrane filtration
 (MF), and chromogenic substrate tests in a most
 probable number format were compared for
 total coliform, fecal coliform (or E. coli), and
 enterococci.   The average difference  among
 methods  was less than 6 percent.   The average
 difference among laboratories was  less than 2
 percent.  The greatest source of variability  was
 among replicates within individual laboratories.
 The  intercalibration exercises demonstrated that
 a multi-laboratory, performance-based ap-
 proach was  acceptable for implementing this
 regional  study.
      Overall, microbiological water  quality along
 the southern  California shoreline was good during
 the study period with more than 95 percent of the
 shoreline mile-days meeting all present and
 proposed California bacterial indicator standards.
 In 98 percent of the cases where a standard was
 exceeded, it was exceeded for only one bacterial
 indicator, while all other bacterial indicators at the
 same site and at the same time were below thresh-
 olds. Less than 0.2 percent of the shoreline mile-
 days exceeded thresholds for all indicators mea-
 sured at the site.
     Freshwater outlets failed to meet bacterial
 indicator standards in almost 60 percent of the
 samples, the worst of all strata. Most of the
 standard failures near freshwater outlets were for
 multiple indicators and occurred repetitively
 throughout the five-week study period.  Molecular
 tests demonstrated the presence of human enteric
 virus genetic material in 7 of the 15 freshwater
 outlets with 73 percent of these detections coincid-
 ing with levels of fecal coliform that exceeded
 bacterial indicator thresholds.
     The probability of exceeding a bacterial
 indicator threshold differed substantially among
 indicators. Of the samples that exceeded a bacte-
 rial standard, and for which all three indicators
 were measured, only 13 percent failed for all three
 indicators, 34 percent failed for two indicators, and
 54 percent failed for one indicator.  Thresholds for
 fecal coliform were exceeded at twice the rate of
 total coliform, and enterococci failed at three times
 the rate of total coliform. Less than one-half of the
 enterococci thresholds failures paired with thresh-
 old failures by another indicator, while nearly 90
 percent of the total and fecal coliform threshold
 failures were partnered with failures of another
 indicator.
     This cooperative study is the first to compare
 the relative quality of Mexican and United States
 beaches  using similar site selection approaches
 and coordinated quality assurance methods.
 Although nearly 75 percent of the beach samples
 in Mexico met California's bacteriological water
 quality standards, the standards were exceeded
 five times more often on Mexican than on United
 States beaches. Mexican freshwater outlets were
just as likely to exceed a bacteriological water
 quality standard as those in the United States.
78

-------
     1998 Southern California
      Microbiological Survey
            Charles D. McGee
      Orange County Sanitation District
                                                                           Day One: Session Three
                                                               SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
    Background:  Existing Effort
               (Annually)
• 22 agencies conduct monitoring at 542 sites
• 82,310 bacteriological analyses:
     Shoreline = 64,134
     Offshore =18,176
• About $3 million/year spent
       Existing Effort (cont)
> Focused upon areas designated as problem
 areas (near storm drains)
i Potentially impacted by offshore discharges
 (NPDES permit required)
    Limitations: Existing Efforts
 • Sites are not randomly assigned
 • Area monitored is only 7% of the entire
  shoreline
 • No common analytical method
 • No common database
            Consequence
i Assessment of the entire coastal area not
 possible
                                                                                                79

-------
Participants
















Aliso Water Mgmt Authority
Aquatic Bioassay &
Consult.
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
City ol Oceanslde
City of Oxnard
City of San Diego
City of Santa Barbara
City of Ventura
EncinaW.W.Auth.
Golata Sanitation District
Heat the Bay
UABC
LA Co Beaches & Harbors
Los Angeles RWQCB
LA Co Sanitation Districts
USMC Camp Pendleton
Orange Co Env Hlth Div
Orange Co Sanitation District
San Diego Co Dpt Env Health
San Diego RWQCB
San Elijo Jt Powers Authority
Santa Barbara Hlth Care Ser
SE Reg. Reclamation Auth
So Cal Cstl Wat Res Project*
So Calif Marine Inst
Surfrider Foundation
SWRCB
use
LA Co Dept Hlth Serv.
* Coordinating group
                                                                         West Coast Regional Beach Conference
                                                                               Objectives
                                                                 i Determine the percent of shoreline meeting
                                                                  bacterial water quality standards
                                                                 i Compare indicator bacterial levels among types of
                                                                  shoreline
                                                                 i Assess association between runoff and virus
     Percent of Shoreline Meeting Bacterial
            Water Quality Standards
    What percent of beach-mile days exceed [indicator]
    threshold limits during [season] at [geographical area]"!

   Indicators: total coliform, fecal coliform, enterococci

   Season:    Summer 1998
   Areas:     accessible shoreline, freshwater outlets
     Geographical Areas
Sandy Beaches
   High-use (lifeguard service)
   Low-use (no lifeguard service)

Rocky Shoreline
   High-use (popular dive and surf spots)
   Low-use (little or no diving or surfing)

Freshwater Outlets
   Ephemeral
   Perennial
   Point Zero
                                    HIGH-USE
                                      SANDY
                                    BEACHES
   Manhattan Beach
                            HIGH-USE
                              ROCKY
                            BEACHES
                                                                         Pt-Fermln,
                                                                         San Pedro
80

-------
          Freshwater Outlets
        Storm Drain/Channel
                                                                              Day One: Session Three
       Basic Design Elements
                                                        • Recreational shoreline, freshwater outlets (81)
                                                          mapped in GIS database
                                                        • Fixed sites randomly selected among strata
                                                        • Two types of site placement at outlets:
                                                          » Randomly, within 100 yards
                                                          » Fixed, at mouth of outlet ("Point Zero" sites)
                                                        • 213 southern California, 29 Mexico
                                                        • Sites sampled weekly August - September 1998
                                                        • All participating laboratories had to perform
                                                          intercalibration studies
      Intercalibration Exercises
• Analyze 13 common samples
• Three to five replicates
• Use standard analytical procedures
• Use their standard quality assurance procedures
• Report data in a common format
                                                               Goals of Intercalibration
  Quantify and compare:
  » within laboratory variance
  » among laboratory variance
  » among analytical methods
   Analytical Method Enumeration
 • Membrane filtration (MF)
 • Multiple tube fermentation (MTF)
 • Chromogenic substrate in the most probable
   number (MPN) format
         Analytical Methods
• Total coliform by
  » M-Endo (MF)
  » LTB/BGB (MTF)
  » Colilert®
                                                                                                    81

-------
                                                                          West Coast Regional Beach Conference
               Analytical Methods
      i Fecal coliform
       » M-FC (MF)
       »EC
       » A-l
       » Colilert®
          Analytical Methods
• Enterococci
   » Method 1600 & mE agar (MF)
   » Enterolert®
   » Azide dextrose broth/Pfizer selective
    enterococcus agar with confirmation in brain-
    heart infusion broth containing 6.5% NaCl
    @45°C
            Intel-calibration Results
       Between-laboratory
       » significant difference was seen in only 7% of all
         pairwise comparisons between laboratories
       » largest difference between laboratories was 29%
       » average difference <2%
       Intercalibration Results
 i Between-laboratory
  » differences occurred most frequently for total
    coliform (10%)
  » least frequently for fecal coliform (3%)
  » greatest variability for MTF
  » least for MF
            Intercalibration Results
    • Between methods
       » average difference was <6%
       » biggest difference measured in low range of
         fecal coliform by MF (may have been due to
         clumping)
       Intercalibration Results
 > Between methods
  » Only consistent difference was found with
    Enterolert® (at low densities no difference, but
    at high densities underestimated concentration
    by 5% relative to other methods)

82

-------
                                                                           Day One: Session Three
•figSSCf
Intercalibration Results
• Within laboratory
» largest source of variability in the survey
» values typically 1/3 to 3 times the median




Intercalibration Results
• Within laboratory
» smallest variance with MF
Coordinated studies with Mexico
 • Measured total and fecal coliform using MTF
 • 29 sites
   » 19 along sandy beaches
   » 10 at perennial water outlets
 • Results provided international comparison,
   paved way for cooperative work
Indicator Thresholds
(AB 411 & Ocean Plan)
Indicator
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Enterococci
Total/Fecal Ratio
Daily Limits
10,000
400
104
Monthly Limits
20% > 1,000
200(G.M.)
35 (G.M.)
When TC > 1,000
and TC/FC >10 and TC/FC >5
Shoreline Water Quality in the SCB
during Aug. 1998 Meeting Standards
               Daily     Monthly
                 THRESHOLD
Shoreline Water Quality By Indicator
I »"
I M
I
m «
1 m
I
L

i — ~ Daiiy
•MMM Monthly
1
^ ^' ^x**
                                                                                               83

-------
                                                                      West Coast Regional Beach Conference
Shoreline Water Quality by
Strata
% SMD Exceedins Threshold

High use sandy
Low use sandy
High use rocky
Low use rocky
Ephemeral outlets
Perennial outlets
Point Zero
A11SCB
Daily
7.8
4.1
2.4
2.1
7.3
10.9
40.0
4.9
Monthly
9.6
0.0
2.8
9.4
6.7
13.5
58.3
5.7
                                                                  Magnitude of Exceedence
                                                                   •SANOy SHORELINE       POINT ZERO OUTLETS
     Indicator Threshold Exceedence
Frequency of Threshold Exceedences In
      Mexico and the United States
                                                                 STRATA    TOTALS   FECALS   T:F<10
                                                               Sandy Beaches:
                                                                 Mexico
                                                                 US


                                                               Point Zero:
                                                                 Mexico
                                                                 US   .
                   2.6
                   12.7
                   12.0
                             25.3
                              5.3
32.7
24.8
           16.5
           2.1
21.8
21.8
                 Conclusions
    Good shoreline water quality in So. Calif, during
    summer 1998
      About 95% of shoreline-mile days were below
      thresholds

    Worst water quality associated with freshwater
    outlets
      40% of shoreline-mile days were below thresholds
      and human enteric viruses were detected at half of the
      outlets measured
              Conclusions
 Enterococci exceeded thresholds more frequently
 than any other indicator
      Triple the frequency of total coliforms

 Mexican beaches exceeded thresholds more
 frequently than US beaches
      Frequency was similar near freshwater outlets

 Existing beach monitoring programs and cooperative
 studies, including use of volunteers, are effective
      Went so well we did a "wet season" study!

84

-------
              Conclusions
Bacterial indicators are weakly correlated to one
another
     Enterococcus is the most conservative of the three

Threshold exceedances by indicators are not tightly
related
     Most exceedances were for a single indicator

Only storm drains demonstrated multiple indicator
exceedances
     More than one indicator exceedance per sampling
                                                                               Day One: Session Three
         Acknowledgements
John Dorsey, Molly Leecaster, Monica
  Mazur, Charles McGee, Douglas Moore,
  Victoria Orozco-Borbon, Daniel Reid,
  Ken Schiff, Patricia Vainik, and Stephen
  Weisberg
                                                                                                    85

-------
                                                           West Coast Regional Beach Conference
     Question-and-Answer   Session

     Panel: David Rosenblatt, Mark Anderson, Charles McGee, and Siteven Book
    Q (Patty Vainik,  City of San Diego, Metropolitan Wastewater Department): Ten years ago,
    New Jersey did an epidemiological survey along the coastline.  I saw a draft final report
    and I never saw a final report.  Did it ever come out?

    Dave Rosenblatt:
         Yes.

    Q (Patty Vainik): Did I miss it in Mr. Gray's presentation?  Was it mentioned? Can you  tell
    us the upshot of the report? As I recall, the draft report did not find any significant rela-
    tionship between  any of the indicators, including enterococcus, and incidence of illness.
    As I remember, just being on the  beach, not necessarily swimming, was the predisposing
    factor to illness.

    Dave Rosenblatt:
         The study found that there was no more risk of getting ill from swimming than from
    being on the beach.  It also found  that bacteria counts in the water were so low that it was
    very  hard to do the study.  The Department of Health conducted  the study; my department,
    the Department of Environmental  Protection, assisted with monitoring.  The conclusion was
    positive for us. Why people were getting ill just being on the beach, I  don't know.  There
    are many theories, including the food that they were eating,  bathrooms, etc.

    Comment (Mark Gold,  Heal the Bay): In regards to the New Jersey Study, they evaluated
    eight or more beach locations.  To do an epidemiological study with that many locations,
    you need to do interviews with 50,000 or more people. That would have added an unbe-
    lievable amount of cost onto the study.  This guided the Santa Monica  Bay study.

    Q (Mark Gold):  In regards to AB411, in talking with the various agencies conducting the
    monitoring,  one of the main issues that Department of Health Services  needs to address is
    where to collect the sample in proximity to a storm drain.   There  are some counties, like
    San Diego and Santa Barbara counties, that collect samples at point zero or right in front
    of the drain.   Other counties collect samples 25 yards away from  the storm drain.  I think
    that the intent of AB411 was to create an even playing field throughout California. At the
    end of the emergency period, is the state health department  considering providing guid-
    ance  in regards to this issue?

    Steven Book:
        The effective period of AB411 runs  from April through October.  I think that we will
    probably gather the various county representatives and talk about  their  needs prior to  next
    spring's  implementation. The only  thing that we have talked about in the regulations,  in
    terms of location of sampling, is that it needs to include waters affected by storm  drains.
    We have not identified exactly those exact distances yet. We have left that  up  to the discre-
86

-------
                                                                       Day One: Session Three
tion of the local health officer.  If we do anything outside the regulation, we might make
some suggestions in our guidance.  However, I don't think that we will do anything right
away.  We will talk to people and consider additional guidance by next spring.

Dave Rosenblatt:
     I just wanted to add to my last answer that there was a delay between the issuance of
the draft and final report in  1988.  The draft and the final reports were very similar and
there  was nothing new in the final report.  People  should know that we did this epidemio-
logical study under extreme duress.  Back  then, there was public outcry about the alleged
quality of our waters because of a primary sewage treatment plant.  This plant caused a lot
of the beach closings.

Q (Jack Petralia, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services):  I feel that freshwa-
ter bathing areas present a bigger problem then marine environments because  of poor
circulation and bathing load.  When you get high  counts, have you tried to correlate that
with bathing load?

Mark Anderson:
     It is generally our higher use areas that have  been sampled over the years.  When we
take samples, we make an estimate of the number of people and boats present.  We have
found no correlations between that and our counts over the past 11 years.

Q (Charles Kovatch, USEPA Office of Science and Technology):   Steven Book,  you men-
tioned that for beach advisory  and closing postings you allowed flexibility for language,
shape, and color of the signs in AB411.  Why did you select a flexible approach as opposed
to the standardized approach?

Steven  Book:
     We spent a couple of years  meeting with many of the local environmental health
directors.  At one point,  there was  a suggestion for common language.  Then they realized
that many of the signs from various counties differed by one word or by the placement of
the no swimming symbol.  The county that didn't  have the signs that exactly  fit the regula-
tion  would have to go though all  kinds of effort in getting new signs.  What we wanted was
(1) information to get to the public and (2) incorporate existing signage in counties that
already  had  existing programs.

Q (Fred Lee, G. Fred Lee Associates):  Are there any developments toward applying the
AB411 approach to the Sacramento River  or the Delta? Places where you don't have
beaches  by strict definition, but you have a lot of swimming, personal watercraft, and
skiing.

Steven Book:
      With regard to freshwater beaches, it  is left up to the county  ordinances.  The defini-
tion of a public beach has changed with the implementation of AB411—it has taken out
freshwater beaches—so we  need some legislative  authority to consider freshwater beaches
in regulation.  I think that the state board's microbiological numbers  are addressed in the
ocean plan, but I don't think the board has microbiological standards for freshwater.
Freshwater beaches and recreational waters are currently addressed in our draft guidance.

Q (Ken Burger, East Bay Regional Park District):  We are in the process of collecting data
to determine if our swimming beaches comply  with the draft guidelines for freshwater
                                                                                         87

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
     beaches.  One of the things in the guidelines is that you are supposed to collect your
     samples within 4-24 inches of water.  Mr. Anderson, you indicated that you collect your
     samples in 4 feet of water?

     Mark Anderson:
         Yes.

     Comment (Ken Burger):  We  also used to collect samples in 4 feet of water and found
     significantly lower numbers than what we were getting in knee-deep  water.  I think the
     reason for that is this is where the young kids play.  All it takes is one APR (accidental fecal
     release) or one dirty diaper when you are taking your sample.  We have done some sam-
     pling in the morning before the people arrived at the beaches and then in the afternoon
     during the peak times and we see huge differences.  There is a lot of human input in
     shallow waters from human contact.  Our concern is' if you are using single samples to
     determine when to post, it looks like we are  going to be posting all of our beaches.  It is
     common to  exceed 400 fecal  coliforms per 100 mL during  peak  use, in shallow water, and
     on warm summer days. That  is a concern to us.  I don't know how this  is going to be
     addressed and it may create a public reaction.  We are looking for ways  to deal with this
     that allow the beaches to  stay open and meet the requirements at  the  same time.  One of the
     things  in the guidance created a dilemma for us.  It doesn't make  sense for us to post a
     beach, collect samples 5 days later with low numbers, take the signs  back down, and then
     put them back up.  It's  a  difficult situation to be in.

     Mark  Anderson:
         We did a study last year where we took samples from 4 feet, 3 feet, and 2 feet of
     depth.  We  got an inverse relationship between the counts and  the depth.  The closer that
     you get to the shore, the higher the counts. We also did a study  where we found that there
     were high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria being sequestered in the sediments.

     Comment (Ken Burger):  We  are being requested by the two county  health departments to
     use the draft freshwater guidelines.  When we do that,  we see that beaches that are we in
     compliance with the old requirements are all in jeopardy now.  It's creating a totally differ-
     ent picture of an  old situation.  We've implemented a diaper ban  recently and I'm still
     answering letters  from irate housewives claiming that the park  district is  anti-American and
     anti-children.  It's creating a lot of concern.

    Q (James Alamillo, Heal the Bay):  I run the beach report card for Heal the Bay and look
    at a lot of data from a  variety of agencies who monitor their beaches under the AB411
    regulation.  Some  of the agency data that I have come across use  E. coli in lieu of fecal
    coliform as a dataset.  How would one  interpret E. coli,  in terms of the regulation, and
    determine the threshold by which to close/post the beach?  Where is  that threshold de-
    rived?

    Steven  Book:
         We understand that some of the counties are using Colilert®  to monitor for fecal
    coliforms. The test measures E. coli and some are using a 1-to-l  correlation and some  use
    a 1.1 or 1.2 correlation. We are hoping to come out with some guidance on that subject.
    In the interim, I think that we  would expect the counties who are  using E. coli to predict
    fecal coliforms to  document the results of split samples run by  two different methods to
    show the correlation.  If it's 1-to-l or 1.2-to-l, what's the justification? For your Heal the
    Bay  report card, when you describe the  methodology,  you  could  include a sentence for
88

-------
                                                                      Day One: Session Three
each of the counties on how they make that correction so that people who want to compare
counties or want to make a correction so that all data are comparable can do so.

Comment (Dan Mills, California Department of Health Services):  I think there are some
people in the room who have experience with that correlation. Charlie Me Gee do you
have any recent information since we last spoke about it?  I think the SCCWRP (Southern
California Coastal  Water Research Project) laboratories have  some comparative data
between the methods.

Charles McGee:
     We have looked at the relationship of E. coli to fecals using the Colilert® product and
Al medium as an  example.  When we look for wastewater around our outfall, it appears
that about 90 percent of the fecals are E. coli.  That's relatively fresh contamination and I
would expect it to change a little bit as  this contamination is dispersed toward the beach.  I
do not have good numbers to give to you.  Who knows what it is in all wastewaters.   We
couldn't compare E. coli and fecals in the intercalibration study last year because in three
of the five samples, we used E. coli.  From two of them we did and we have a little bit of
information.  Rachel, do you remember, have we  looked  at that at all?

Comment (Rachel  Noble, University of Southern California):  We singled  out Colilert®
results, especially  in Charlie's case when we did the Bight  1998 Microbiology Study.  For
quite a few  of the samples the lab ran both, and we found that the Colilert® number repre-
sented 90 to 95 percent compared to the number gotten by  the other method.  A few
percent lower,  because we were sampling seawater and not wastewater.

Q (Mark Gold, Heal the Bay):  Let's assume that you would use a multiplier, like 1.1,  times
your E. coli to come up with a fecal threshold to decide whether or not to post.  What
would you do with the fecal-to-total ratio?   Would you take that a step further and com-
pound that  uncertainty?

Steven Book:
     If you were making an estimate by taking your Colilert® number and multiplying it by
1.1 and using that as your fecal coliform value, then you would use that as your numerator
in your fecal over total ratio.

Comment (Al  Dufour,  USEPA,  Office of Research  and Development):  I think we shouldn't
play these number games.  As one of my slides earlier showed, the number of E. coli  in
sewage treatment  plant samples can range from 92 percent of the total fecal coliforms down
to 60  percent of the fecal coliform numbers.  With that variation, I don't know how you can
compare that to a method that measures only E. coli.   You might come up with some
average number, but on a sample by sample basis, I don't think that it will be very mean-
ingful. I think you have to be careful when you try to say  E.  coli is X percentage and
therefore we can multiply by 1.2 and then  compounding  that  by making it  a part of a ratio
which is even  less stable than the E. coli percentage of the fecal coliform.  I would  add a
note of caution before doing things like that.

Steven Book:
      I also  have to agree that you have to use caution, but there is also redundancy because
we are doing sampling for enterococcus at the same time and we are doing weekly
samples.  We  will look at this more as the implementation of the program proceeds.
                                                                                         89

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
      Q (Roger Fujioka, University of Hawaii): It's clear that the source of most of the beach
     pollution has been identified as storm drains, rivers, or lakes coming into  the beach area.
     I have not seen enough data on the concentrations of the indicators in these kinds of
     waters.  It would be a greater variation in these kinds of waters than in sewage.  Do you
     have the data on the freshwater sites and their impact as it goes out into the ocean? How
     do you manage the runoff from the  land?

     Charles McGee:
          This summer, in southern California, the major metropolitan sewage agencies that treat
     the wastewater  are being pressured to accept  the nuisance flow in the summertime.  That is
     happening in LA County and Orange County. My agency is  accepting  the nuisance flows.
     Obviously, that can't happen during  the rainy season, but we don't  get rain in the summer-
     time.  These flows are being diverted right now just to remove the  problem, not addressing
     the problem. It's just taking the contamination to  the treatment plant.

     Q (Roger Fujioka):  How do you characterize the freshwater as to whether it's a lake,
     storm drain, or river? If it's a high level what do you do about it?  Is there any way to
     control that contamination from  the  land,  up in the watershed?

     Charles McGee:
         It depends on the level and the  flow of the discharge.  We need to  know what happens
     to freshwater when it hits the ocean.  The state and Heal the Bay are working on some
     distribution models of what happens to the freshwater when it hits the ocean.  Those are in
     the design phase right now.  It needs to be done, it is a very critical component in the
     equation that we don't have now.
90

-------
                                                                      Day Two: Session Three
NRDC's  Testing the  Waters,  1999
David Beckman
Natural Resources Defense Council
^•Whe Natural Resources Defense Council has
  I  published Testing the Waters, its annual
 M. summary of beach closure and advisory data
in the United States, for nine years. NRDC
compiles data from independent surveys and from
data collected by the United States EPA. The
Testing the Waters project was conceived by its
project director, NRDC Senior Attorney Sarah
Chasis.
     The 1999 edition of Testing the Waters
documents 7,236 beach closures and advisories in
the United States during calendar year 1998, a
figure that is nearly twice as large as the figure for
1997, and nearly three times the number recorded
in 1996.
     On a state-by-state basis, California logged
the most closures and advisories during 1998, with
over 3200 closures and advisories.  Florida posted
nearly  1900 closures during 1998. It is important
to note that states such as California that have
monitoring programs in place may post higher
numbers of closures and advisories than states that
do not. Accordingly, the total number of closures
recorded in a yeat in one state or locality may not
necessarily convey relative information about
beach water quality.
     When the reasons given for beach closures
and advisories during 1998 are examined, it is
clear that water quality monitoring results provide
the largest basis for the beach closures and adviso-
ries (69%); known pollution events (27%) and
precautionary action (8%) are also significant
reasons.
     Looking at the issue from a slightly different
perspective, the major sources of pollution listed
as responsible for beach closures in 1998 were as
follows: broken sewer lines and overflows (48%);
polluted runoff (31%); and rain-related preemptive
action (21%).
     NRDC's Testing the Waters report is now
accompanied by online information that allows
Internet users to access information about particu-
lar beaches around the country. This information
is part of NRDC's Internet site, www.nrdc.org.
                                                                                        91

-------
                                                                                        West Coast Regional Beach Conference
                          A GUIDE TO WfiTEfl
                          DUALITY AT WGAT10N
                                                                                STATES INCLUDED IN TESTING THE WATERS 1999
     Total Advisories and Closings, 1988-1998
                      (exekJdng extended end permanent)
     0000 I
         1388    1990   1992   1994   1996
     Note: Ikcassc of iocoRsistcncics in monitoring and closing practices among states and over time, it is
                   isiortf between slates or to assess trends over time based on the closing data.
Reported Causes of Advisories and Closings in 1998
 • A
 • B
 • C
based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standard

response to known pollution event without relying on monitoring

precautionary due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming waters

  ler reason
                                                                              D oth
   Reported Causes of Advisories and Closings in 1997
        based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standard

       t responsa to known pollution event without relying on monitoring
        precautionary due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming waters

       'Jothor reason
 Pollution Sources Responsible for Closings in 1998
 H A Sewage Spills and Overflows

 H B Polluted Runoff and Stormwater

 Q Q Rain or Preemptive (usually due to polluted stormwater or sewage overflows)
92

-------
                                                                 Day Two.- Session Three
Beaches Indicating Stormwater As Pollution Source
STATE

California
Florida
Conn ectlcu t
Michigan
New York
M assa ch usetts
Ohio
N orth C aro Itna
Indian a
W Isc onsln
Illinois
Total
Number
of Beaches
Reported In
1998
222
144
216
100
157
131
75
60
20
37
45
34
Number
of Beaches
Indicating
Stormwater
Pollution
Source
175
116 '
90
8 1
65
47.
3 I
29
20
18
18
13
Percent
Indicating
Stormwater
Pollution
Source
... 79% (
8i%:
42%;
.81%!
41%;
. 36%^
41 %j
'•48%]
Voo%"
49%;
40~%|
- - 3*fti
                                            FOUR STATES LACK ANY REGULAR MONITORING
                                               OF BEACHWATER FOR SWIMMER SAFETY
                                                        ALABAMA
                                                        LOUISIANA
                                                        OREGON
                                                        WASHINGTON
THIRTEEN STATES HAVE REGULAR MONITORING
 AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR
A PORTION OF THEIR RECREATIONAL BEACHES
^CALIFORNIA
^FLORIDA
^HAWAII
M/1AINE
^MARYLAND
^MASSACHUSETTS
^MICHIGAN
^MINNESOTA
^RHODE ISLAND
^SOUTH CAROLINA
^VIRGINIA
^WISCONSIN
      YORK
                            ONLY NINE STATES COMPREHENSIVELY
                              MONITOR MOST OR ALL OF THEIR
                              BEACHES AND NOTIFY THE PUBLIC
^CONNECTICUT

   ^DELAWARE

       ILLINOIS
 &NORTH CAROLINA

"&OHIO
                ^PENNSYLVANIA
                                                     INDIANA
                                               &>NEW JERSEY
                                                             &NEW HAMPSHIRE
     1988 COSTS OF OCEAN, BAY AND GREAT LAKES
 BEACH-MONITORING AND/OR ADVISORY-CLOSING PROGRAMS
                                             COMPARISON OF MONITORING AND CLOSURE POLICIES
                                             OF BEACHES IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
                                                             __^	 ...	
                                                      - enierococcus^^geneiallynQtTewet great^tftaffGM
                                                          	^^^thangsamplesr^ angtasampfsof-HH/IOOmTfora
                                                          	equaltifspacadovec__ "~ _
                                                           	
                                                                                 93

-------
                                                             West Coast Regional Beach Conference
VALUE OF COASTAL TOURISM
TO SELECTED STATES

STATE
Alabama
California
Odocflfa
HawM
Massachusetts
NewJ«reey
North Carclna
Oregon
South Caroffna
Texas
YEAR
1998
1997
1998
1998
1996
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
DOLLAR
VALUE
(Billions)
1 7
37,6
2.J4
14,6
65-
-58
1.4
1.3
4.0
1.9
NUMBER OF
RELATED
^JOBS
.39,309
-387,530
.Notavalabte
179,93^
- - "70.000
^:867»000
25.8BO
19,703,
73:284
-30,500
"—-=-=&;


94

-------
             Session FOUR
Beach Advisories, Closures,
   and Risk

-------

-------
                                                                         Day Two: Session Four
Communicating About  Ri
Sharon Dunwoody
University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Journalism and Mass Communication
      Communicating well about a risk, any risk,
      requires three domains of expertise:
      (1) topic expertise, (2) audience exper-
tise,  and (3) storytelling expertise. Many risk
managers emphasize the first over the other
two.  But leaving even one of the three to
chance can be lethal to a risk communication
effort. In this talk, we'll look briefly at those
two  neglected domains.
Audience Expertise

     The landscape of risk information cam-
paigns is littered with efforts that have foun-
dered on this issue. Knowing enough about the
audience to  make educated guesses  about the
nature and structure of risk messages is diffi-
cult, as each risk situation has its unique char-
acteristics. However, there are some general
patterns emerging from a growing risk commu-
nication and health  campaign literature that  will
come in handy:
    •  Audiences often bring well-developed
      beliefs about a risk to your issue. If your
      message offers content that collides with
      those beliefs, the thing most likely to get
      modified is your message, not the beliefs.
    •  The ability of audience to reconstruct
      messages to fit their own beliefs means that
      the strongest effect of the typical risk
      message is to reinforce existing beliefs, not
      change them.
    •  Individuals will distinguish between their
      personal level of risk and the risk posed to
      others, and they will employ different
      channels of information to inform those
      different types of risk judgment.
    •  The typical members of your audience will
      give your risk message a modicum of their
      time. This means they will analyze that
      message speedily and superficially. Addi-
      tionally, they will bring to that message a
      set of cognitive processing strategies that
      may truncate their ability to understand the
      evidence that you present.
      Audiences will develop their own notions
      of source credibility, and those notions may
      differ from yours.
Storytelling Expertise

     Knowing some of these things about your
audience can help you construct "stories" about
risk that stand a chance of being ingested and
understood. Here are some story attributes that are
sensitive to the issues mentioned above:
    •  If you sense that members of the audience
      indeed bring strong beliefs to the table, then
      you can try to cope with those beliefs in
      your message. This is not easy, but a
      storytelling strategy that is sensitive to
      strong beliefs may actually succeed, while
      one that is insensitive is guaranteed to fail.
      Here is how one might organize a message
      with strong beliefs in mind:
      1. Acknowledge the usefulness of the
        prevailing belief.
      2. Then, demonstrate how the prevailing
        belief fails to explain reality in other
        situations.
      3. Offer up the propositions you hope will
        replace the prevailing belief.
      4. Demonstrate how those propositions
        successfully explain a variety of situa-
        tions similar to the risk situation you
        face.
    •  Individuals will distinguish between their
      own personal risk and risk to others. They
      will want to interpret the typical risk
      message (i.e., mass messages) as telling
                                                                                          97

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conference
       them something  about  others' risk and
       will resist seeing those messages as
       informing their understanding of their
       personal  risk level. To influence personal
       risk judgments,  interpersonal  channels
       are best.
       Anticipating the  kinds  of cognitive biases
       that you will face allows you to embed in
       your  message  explanations  to help
       counteract them.
Heuristic (superficial) processing of
messages means  that audience members
will be relying on message cues to decide
what they think about a risk. Channel
credibility and source credibility will be
important cues. But other cues can be
built into the  messages themselves.
In a world of heuristic  processors, keep
messages  short.
98

-------
   Communicating About Risk
         Sharon Dunwoody
         School of Journalism and Mass
         Communication
         University of Wisconsin-Madison
                                                                          Day Two: Session Four
 Three types of expertise

 I Topic
 I Audience
 I Storytelling
Audience expertise
  Audiences already have robust beliefs
  The strongest effect of a message is
  reinforcement of those beliefs
  Risk referent matters
  Speedy interpretation will be the norm
  Credibility judgments are audience-not
  source-judgments
Storytelling expertise
I Coping with strong beliefs
  •Acknowledge usefulness of prevailing beliefs
  •Demonstrate flaws of those beliefs
  •Propose a new set of beliefs
  •Demonstrate utility of the new beliefs
Storytelling expertise
  My risk vs. their risk
  Use mediated channels to encourage people to learn
  about a risk but interpersonal channels to promote
  behavior change
Storytelling expertise

  Anticipate cognitive biases that people will
  bring to your message
  •The power of anecdotal evidence
  •All things have causes
  •Oversimplification of cause and effect
                                                                                          99

-------
                                                                 West Coast Regional Beach Conference
  Storytelling expertise
    Heuristic information processors will rely
    on different message cues than will
    systematic information processors
    •Brevity is best
    •Credibility of channel matters more than credibility of
    source
    •What single main point do you wish to convey?
    •Expertise cues are important
100

-------
                                                                        Day Two: Session Four
The Aftermath  of the  Santa Monica
Bay Epidemiology  Study
Mark Gold
Heal the Bay
   In the spring of 1996, the Santa Monica Bay
   Restoration Project (SMBRP) released the
   results of the first ever epidemiology study
on swimmers in urban runoff contaminated
waters.  The USC-led study demonstrated that
there was a significant correlation between the
incidence of adverse health effects and expo-
sure  to runoff contaminated waters with high
indicator bacteria densities.  Subsequent to the
release of the study, there has been a great deal
of progress on beach public health issues.
     In the Los Angeles area, a new beach
closure and health warning protocol was
developed  and the county lifeguards now warn
people to avoid swimming in runoff-contami-
nated waters.  Also, local government agencies
have initiated a program to divert the dry
weather runoff from polluted storm drains and
into the sewer system.  Dry weather runoff
diversions take polluted runoff out of the surf-
zone,  thereby greatly reducing the health risks
to swimmers. By the end of the summer, seven
runoff diversions will have been implemented
with  another five scheduled for next year.
Also,  San Diego has implemented a similar
runoff diversion program on an even larger
scale. Perhaps the most unique project is the
Santa Monica Dry Weather Runoff Diversion
Facility scheduled for completion in the spring
of 2000. This project will treat up to 500,000
gallons per day of runoff with filtration and
disinfection.  The treated runoff will be used for
irrigation within the community.
     Shortly after the release of the study, Santa
Barbara County initiated a shoreline indicator
bacteria monitoring program and a beach
closure and health warning protocol.
     Statewide, the  major outcome of the study
was the passage of Assembly Bill 411 authored
by San Diego's Howard Wayne. Last month,
the California Department of Health Services
issued emergency  regulations to implement bill
requirements.  For the first tune, California has
statewide bathing  standards  (based largely on
the results of the SMBRP epidemiology study),
mandatory requirements to post polluted
beaches  with  warning signs and close beaches
polluted by sewage spills, and mandatory
monitoring programs  for popular, runoff
contaminated beaches.  Also, the state will
provide funding to local health  agencies to
implement AB411 requirements.  For the first
time, water quality data and beach closure
information will be comparable  from county to
county.
     On a regional basis, Heal the Bay has
expanded its weekly Beach Report Card to
include over 250 locations  in Orange, Los
Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
For the last nine years, Heal the Bay has graded
over 60 beaches in Los Angeles  County on a
scale of "A" to "F" based on bacterial indicator
densities in shoreline waters. The grades are
based on the frequency of days  over a 28-day
period that exceeds AB411 thresholds. Heal the
Bay uses the monitoring data from health
agencies and sewage  treatment plant monitor-
ing programs.  All of the agencies in Southern
California have been  extremely  cooperative in
sharing data on a timely basis so that Heal the
Bay can release the information  to the media
and put it on our web site (www.healthebay.org)
by noon every Friday. The Report Card has
proven to be a very popular tool to provide the
public with water quality and beach closure
information.  Heal the Bay  hopes to add San
                                                                                      101

-------
                                                             West Coast Regional Beach Conference
Diego beaches to our Beach Report card by the
end of the year.
     EPA Region 9 has contracted with Heal
the Bay to complete a model national beach
standards, monitoring and public notification
program.  Currently, staff are still in the infor-
mation gathering and drafting phase.  Our hope
is  to release a peer-reviewed document by the
end of the year. The objective is to provide a
national model program that  will provide
comparable data from region to region and that
will provide the public with water quality
information in a timely manner.
     An upcoming  study  led by the Southern
California Coastal Waters Research Project with
the city of Los Angeles and Heal the Bay
should provide valuable  information on the
importance of storm drain flow and  shoreline
currents on the fate and transport of indicator
bacteria.  One of the shortcomings of the
SMBRP epidemiology  study was the lack of
flow and current data.  The end result was that
there was no significant  correlation between the
incidence of adverse health effects and the
distance  swimmers  were from flowing storm
drains.  Risk managers need to be able to
provide the public  with  general recommenda-
tions to reduce the risk of adverse health  effects
on swimmers. One of the goals of the study is
to provide recommendations  on a simple model
to apply nationwide for risk managers to  protect
the health  of swimmers at contaminated
beaches.  The study should be completed by
next spring.
     Another ongoing  effort  is the development
of bacterial  indicator and pathogen Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all
Ventura and Los Angeles County beaches  by
2003.  The  Los  Angeles  Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board (LARWQCB) is currently in
charge of this effort. This program is a result of
a Heal the  Bay,  Santa  Monica BayKeeper
lawsuit brought  by  the Natural Resources
Defense Council against  EPA. The end result
should be TMDL development for all beaches
impaired for recreational water contact, the
development of  Waste Load  Allocations  and
Load Allocations for fiscal bacteria sources
upstream of the  polluted beaches, and an
implementation plan for  achieving the TMDLs
and  the load allocations.
     In a related effort, the LARWQCB is
working with Malibu on  a study of septic
systems and their potential role  in contributing
high densities of indicator bacteria at local
beaches.   Also,  Assemblywoman Hanna-Beth
Jackson has introduced AB885  to develop
performance standards  for on-site wastewater
treatment facilities in coastal  counties.  The bill
became a two-year  bill after  objections from
Malibu, some  coastal counties and realtor
associations. Currently,  there are  no state
regulations  governing water quality from  on-
site  treatment  systems.
 102

-------
    The Aftermath of the Santa
Monica Bay Epidemiology Study

             Dr. Mark Gold
           Executive Director
              Heal the Bay
                                                                              Day Two: Session Four
 Santa Monica Bay Epi. Study

First epidemiological study on swimmers in
urban-runoff contaminated waters
Designed to answer two questions:
 - Is distance of swimming from storm drain
  associated with risk of adverse health
  outcomes?
 - Do bacteria indicators predict risk of adverse
  health outcomes?
   Major Finding of Epi. Study

 Correlation between incidence of adverse
 health effects (gastroenteritis and upper
 reparatory infections) and swimming in
 water with high indicator densities
 Those who swim in front of flowing drain
 are twice as likely to get sick than those 400
 yards away
    Changes in S. California

Santa Barbara initiated a monitoring and
notification program
San Diego developed a dry weather
diversion plan
LA County
 - Signs posted at every flowing storm drain
 — Lifeguards actively warn swimmers near drains
 - Local government agencies commit to dry
  weather diversions
 SM Bay Dry Weather Diversions

• Total of 12 diversions
  - 2 completed since epi. study
  - 5 in 1999,4 in 2000, 1 in 2001-2001
• City of LA, County of LA, City of Santa
 Monica
• Santa Monica Dry Weather Runoff
 Diversion Facility (DWRRF) - 2000
   Statewide Changes—AB411

Major outcome of Epi. Study
Passed without major opposition
Consistent monitoring, posting and closure
protocols throughout the state
Significant Public Right-to-Know
component
Improved programs in several counties such
as Ventura County, Long Beach
                                                                                                103

-------
        Expansion of Heal the Bay's
             Beach Report Card

      250 beach locations
      Expansion includes Orange, Ventura and
      Santa Barbara Counties, and Long Beach
      Modification of grading system
      Annual Beach Report Card expansion
                                                                   West Coasit Regional Beach Conference
  On-Going Efforts in SM Bay

SCCRWP Beach Closure Study
 - Physical and/or statistical model of bacteria
  indicator plume from storm drains in SM Bay
 - Predictive tool for length of beach impacted
Malibu septic tank investigation
 - Chronic contamination at Surfrider Beach
 - RWQCB/City of Malibu source investigation
          On-Going Efforts—State
                  Legislation

      AB 885 (Jackson)
       — Requires state standards for on-site wastewater
        treatment systems
       - Much opposition, now a 2-year bill
      AB 538 (Wayne)
       - Follow-up to AB 411
       - Requires DHS to establish source investigation
        protocol
   On-Going Efforts Regional

Beach Water Quality Group\
EPA's Model Program for Beach
Monitoring and Public Notification
EPA's West Coast Beach Health Website
          LA and Ventura County
          Microbiological TMDLs

      Consent Decree established schedule for
      development
      $340k to support development of SM Bay
      ColifonnTMDL
      Heal the Bay supports:
      - TMDLs equivalent to AB 411 standards
      - Implementation through Basin Plans, permits
        and watershed management plans
         Future Actions
Promote National Bathing Water Standards
Promote Beach Report Card or similar
format to inform the public
Ensure AB-411 is working as intended
Support development of source
investigation protocol
Support development and implementation
of microbiological TMDLs
104

-------
                                                                           Day Two: Session Four
Beach Advisories  and  Closures
Chris Gonaver
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health
^•Pfhe Beach Safety Bill (AB411, Wayne, D-
  •  San Diego) was signed in to law in  1997
 Jft. to provide for statewide standardization  of
coastal water testing, beach posting criteria and
increased  public health protection for recre-
ational users of our coastal waters. This law
requires coastal municipalities to test beach
water quality within their jurisdiction and to
post warning signs  whenever water quality fails
to meet bacteriological standards  adopted by
regulation. The California Department of
Health Services (DHS)  developed emergency
regulations for  AB411 that  standardize the
testing of coastal waters, posting criteria and  the
dissemination of beach closure  information to
the public.
     The  regulations (17 CCR §115880 et seq.)
require local health officers to:
    •  Weekly test coastal water at all public
       beaches between April 1  and  October  31;
       where (a) storm drains flow to the surf
       zone and (b) have 50,000 visitors annu-
       ally,
    •  Analyze  samples  for  four indicator
       criteria: total coliform (TC), fecal
       coliform (FC), TC/FC ratio and entero-
       coccus,
    •  Post beaches with signs when regulatory
       health  standards are  exceeded,
    •  Notify the public  via telephone hotline
       [(619)  338-2073]  when beach water
       quality exceeds regulatory  health stan-
       dards.
     The  Department of Environmental Health
(DEH) is  the local  agency responsible for
implementing AB411 in  San Diego  County.
Many  features  incorporated in AB411 are
modeled from DEH's existing Beach & Bay
Monitoring Program.  Under the new AB411
program,  samples are collected weekly  from
138 coastal sites.  When state standards  are
exceeded, beaches are posted with warning
signs and the public is notified via a beach
closure hotline, via the DEH Web site
(www.co.san-diego.ca.us/deh) and on the
weather page of the local newspaper (San
Diego  Union-Tribune).
     AB411 uses the terms "posting" and
"closure."  "Posting" is  used at beaches where
recreational water contact is restricted due to
storm water runoff pollution and "closure" is
used at beaches where recreational water is
restricted due to sewage spills.  Past regulations
and practice caused a beach to be posted if total
and fecal coliform water quality standards were
exceeded.  AB411 regulations  will require a
beach to be posted (closed) if any one of four
water quality standards is exceeded.  The
scientific evidence that supports  this state
requirement has been questioned by many local
agencies.  A study published in April 1999 by
the Southern California  Coastal Water Research
Project, found a high degree of  inconsistency
among the three bacterial indicators used as  the
basis for beach posting  decisions.
     The bottom line is  that the new AB411
regulations will probably result in an increase in
beach postings (closures) and  a corresponding
perception by the public that water quality at
our beaches has decreased. In reality, we are
just using a different set of indicators.
     On the plus  side, the Beach Safety  Bill
(AB411) requires standardized coastal water
quality  monitoring and  public  notification for
all coastal municipalities.  Unfortunately, much
of the  scientific evidence is unavailable  to
demonstrate that  the proposed bacteriological
recreational water quality standards will achieve
the intent of AB411: to  reduce risk  of illness
due to contact with contaminated coastal water.
                                                                                           105

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
                  1999 Beach Conference
        Beach Closures & Advisories
                    Chris Gonaver, Chief
                    County of San Diego
                    Department of Environmental Health
Beach Closures and Advisories
                                                         i protect bathers from illness
                                                         i warn bathers of risk
                                                         i inform bathers about pollutant sources
      Legal Framework for Beach
                 Closures
      • Federal
        - Pending Legislation
          • HR 999 (Bilbray)
      • California
        - Existing Law
          • H&SC§5410etse<7.
          • H&SC §115880 (AB411, Wayne)
        - Emergency Regulations
          • 17 CCR §7956 etseq.
      Following California
           Regulations
  i Single Sample Standard
  15 Week Log Mean Standard
                 Definitions

      iCLOSURE
       - sewage spills
       - persistent problems
      i POSTING
       - pollution at storm drains
       - exceedance of standards
      i GENERAL ADVISORY
       - urban runoff following rain (>0.2")
      Map of San Diego's
          Sample Sites
   138 Coastal Sites
   -55 by City of SD
   - 54 by County
   - 5 by Encina
   - 6 by IBWC
   -11 by Oceanside
   - 7 by San Elijo
106

-------
                                                                                Day Two: Session Four
Beach Closures and Advisories

  • Beach Postings & Closures result in:
    - signs placed in the sand
    - web site that lists locations
    - newspaper that lists posted beaches
    - press release (if closed due to sewage)
    - recorded message on telephone hotline
  • Advisories
    - web site notification
    - newspaper notification
    - recorded message on telephone hotline
      Informative Signs
                            KEEP OUT
                           SEWAGE CONTAMINATED
                               WATER
                           OCSWJ WATER MAX CAUSE tt-UffiSS
      Webpage Notification
 Newspaper Notification
         Ocean  Illness Survey
       Overall Status

i Postings / Closures
 - Before AB411 Regulation (<7/26/1999):
    • about 1 posting/week
    • about 1 closure/week
 -After AB411 Regulation (>7/26/1999):
    • about 3 postings/week
    • about 1 closure/week
                                                                                                  107

-------
                                                             West Coast Regional Beach Conference
        Determinants of Beach
   Postings/Closures Since AB411

     • Postings Attributed to AB411 are due to:
       - Single standard exceedance (Enterococcus),
       - Single day exceedance (confirmation sample
        would not detect presence of bacteria
        exceeding standards)
     • Closures Attributed to AB411 are:
       - not yet determined (5-week Log mean)
Posting at Childrens Pool
      Getting more Information

     • Internet:
       - www.co.san-diego.ca. us/deh
     • Beach and Bay Hotline:
       - 619-338-2073
108

-------
                                                                      Day Two: Session Four
                              - Answer  Session
Panel: David Beckman, Sharon Dunwoody, Mark Gold, and Chris Gonaver
Q (Suzanne Michel, San Diego State University, Department of Political Science):  One of
the things that I have noticed, especially here in San Diego, is issues of beach closures,
water issues,  and urban growth.  There is a serious disjunct between what is happening in
coastal communities  and inland communities.  Inland communities upstream are rapidly
growing.  They don't  care about storm water. If there are sewage spills, there is no notifica-
tion.  It's good that we are talking about what is happening at the beaches,  but we need to
start thinking about what's going on upstream.  Upstream  is where the urban growth is
occurring, and the upstream communities  don't care what's happening downstream.  With
Heal the Bay are you starting to interact with  these groups and look at the  watershed
perspective ?

Mark Gold:
     We are  very involved in watershed management and  have been for over a decade  at
Heal the Bay.  I think that one of the biggest reasons that  the BayKeeper, NRDC,  and Heal
the Bay brought the  TMDL lawsuit  in the  Los  Angeles region was this very issue.  We were
increasingly frustrated by the lack of uniformity in compliance with weak storm water
permits.  We have each fought many storm water permits,  trying to  get them tougher and
tougher.   The reality is  that until you get  wasteload allocations and load allocations as-
signed to certain  cities as part of their storm water permits, the issue that you are concerned
about, I  think, is going  to continue  to happen.  As long as watershed management is 100
percent voluntary, these problems  are still  going to occur.  We got involved in all  of the
various  activities, watershed management  committees, TMDLs, and  storm  water permit
commenting.

Chris Gonaver:
     Sewage spills are treated equally no matter where they are in the county.  Public
notification and posting-all are treated the same way. The ones in the coastal  areas are just
most obvious with more signs.  Regarding watersheds, there is a large effort under way in
the county to coordinate watershed involvement.  I think  that those watershed activities
have been in the closet individually for a long time, but there is a real effort now to bring
everybody together and share information  as far as who is doing what. From the  land use
 standpoint, there are storm water requirements in place for development and redevelop-
ment construction.   Talk to Donna Frye for watershed planning  information.

 Comment (Suzanne Michel):  I just want to comment to make my point. I know sewage
 spills are all treated the same. There was a huge  spill in Santee, 400,000 gallons.  I went
 around and talked to people in Santee and (a) not one person knew about it and (b) they
 didn't even seemed  to care, that's just what happens. When  you're sitting at the beach
 with a closing, you  care.  There is  a definite disjunct in attitudes between coastal  and inland
                                                                                       109

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
     communities.   I think we need to do more to get the inland communities more involved in
     understanding what is going  on downstream.

     Q (Douglas Moore, Orange County Public Health Laboratory):  On the posting versus
     closings, San Diego isn't the  only area confused by the signs.  Since a posting equals a
     closing, are the lifeguards  ticketing on postings and closings?

     Chris Gonaver:
         Yes.  In the city of San  Diego only.  From our standpoint, we don't want people in the
     water for either of those events.

     Mark Gold:
         As a follow-up, in the LA region, we looked at it as a voluntary versus an involuntary
     risk.  That's why we differentiate between postings versus closings.  You can't close
     Surfrider Beach permanently.  As Chris was demonstrating with the health survey,  if it's
     breaking at 2 to 4 feet at whatever beach, people are going to be there.  To put that sort of
     impetus on the lifeguards and the public.  I think that the Surfriders want to use their own
     discretion.

     Comment (Douglas Moore):  In the city of Huntington  Beach the Mayor said that I would
     be fined $500 for going in the water when there was a  posting or a closure.  I  don't see
     how to explain to  the public the difference between a posting and a closing.

     Comment  (Chris Kinner, Surfrider Foundation):   They advocate personal risk management
     with regard  to the postings  and  closures.  They also advocate an informed public and want
    them to know the potential  for contamination and the associated risks.   Many  surfers  are
    water conscious and water aware and are  able  to make those certain risk assessments on
    their own.   Obviously with known closures due to contamination many  surfers aren't  going
    to weigh a personal choice. If its closed, its closed.

    Q (Sydney Harvey,  Los Angeles County Department of  Health Services):  I find the data
    from Mark Gold's report on the  Santa Monica Study relevant to the total-to-fecal cotiform
    ratio correlation to human disease  very intriguing.  I wonder if you did species identifica-
    tion of the total coliforms?

    Mark Gold:
        No, it was just the standard test.  Both membrane  filtration and multiple tube methods
    were used.

    Q  (Sydney Harvey):  Did you select colonies for species identification?

    Mark Gold:
        No.

    Q (Sydney Harvey):  You did not know if you were looking at coliforms or a high percent-
    age of aeromonads?

    Mark Gold:
        That  is  correct.
110

-------
                                                                        Day Two: Session Four
Q  (Sydney Harvey):  Are there any plans to do this?
Mark Gold:
     No.  It sounds like these are things we should really talk about.

Q (Sydney Harvey):  Did the Los Angeles  County Public Health Laboratory do some of the
assays relevant to your study?

Mark Gold:
     The county monitors about  35 beaches every week. During the course of the actual
epidemiological study, all the bacteriological surveys were done by the City of Los Angeles
Environmental Monitoring Division by membrane filtration.   Los Angeles  County only
participated as reviewers.

Comment (Sydney Harvey):   We have looked at total coliform  populations coming from
various places along the Los Angeles County coast. Quite a number of what are obviously
false positives are aeromonads.   They are  not coliforms and, depending on the test method-
ology one uses, you can get Vibrio as false positives.  I think that it would be very interest-
ing and  informative to look at what the total coliform and fecal coliform really means in
terms of health risk.

Q (Clay Clifton, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health):  Is there a policy
or guidance from EPA or another agency regarding posting of contaminated water signs  at
a beach which is  already under  a general advisory for  rainfall?  If you have  a significant
rainfall  event on a Sunday night, that rainfall advisory will be  in effect at all  beach loca-
tions adjacent to flowing storm drains and* river outlets for 72  hours from Monday on.  If
Monday's samples are  high, is there guidance that says that the  location should be posted
with a sign?  If you have routine data with high bacteria counts for a location that is
already  under a  general advisory, what's  the proper notification?  Are you serving the
public to post a beach that is already under a  general  advisory and not post an adjacent
beach which does not have a routine sample location, but has  a flowing storm drain? Are
you sending a mixed message?

Sharon Dunwoody:
      The only thing that you can do in that situation is  ask people. One of the things that I
 do is spot interviewing on a site. Ask the people how they are interpreting the signs that
 they see.  We don't know how the people are reacting to the signs in your area, but there
 are  ways of finding out.

 Q (Clay Clifton): From risk assessment, is it better to have  the population at beach A
 notified with signs because you  have the  routine sample that confirms high bacteria levels
 after a  rainfall event or beach B which does not post because  they do not have the data to
 verify the high bacteria counts?   Are you  better off to save one and not post signs at the
 beach for  the second?

 Comment (Rick Hoffman, US Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Science and
 Technology):  EPA's official guidance is currently confined to general, ambient monitoring
 of water quality,  not for beach advisories, so that falls  to the county health department.
 That is one of the things that we are going to be talking about in our future guidance.
                                                                                          Ill

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
     Mark Gold:
          Most of the counties that I have dealt with feel that as long as they change their hotline
     and  get the information out to the media about the rainfall by sending out a press release
     every time it rains, that should suffice.  I think that putting signs up is redundant.   We need
     to get the message out that  when it rains, you shouldn't go in.

     Comment (Gerry Winant, Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services):  Three
     years ago,  we didn't have a program.  We got blasted by the  national press for  not having a
     monitoring program.  Finally, the Board of Supervisors took the heat from the public and
     decided that this was  something that we needed to do.  That was the formative step to do
     that and thanks to Heal the  Bay for helping develop our program.   Also, I would like to
     comment that I found that the transition of the NRDC survey to the EPA format is unwork-
     able.  It seems overdetailed,  and I'm not sure how much information can  adequately be
     conveyed in that format.  Some of the information  is  difficult to accumulate.

     Comment (Rick Hoffman):  The purpose  of the survey is to develop a national perspective
     and answer many different questions such as  what  standards are in effect,  identify  the
     beaches, and determine how many people visit those  beaches  (to give  people  a  sense of
     utilization), etc.  When we were formulating some of those questions, we looked at NRDC's
     survey and a couple of the state and local agency surveys. I think we recognize exactly
     what you have said, in that it is a very detailed questionnaire.  We have tried to  assist folks
     as best we can in putting it into a usable format.  If there are ways that we  can simplify  the
     survey, we certainly are amenable to that and would  appreciate any comments on those
     things you^may feel are not  as pertinent as  others.   Some of the questions are  more "pro-
     grammatic" (in the sense of  the levels of monitoring, visitation, etc.). You might not need
     these facts, but on a nationwide  basis, this  provides important information  such  as the
     average costs and other general program  characteristics.  We hope that once you get  the
     basic information  into the database, the only  changes  should be the beach-specific  informa-
     tion from year to year. It should be easier to complete the second  year. The burden falls
     most heavily on some  of the localities that have a small number of personnel and a fair
     number of  beaches.

     Q (Jim Colston, Orange County Sanitation District):  One of the themes that I have seen in
     this session is the  issue of urban runoff.  Before the State Water Board is the Nonpoint
    Source  Program.   The official comment period closed  on Monday,  but there will be a public
    hearing. This is done  in conjunction  with the Coastal  Commission  and under CZARA.   It's
    important to realize that the  proposal  is a three-tiered approach where there is  a 15-year
    cycle: 5 years of voluntary, 5 years  of encouraged,  and then 5 years of an enforcement
    level for nonpoint sources. This is a  rehash of a 1988 proposal.  The comments we submit-
    ted are that they should redo the three tiers so that tier one would be for waters  that meet
    standards, tier two would be for impaired waters that are low or medium priority for
    receiving a TMDL,  and tier three for impaired waters  that are  a high priority for receiving
    a TMDL.  We feel that this is a much more appropriate approach that will result in water
    quality improvement, assuming that the lists are done correctly.  This will go before the
    Water Board soon.  I hope that EPA  would support the strengthening of California's regu-
    lations.

    Mark Gold:
        Thank you for bringing  that up.  That has been one of NRDC's and our organization's
    priorities over the summer. You are correct.  I feel that the document will not bring us any
112

-------
                                                                          Day Two: Session Four
^u^w*
 closer to real  watershed management; protecting our beaches; or stopping  runoff problems
 caused by agriculture, marinas, or cities.  It's just a list of what is going on in the state of
 California and there is no mention of how you move from one tier to another.  There's no
 lead agency named. Unfortunately EPA  and NOAA, the lead agencies federally, don't have
 any teeth in getting the state of California to strengthen the program, other than provide
 critical review. They can approve it or disapprove it,  but that would get rid of the funding
 for the Coastal Commission, so there  is little EPA and NOAA can do to help.
                                                                                           113

-------
                                                         West Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Summary  of  Breakout  Groups
    Breakout sessions were held at each of the regional conferences to gather input for the
    Beach Guidance document.  Participants were asked a series of questions regarding the
    major topic areas that will be included in the document.


    Major Topic Areas for Beach Guidance

        1.  Microbial Indicators of Water Quality
           a.  Overview  of health risks—previous  studies
           b.  Review of specific indicators
           c.  Recommendations
       2.  Water  Quality Monitoring
           a. Basic considerations in water quality monitoring
           b.  Field procedures
           c. Laboratory procedures
       3.  Predictive Tools
           a. Rainfall-based guidelines
           b. Fate and transport models
       4. Risk Assessment, Management and Communication
           a. Risk assessment
           b. Risk management
           c. Risk communication

       Each breakout group was asked two questions for each of the four topic areas:
       1. Are there any additional major topics  that should be considered for inclusion in
          the guidance? (no additional major topic areas were identified)
       2. Identify the major challenges to successful implementation, possible solutions,
          and barriers to implementing the  solutions.


   Microbial Indicators

       1.  Challenge: Ability to Conduct a Rapid Analysis
          Solutions:
          • develop a "dip stick" method
          • update  new methods
          Barriers:
          • fluorospectrometry - needs  validation and approval
          • consultants  and vendors
          • cost
          • skills and training
114

-------
                                                            Day Two: Breakout Summary
Challenge: Use of Viruses in Addition to Currently Acceptable Indicators
Solutions:
• conduct further research on diseases caused by viruses
   - upper respiratory, skin, and ear infections
   - use of phages as indicators
Barrier:
• cost
Challenge: Need  to Have Flexibility in the Choice of Methods and Indicators
Solutions:
• create a matrix to show comparability of validated methods for freshwater and
  marine water
• change regulation(s) based on good science and associated health risks
• update approved  methods
• include  recommendations  for assessing acute  GI disease
• recommendations  should be based on  different classes of risks  (World Health
  Organization document, figure 5, page 20)
• collect more data on human vs. animal  indicators and health-associated risks
• EPA should hasten the approval process for assessing indicators
• determine which indicators  are affected  by tropical conditions
• consider region and source applicability
Barriers:
• inconsistencies between programs
•  entrenched attitudes
•  established local laws
•  lack of communication
•  public confusion
•  cost
Challenge: Lack of a Central One-Stop  Information Source
Solutions:
 •  publish EPA critique of new research on indicators
 •  create  a web site with relevant documents, information, case studies, and refer-
   ences
 Barrier:
 •  internal (EPA) and external barriers to completing the research review

 Challenge: Limitations of Existing Indicators and Methods (regional and source
 issues)
 Solutions:
 •  develop a 3-track  approach
    -  improve existing indicators
    -  develop better indicators
    -  conduct health studies to verify existing and new indicators
 •  improve communication  between laboratories and  regulatory agencies
 Barriers:
 •  resources
 •  technology
 •  cost-effectiveness
 •  West Coast data  sets are  different from  East Coast
                                                                                   115

-------
                                                               West Coast Regional Beach Conference
     Water Quality Monitoring

        1.  Challenge: Improve Monitoring Coordination
            Solutions:
            •  encourage storm water agencies to monitor bacteria
            •  determine uses of data
            •  investigate the use of volunteer monitoring programs
            •  change legislation
            •  coordinate regulations
            •  use the TMDL process as a tool
            •  develop  sample handling procedures
              - need for longer storage
              - certify more laboratories
            Barrier:
            •  variability of data vs.  "load" target
        2.  Challenge:  Sampling Design Issues
            Solutions:
            •  consider the larger picture, history of the site, and pollution sources
            •  consider and report local land use
            •  define  frequency and timing of sampling
              - change requirements for  frequency  of monitoring  depending on type of
                incident
              - define when to resample
              - allow enough time in the standards  to collect the samples
            •  clarify  the sampling schedule  (peak  and random)
            •  consider sample parameters
              - wind speed, temperature, DO, pH, turbidity
              - collection location
            •  suggest the  "control chart"  (quality control) approach
            •  standardize aspects of  the monitoring such as, depth,  number of sites, and loca-
              tion and statistical protocols
            •  develop nationally acceptable design considerations
              - include ambient vs. worse case
              - use  technical workgroups for peer review
            •  reevaluate monitoring  regulations
            •  correlate  monitoring  with  health effects/risks
            Barriers:
            •  currently not being done
            •  compliance issues
            •  sample representation of the swimming area
            •  cost
            •  time requirements to interpret and analyze the data
       3. 'Challenge: Varying Sample Locations
           Solutions:
           •  clarify areas  to be  sampled relevant to  storm drains
           •  address site-specific  sampling, e.g.,storm drains
           Barrier:
           •  difficult to distinguish  for confined areas, e.g., open ocean and freshwater
       4.  Challenge: Need  to Optimize Programs
           Solutions:
           • provide a tool  box for identifying problems
116

-------
                                                                   Day Two: Breakout Summary
       •  identify a lead agency to  develop a model monitoring program
       •  develop ancillary data collection programs  (beyond bacteria)
       Barriers:
       •  cost
       •  leadership
       •  jurisdictional restrictions
Predictive Tools
       Challenge: Application of East  Coast, West Coast,  and International Models
       Solutions:
       •  consider appropriate locations, timing, and dry weather flows
       •  develop two kinds of weather models based  on wet and dry conditions
       •  allow for adequate  peer review
       Barriers:
       •  data requirements  and compilation
       •  randomness  of rainfall and pollution events
       Challenge: Develop Rainfall-Based Guidelines
       Solutions:
       •  consider regional variability
       •  develop a general advisory (i.e., 2 inches for beaches and 0.1 inch for storm
          water)
       •  develop guidance on how to adapt standards based on site-specific conditions
       Barriers:
       •  regional variability
       •  legal issues
       Challenge: How  to Assess a Rainfall Event
       Solutions:
       •  coordinate with local storm water programs
       •  develop a wet weather model
       Barriers:
       •  frequent rain  events
       •  areas with high rainfall
       Challenge: Lack of Comprehensive Predictive  Tools
       Solutions:
       •  offer grants  to regional agencies to coordinate  and manage fate and  transport and
          flow-based dispersion models for personal computers
       •  create a database of results to fit models
       •  field test the models  and determine risk management guidelines for a variety of
          requirements,  e.g.,  waterbody type,  lakes, and ocean
       •  utilize  local universities for research
       Barriers:
       •  cost
       •  reliability
       •  technical and  training issues
       •  varied parameters
       •  legal issues
                                                                                         117

-------
                                                              West Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Risk Assessment, Management, and Communication

        1.   Challenge: Uniform Signage
            Solutions:
            •  apply standards nationally
            •  develop on-site management of signs  (size, content, and positioning  distance)
            •  define  reopening  procedures
            Barriers:
            •  cost
            •  reluctance to  change
        2.   Challenge: Communication of Risk to the Public
            Solutions:
            •  provide access to  information on how simplified values (Green Light, Red Light)
              are derived for beach reporting (e.g., Heal the Bay, EMPACT web sites)
            •  provide a  decision tree showing how  beach advisories/closings are determined
            •  provide successful outreach documents as an  appendix in the guidance
            •  define  the difference between an advisory and closing procedures
            •  post fliers  with lifeguards, surf shops,  stores, hotels, fast food shops, and restau-
              rants
            •  encourage  the use of hotlines and press release
            •  educate lifeguards to reinforce postings and closings
            •  define indicators for the public
            •  educate upstream communities on the  effects of water pollution (watershed
              approach)
           Barriers:
            •  enforcement
            •  mixed  messages
           •  costs
              -  individual
              -  society
           •  public trust
        3.  Challenge: Getting Balanced Media Coverage
           Solutions:
           •  develop guidance on successful  ways to communicate  with the media (case
              studies)
           Barriers:
           •  media likes to control the message
           •  lack of conclusive data
        4.  Challenge: Using Risk Assessment Assumptions
           Solutions:
           • present  major caveats
           • use a weight-of-evidence  approach  with assessments
           • field test for accuracy
           Barrier:
           • assumptions lead to  high  uncertainty
        5.  Challenge: Lack of Problem "Visibility"
           Solution:
           • conduct a national campaign to  increase beach issue awareness
           Barriers:
           • overreactions
118

-------
                                                                 Day Two: Breakout Summary
       •  mixed-messages
       •  congressional  constraint
   6.  Challenge:  Risk  Management
       Solutions:
       •  Assess adequacy of BMPs for pathogens
       •  diaper bans
       •  adequate restroom facilities
   Barriers:
   •   none identified
   7.  Challenge:  Identification  of Source Contamination
       Solutions:
       •  provide lists of available tools (i.e., American Water Works Association)
       •  provide guidance on sanitary surveys
       •  develop additional methods to identify sources
          -  DNA fingerprinting
          -  RNA probes
          -  tracers for  sewage
          -  sentinel organisms/mussels
       •  recommend providing  adequate  restroom facilities
       •  develop urban runoff versus storm water source issues
       Barriers:
       •  lack of historical information on sites
       •  costs
Recommendations to Include in the Guidance Document

    1.  Encourage  consistency between surveys  to limit  duplication of effort (e.g., state,
       NRDC, EPA, GLNPO)
       • beach mile day
       • water quality data
       • beach names
       • consistent data transfer protocols
    2.  Define terms (define a beach versus  a swimming area)
    3.  Include case studies
    4.  Develop sample handling procedures
       • need for longer storage
       • certify more laboratories
    5.  Include state-specific information and resources
    6.  Encourage  states to  conduct epidemiological studies
    7.  Hasten  the approval  process for approving indicators at EPA
                                                                                       119

-------
                                                        West Coast Regional Beach Conference
   Speakers9   Biographies
   Mark Anderson

        Mr. Anderson is a biologist for the National Park Service and Director of the Beach
   Monitoring Program at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Page, Arizona.  He
   received his B.S. in Biology and M.S. in Environmental Science at the University of North
   Texas in Denton, Texas.  Mr. Anderson has been working in aquatic ecology and certified
   environmental laboratories for 8 years. He spent 4 years studying the effects of land use
   and industrial activity on playa wetlands in west Texas. His current work includes manag-
   ing two  certified laboratories at Glen Canyon National  Recreation Area and developing a
   more scientifically sound beach-monitoring program for Lake Powell.

   David Beckman

        Mr. Beckman directs the water quality program in the Los Angeles office of the
   Natural  Resources Defense  Council, where he is a senior attorney. He received his A.B.
   from the University of California at Berkeley and his law degree from Harvard Law School.
   Mr. Beckman's work at NRDC focuses on matters relating to Clean Water Act enforcement,
   including storm water pollution control and TMDLs. Mr. Beckman has litigated major
   storm water enforcement actions against Caltrans and Los Angeles County and is currently
   representing NRDC, Santa Monica BayKeeper, San Francisco BayKeeper, and Heal the Bay
   with respect to TMDLs in California.  Prior to joining NRDC in 1995, Mr. Beckman was in
   private practice in San Francisco for three years.

   Steven Book, Ph.D.

        Dr. Book is a toxicologist with the California Department of Health Services' drinking
   water program.  He received his A.B. in Biological Sciences from the University of Califor-
   nia at Berkeley and his M.A. in Zoology and his Ph.D. in Physiology from the University  of
   California at Davis.  He has held a number of positions in California's public health and
   environmental protection agencies, serving in various capacities in DHS, the Health and
   Welfare Agency, and Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Most
   of his work has been on the evaluation of public health risks from environmental contami-
   nants, and the incorporation of scientific matters into public policy.  Prior to joining state
   service,  Dr. Book was on the research faculty of the University of California at Davis.  He
   has also worked as an environmental consultant.

   AI Dufour, Ph.D.

        Dr. Dufour is currently the Director of the Microbiological and Chemical Exposure
   Assessment Research Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National
   Exposure Research Laboratory. He earned his B.A. in Biology and Chemistry from North-
   ern Michigan University, his Masters of Public Health specializing in epidemiology and
   environmental health services from Yale University, and a doctorate in microbiology from
120

-------
                                                                    Speakers' Biographies
the University of Rhode Island. Dr. Dufour was with the U.S. Public Health service for four
years and then joined EPA in 1970. His research interests are analytical microbial methods
development; microbial risk assessments for recreational, drinking, and shellfish harvesting
waters; and human exposure associated with waterborne and airborne microbial pathogens.

Sharon Dunwoody, Ph.D.

     Dr. Dunwoody is Evjue-Bascom Professor and Director of the School of Journalism
and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She earned her B.A. in
Journalism from Indiana University, her M.A. in Mass Communication from Temple Uni-
versity, and a Ph.D. in Mass Communication from Indiana University. In addition to her
journalism work at UW-Madison, she has been affiliated with the Institute for Environmen-
tal Studies, most recently serving as chair of academic programs there. A former newspaper
science writer, Dr. Dunwoody has spent her research career studying aspects of public
understanding of science. Her work in risk communication has focused on understanding
how individuals use information to make judgments about risks. In the course of that work
she has studied, among other things, the risks of eating contaminated fish caught in the
Great Lakes, the risks posed by parasites  in drinking water, and individuals' perceptions of
their risk of being diagnosed with AIDS.

Mark Gold, Ph.D.

     Dr. Gold is the Executive Director of the local environmental group Heal the Bay.
Founded in 1985, Heal the Bay is a nonprofit group of more than 10,000 members working
through a combination of research, education, public outreach, and advocacy to make Santa
Monica Bay and Southern California's coastal waters safe and healthy for people and
marine life.  Dr. Gold completed his doctoral dissertation in UCLA's Department of Envi-
ronmental Science and Engineering. He  has worked on a wide variety of water quality and
coastal natural resources issues ranging from sewage treatment to contaminated sediments
to wetland restorations. Dr. Gold is considered one of the region's foremost experts on
urban runoff pollution and he influences  governmental water policy at the local, state, and
federal levels.

Chris Gonaver

     Mr. Gonaver received his B.S. in Microbiology from Iowa State University in 1971
 and his M.P.H. from San Diego State University in 1985. He began his career in public
 health in  1975, when he joined the County of San Diego (as a public health microbiologist)
 where he worked for 12 years. In 1988,  after graduating from San Diego State University,
 Mr. Gonaver joined the Department for Environmental Health, where he has been a man-
 ager for the past eight years.  He currently manages the Land and Water Quality Division of
 the Department of Environmental Health, which is one  of the Department's four divisions.
 His division is responsible for the county's recreational water quality, storm water permit
 compliance, oversight of the cleanup of contaminated underground storage tank sites and
 other hazardous waste sites, installation  and removal of underground storage tanks, public
 health-related land use activities, and risk assessment and risk communication.

 David  Gray, P.E.

      Mr. Gray is an environmental engineer with the Municipal Services Section of the
 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP)  He received his B.S. in
                                                                                    121

-------
                                                           West Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Civil Engineering from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He worked as a water
    resources engineer for 5 years with Camp Dresser & McKee on a variety of water quality
    monitoring and modeling efforts. In 1995, Mr. Gray founded Gray Environmental to
    provide storm water management and pollution prevention services with a focus on reopen-
    ing impacted shellfish beds. For the past year, he has worked for the MDEP with an empha-
    sis on storm water pollution abatement, wastewater, and CSO facilities planning.

    Jake Joyce, Ph.D.

         Dr. Joyce is currently assigned to the EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kansas.  He is
    assigned to the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticide Division, where one of his ancillary duties
    involves being the regional BEACH Coordinator. He began his governmental career during
    the Viet Nam era as a green beret weapons specialist cross-trained  as a medic. He then
    accepted a commission into  the U.S. Public Health Service and was assigned to the U.S.
    Coast Guard in New York City as an environmental/occupational health officer. He has
    also served as a supervisory sanitarian for the Indian Health Service and an environmental
    health scientist for EPA's  Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in Kansas City, Kansas.
    Dr. Joyce earned a bachelor's degree in general science from Mary wood College in
    Scranton, Pennsylvania and  a master's degree in environmental biology  from Hood College
    Graduate School in Frederick, Maryland.  He also holds another masters degree in environ-
    mental health science and a  doctorate in environmental health science from New York
    Polytechnic in Brooklyn, New York.

    Charles McGee

        Mr. McGee has worked in the field of environmental microbiology  and virology since
    1972. He holds degrees from Louisianan State University in Baton Rouge and Pepperdine
    University in Malibu, California. He received virology training at Baylor College  of Medi-
    cine in Houston, Texas. Mr. McGee worked as a member of an environmental virology
    consulting group in upstate New York from 1974 to 1978, as the virologist for the Los
    Angeles County Sanitation District from 1978 to  1990, and then from 1990 until now as the
    laboratory supervisor in charge of microbiology at the Orange County Sanitation District,
    Orange County, California.  Mr. McGee is a member of the Microbiology Advisory Com-
    mittee to the California State Water Resources Control Board on California Ocean Plan
    Bacterial Objectives; a member of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Santa Monica
    Bay Restoration Project, a coauthor of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Epidemiol-
    ogy Study; and a participant  in the World Health Organization/EPA Expert Consultation on
    Safety of Recreational Waters last November.  He has participated in environmental re-
    search investigations at the University of California, Irvine, University of Arizona, Tucson,
    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

    Rachel Noble, Ph.D.

        Dr. Noble is a postdoctoral scientist for both  the Southern California Coastal Water
    Research Project and the USC Wrigley Institute Environmental Studies.  She received her
    B.S. in Molecular Biology  from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
    and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the University of Southern California. There her
    dissertation research focused on the roles of native marine viruses in biogeochemical
    cycling, with emphasis on  degradation and microbial uptake of degraded virus material. As
    a Sea Grant Trainee, she also performed research on the molecular detection of human
122

-------
                                                                     Speakers' Biographies
enteric viruses in seawater. Dr. Noble is currently working on optimization of methods for
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) detection of enteric viruses
and researching the relation of viral indicators to bacterial indicators in coastal waters. Her
current research interests include the advancement of methods for viral detection, dynamics
of viruses in marine microbial food webs, and new biomarker techniques for bacterial and
viral pathogens in coastal waters.

David Rosenblatt

     Mr. Rosenblatt is the chief of the Atlantic Coastal Bureau, Division of Watershed
Management, in the New  Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. He received his
B.S. in Environmental Science from Rutgers University and M.A. in Teaching from the
College of New Jersey. For the  past 20 years, he has evaluated nearshore coastal water
quality and developed pollution response and remediation programs, including New
Jersey's Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program for recreational beaches. Mr. Rosenblatt
continues to manage beach quality programs in addition to watershed planning and man-
agement in the Atlantic coastal region.

Steve Schaub, Ph.D.

     Dr. Schaub joined the EPA's Office of Science and Technology in 1992 as a senior
microbiologist for drinking water regulation support. He coauthored EPA's Beach Action
Plan and served as the EPA representative to the President's Council on Food Safety.  Prior
to joining EPA, Dr.  Schaub served as a microbiology program officer for the U.S. Army
Medical Research and Development Command from 1972 to 1992 in field water supply  and
sanitation.  He worked on microbiological method, military equipment evaluation, and
effectiveness, of land application of wastewater. Dr. Schaub also studied microbiological
pollution in the Great Lakes with the U.S. Public Health Service from 1964 to 1966. He
holds a B.S. in Microbiology from Washington State University and a Ph.D. in Microbiol-
ogy from the University of Texas.
                                                                                     123

-------
                                                                        West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 List  of  Attendees
 Eugene Akazawa
 Hawaii Department of Health
 901 AlaMoanaBlvd. Suite #301
 Honolulu, HI 96814
 E-mail: eakazawa@eha.health.state.ju.us

 James Alamillo
 Heal the Bay
 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 150
 Santa Monica, CA 90405
 E-mail: jalamilla@healthebay.org

 Mazhar Ali
 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
 Control Board
 320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: mali@rM.swrcb.ca.gov

 Joseph F. Alston
 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
 National Park Service
 Glen Canyon NRA
 P.O. Box 1507
 Page, AZ 86040
 E-mail: glca_superintendent@nps.gov

 Frank Alvarez
 Santa Barbara County Public Health
 Department
 345 Camino Del Remedio
 Santa Barbara, CA 93110
 E-mail: falvare@co.santa-barbara.ca.us

 RicAmador
 City of San Diego / Marine Microbiology
 5530KiowaDr.
 La Mesa, CA 91942-1331
 E-mail: rba@mwharbor.sannet.gov

 Mark Anderson
 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
 National Park Service
 Glen Canyon NRA
 P.O. Box 1507
 Page, AZ 86040
 E-mail: mark_anderson@nps.gov

 Rosario Aston
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board
320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
E-mail: raston@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
 Julie Barr
 Santa Monica BayKeeper
 P.O. Box 10096
 Marina del Rey, CA 90295
 E-mail: batray@smbaykeeper.org

 LorettaK. Barsamian
 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
 Control Board
 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
 Oakland, CA 94612
 E-mail: Ikb@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov

 AdeleBasham
 Nevada Division of Environmental
 Protection
 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138
 Carson City, NV 89706
 E-mail: abasham@ndep.carson-city.nv.us

 Lance Becker
 Navy Region Southwest
 33000 Nixie Way
 Suite 326
 SanDiego,CA92147
 E-mail: becker.lance@asw.cnrsw.navy.mil

 David Beckman
 Natural Resources Defense Council
 (NRDC)
 6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 250
 Los Angeles, CA 90048
 E-mail: dbeckman@nrdc.org

 Jim Bennett
 State Water Resources Control Board
 90 IP St.
 Sacramento, CA95812
 E-mail: jbennett@exec.swrcb.ca.gov

 Jonathan Bishop
 CalifomiaRegional Water Quality Control
 Board
 320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: jbishop@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

NadjaBohntedt,R.S.
2001 CollegeDrive
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403
E-mail:
 Bonnie Bompart
 San Francisco Water Department
 1000 El Camino Real
 Millbrae,CA 94030
 E-mail:

 Steven Book
 California Department of Health Services
 Drinking Water Program
 601 North 7th St., Mail Stop 92
 P.O. Box 942732
 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
 E-mail: sbook@dhs.ca.gov

 Nicki Branch
 San Elijo Joint Powers Authority
 2695 Manchester Ave.
 Cardiff, CA 92007
 E-mail: main@sanelijowrf.org

 Roger Briggs
 Central Coast Regional WQ Control Board
 SlHigueraSt
 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
 E-mail: rbriggs@rb3.swrcb.ca.gov

 BradBuckner
 Colorado State Parks
 13787 So. Hwy 85
 Littleton, CO 80125
 E-mail: bradley.buckner@state.co.us

 Gary Cannon
 California Coastal Commission
 3111 Camino Del Rio, North, Suite 200
 SanDiego,CA92108
 E-mail: gcannon@coastal.ca.gov

 Robert Caustin
 Defend the Bay
 471 Old Newport Blvd
 Suite 200
 Newport Beach, CA 92663
 E-mail: defendthebay@caustin.com

 Jau Ren Chen, Ph.D.
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board, Los Angeles Region
 320 W.4th Street
 Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
E-mail: jchen@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
124

-------
                                                                                               List of Attendees
AshleiChevrie
CA Coastal Commission
3111 Camino Del Rio, N.
Suite 200
SanDiego, CA
E-mail:

Owen Chung
•Caltrans
2829 Juan St., MS-46
SanDiego,CA92110
E-mail: owen_chung@dot.ca.gov

Clay Clifton
San Diego County Dept of Env. Health
P.O. Box 129261
SanDiego, CA92112-9261
E-mail: cclifteh@co.san-diego.ca.us

J.Roger Collins
Fluid Systems Sales Co.
63 8 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 365
Agoura,CA91377
E-mail: reproger@aol.com

James Colston
Orange County Sanitation District
 10844 Ellis Ave
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
E-mail: jcolston@ocsd.com

Marsha Cook
 S.D. County, Dept. of Env. Health
P.O. Box 129261
 SanDiego, CA 92112-9261
E-mail: MCOOKKEH@co.san-diego.ca.us

 Chris Crompton
 County of Orange, Public Facilities and
 Resources Department
 10852 Douglass Road
 Anaheim, CA 92806
 E-mail: cromptonc@pfrd.co.orange.ca.us

 Mark Cuneo
 CDS Technologies, Inc.
 PMB #185
 322 Culver Blvd.
 Playa Del Rey,CA 90293
 E-mail: mcuneo@cdstech.com

 ReneeDeShazo
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board
 320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: rdeshazo@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

 Gordon Dewers
 Dept. of Environmental Resources
 3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite C
 Modesto, CA 95358
 E-mail: gdewers@envres.com
Bhupinder S. Dhaliwal
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019ImhoffPlace
Martinez, CA 94553
E-mail: bdhaliwa@centralsan.dst.ca.us

Jane Diamond
USEPARegion9
75 Hawthorne St. WTR4
San Francisco, CA 94105
E-mail: diamond.jane@epa.gov

Dennis A. Dickerson
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
LosAngele,CA90013
E-mail: ddickers@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

DougDiener
MEC Analytical Systems, Inc.
2433ImpalaDr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7227
E-mail: diener@mecanalytical.com

Al Dufour
USEPA ORD/NERL/MCEARD
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-1593
E-mail: dufour.alfred@epa.gov

Sharon Dunwoody
School of Journalism
University of Wisconsin
821 University Ave
Madison, WI53714
E-mail: dunwoody@facstaff.wisc.edu

Steven Durham
San Diego County Dept. of Env. Health
P.O. Box 129261
SanDiego, CA92112-9261
E-mail: sdurhaeh@co.san-diego.ca.us

Jim Finney
Monterey County Health Department
 1200 Aguajito RD., Suite 103
Monterey, CA 93940
E-mail: finneyjg@redshift.com

Steve Fleischli
Santa Monica BayKeeper
P.O. Box 10096
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
E-mail: sfleischli@smbaykeeper.org

SonyaForee
City and County of San Francisco
3500 Great Highway
 SanFrancisco, CA94132
E-mail:
Donna Frye
Surfers Tired of Pollution
705 Felspar St.
SanDiego, CA92109
E-mail:

Roger Fujioka
Water Resources Research Center,
University of Hawaii
2540 Dole st.
Honolulu, HI 96822
E-mail: roger@hawaii.edu

Marnell Gibson
City of Coronado
1395 Fkst Street
Coronado, CA 92118-1502
E-mail: mgibson@coronado.ca.us

Michele Ginsberg
County of San Diego Health and Human
Service Agency
1700 Pacific Highway, Rm. 107
SanDiego, CA92101
E-mail: mgnsbhe@co.san-diego.ca.us

BrendaGoeden
XCEL, National Audubon Society
211 Belle Avenue
SanRafeal, CA 94901-3409
E-mail: daisychain@hotbot.com

Mark Gold
Heal the Bay
2701 Ocean Park Blvd.
Suite 150
Santa Monica, CA 90405
E-mail: mgold@healthebay.org

Chris Gonaver
County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health
P.O. Box 129261
SanDiego, CA92112-9261
E-mail: cgonaveh@co.san-diego.ca.us

John Gonzales
State Water Resource Control BoaroVWQ
P.O. Box 944213
901P St.
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
E-mail: gonzj@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov

ArunaGoradia
Union Sanitary District
5072 Benson Rd.
Union City, CA 94587
E-mail: aruna_goradia@unionsanitary.com

Roger Gorrke
USEPA Office of Water (4101)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: gorke.roger@epa.gov
                                                                                                            125

-------
                                                                          West Coast Regional Beach Conference
  David Gray
  Massachusetts Department of Environ-
  mental Protection
  205A Lowell Street
  Wilmington, MA 01887
  E-mail: david.gray-eqe@state.ma.us

  BradHageman
  Central Coast Regional Water Board
  81HigueraSt,Suite200
  San Lus Obispo, CA 93422
  E-mail: bhageman@rb3.swrcb.ca.gov

  JimHanlon
  USEPA-OfficeofScienceandTechnology
  401 M Street, S.W.
  Washington, DC 20460
  E-mail: HanIon.James@epa.gov

  Sydney Harvey
  County of Los Angeles Department of
 Health Services
 313N.Figueroa,rmll27
 Los Angeles, CA 91766
 E-mail: sharvey@dhsco.la.ca.us

 Janet Hashimoto
 USEPA Region 9, Monitoring and
 Assessment Office
 75 Hawthorne St. (WTR-2)
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 E-mail: hashimoto.janet@epa.gov

 Richard R.Hauge
 County of Ventura - Environmental Health
 Division
 800 S. Victoria Ave.
 Ventura, CA 93009
 E-mail: richard.hauge@mail.co.ventura.ca.us

 Karen Henry
 City of San Diego Storm Water (NPDES)
 Program
 1010 Second Ave., Suite 500
 SanDiego,CA92101
 E-mail: kqh@street.sannet.gov

 Rick Hoffmann
 USEPA - Office of Science and Technology
 401 M St. SW (4305)
 Washington, DC 20460
 E-mail: Hoffmann.Rick@epa.gov

 JimHogan
 Law/Crandall
 9177 Sky Park Court, Suite A
 SanDiego,CA92123
 E-mail: jhogan@lawco.com

 Larry Honeybourne
 Orange County Environmental Health
 Division
2009 EEdinger Ave
Santa Ana, CA 92705
E-mail: lhoneybourne@hca.co.orange.ca.us
 Valerie Housel
 City of San Bernardino MWD
 399 Chandler Place
 San Bernardino, CA 92335
 E-mail: housel_va@ci.san-bernardino.ca.us

 Joe Indrawan
 City of Corona
 815 West 6th Street
 Corona, CA 91720
 E-mail: joei@ci.corona.ca.us

 Winnie D.Jesena
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board
 320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: wjesena@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

 Maryann Jones
 State Water Resource Board
 90 IP St.
 Sacramento, CA 95814
 E-mail: jonema@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov

 Jake Joyce
 USEPARegion7AVWPD
 901 North Fifth Street
 Kansas City, KS 66101
 E-mail: joyce.jake@epa.gov

 Lisa Kaas-Boyle
 Heal the Bay
 2701 Ocean Park Blvd.
 Suite 150
 Santa Monica, CA 90405
 E-mail: lboyle@healthebay.org

 Gita Kapani
 State Water Resources Control Board
 90 IP St.
 Sacramento, CA95814
 E-mail: kapag@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov

 Revital Katznelson
 URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
 500 12th St., Suite 200
 Oakland, CA 94607
 E-mail: revitaLkatznelson@URSCORP.com

 EdKimura
 Sierra Club
 6995 Camino Amero
 SanDiego,CA92111
E-mail: emkimr@cts.com

Christopher A. Kinner
Irvine Ranch Water District
3512MichelsonDr.
Irvine, CA 92612-1799
E-mail: kinner@irwd.com
 Eve J. Kliszewski
 The Suriiider Foundation
 480 Gate Five Road, Suite 300
 Sausalito,CA 94965
 E-mail: ekliszewski@surfrider.org

 Emiko Kobayashi
 California State University, Long Beach
 385 Termino Ave. #6
 LongBeach, CA 90814
 E-mail: ekobayas@csulb.edu

 Charles Kovatch
 USEPA - Office of Science and Technology
 401M St., SW (4305)
 Washington, DC 20460
 E-mail: kovatch.charles@epa.gov

 Ted Kownacki
 California State Assembly Member Howard
 Wayne
 1350 Front Street
 #6013
 SanDiego.CA 92101
 E-mail:

 Catherine Kuhlman
 USEPARegion9
 75 Hawthorne St.
 WST-8
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 E-mail: Catherine.Kuhlman@epamail.epa.gov

 GreggLanglois
 California Department of Health Services
 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 118
 Berkeley, CA 94704
 E-mail: glangloi@ix.netcom.com

 Alan Langworthy
 City of San Diego - Technical Services
 Division
 4918 N. Harbor Dr., Suite 201
 San Diego, CA 92106
 E-mail: AXL@sdcity.sannet.gov

 Diana Lee
 California Dept of Health Services
 1515 Clay St, Room 1700
 Oakland, CA 94612
 E-mail: dleel@dhs.ca.gov

 Dr. G.Fred Lee
 G. Fred Lee Associates
 27298E.ElMaceroDr.
 ElMarcero, CA 95618-1005
 E-mail: gfredlee@aol.com

 KwangLee
 California State RWQCB - Los Angeles
 320 W. 4th St, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
E-mail: klee@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
126

-------
                                                                                               List of Attendees
Annie Maria Leon Guerrero
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 22439 GMF
Barrigada,GU96921
E-mail: amelg@ns.gu

Diana Lilly
California Coastal Commision
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200
SanDiego,CA92108
E-mail: dlilly@coastal.ca.gov

EllenLirley
California Coastal Commision
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200
SanDiego,CA92108
E-mail:

Sally Liska
California Department of Health Services
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704-1011
E-mail:

Felicia Marcus
USEPARegion9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
E-mail: marcus.felicia@epa.gov

Marcie Martin
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
E-mail: marcie.martin@deqmail.state.ok.us

Stephen E. Matson
Ventura County Health Dept. Laboratory
3147LomaVistaRoad
Ventura, CA 93003
E-mail: steve.matson@mail.co.ventura.ca.us

Monica  Mazur
Orange County Environmental Health
Division
2009E.EdingerAve
Santa Ana, CA 92705
E-mail: mmazura@hca.co.orange.ca.us

James McCarthy
Caltrans District Seven
120 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
E-mail: James_McCarthy@dot.ca.gov

Robin McCraw
California State Water Resource Control
Board
90 IP St.
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA95814
E-mail: mccrr@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov
Charles McGee
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Ave
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
E-mail: cmcgee@ocsd.com

Cheryl McGovern
USEPARegion9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, C A 94105
E-mail: mcgovern.cheryl@epa.gov

Mark McPhersan
San Diego County Dept. of Env. Health
Stormwater Management Division
P.O. Box 129261
SanDiego, CA 921112
E-mail: mmcpheeh@co.san-diego.ca.us

Dean Messer
Larry Walker Associates
509 Fourth St.
Davis, CA 9616
E-mail: deanm@lwadavis.com

Suzanne Michel
San Diego State University, Dept. of
Political Science
Department of Political Science
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Dr.
SanDiego, CA92182-4427
E-mail: smichel61@aol.com

LeeMichlin
North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board
5550 Skylane Blvd. Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
E-mail: michl@rb 1 .swrcb.ca.gov

Daniel C. Mills
California Department of Health Services
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704-1011
E-mail: Dmills@dhs.ca.gov

David Moore
MEC Analytical Systems, Inc.
2433ImpalaDr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
E-mail: moore@mecanalytical.com

Douglas F. Moore
Orange County Health Care Agency
(Public Health Laboratory)
1729 West 17th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
E-mail: dmmore@hca.co.orange.ca.us

Ted Morton
American Oceans Campaign
725 Arizona Ave, Suite 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
E-mail: aoctm@earthUnk.net
StevenNakauchi
Long Beach Department of Health &
Human Services
2525 Grand Ave
LongBeach,CA9015-1765
E-mail: stnakau@ci.long-beach.ca.us

Arleen Navarret
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
3500 Great Highway
SanFrancisco, CA 94132
E-mail: anavarre@PUC.SF.CA.US

Deborah Neiter
Defend the Bay
471 Old Newport BlVd.
Suite 200
Newport Beach, CAS2663
E-mail:

Jenny Newman
11842S.ParkAvenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
E-mail: jenny76@mediaone.net

Mae Nikaido
Long Beach Public Health Laboratory
2525 Grand Ave
LongBeach,CA90815
E-mail: manikaido@ci.long-beach.ca.us

Rachel Noble
University of Southern California, AHF
107   .
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0371
E-mail: noble@usc.edu

Linda O'Connell
State Water Resources Control Board
901P Street
Sacramento, CA95814
E-mail: O'COL@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov

Jay Ogden
City of Berkrlry
Department of Human Services
2344 Sixth Street
Berkeley, CA 97410
E-mail:

Michelle Opalenik
El Dorado County Environmental
Management Department
2850 Fairlane Ct, Building C
Placerville,CA 95667
E-mail: mopalenik@thegrid.net

Laurinda Owens
California Coastal Commission
3111 Camino delRioN.,#200
SanDiego, CA92108
E-mail: lowens@coastal.ca.gov
                                                                                                            127

-------
                                                                         West Coast Regional Beach Conference
 Francis Palmer
 California State Water Resources Control
 Board
 P.O.Box944213
 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
 E-mail: palmf@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov

 DaveParadies
 Bay Foundation of Morro Bay
 909 Santa Ysabel
 Los Osos, CA 93402
 E-mail: davep@laotsu.larc.calpoly.edu

 Linda Pardy
 RWQCB, San Diego Region
 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite A
 SanDiego,CA92124-1324
 E-mail: pardl@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov

 Joel Pedersen
 USEPARegion9
 75 Hawthorne St., WRT-2
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 E-mail: pedersen.joel@epa.gov

 Steve Peters
 County of Santa Cruz Environmental
 Health Services
 701 Ocean St.
 Room312
 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
 E-mail: env032@co.santa-cruz.ca.us

 JackPetralia
 County of Los Angeles - Department of
 Health Services
 2525 Corporate Place
 Monterey Park, CA 91754
 E-mail: jpetralia@dhs.co.la.ca.us

 Bruce Posthumas
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board
 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A
 San Diego, CA 92124
 E-mail: postb@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov

 Mark Pumford
 RWQCB - Los Angeles
 320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: mpumford@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

 Bruce Reznik
 San Diego Bay Keeper
 1450 Harbor Island Dr., Suite 205
 San Diego, CA92101
E-mail: sdbaykeeper@aol.com

George Robertson
Orange County Sanitation District
 10844 Ellis Ave.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
E-mail: grobertson@ocsd.com
 John Robertas
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board
 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A
 SanDiego,CA92124
 E-mail: robej@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov

 Vicente Rodriguez
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board
 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A
 SanDiego.CA 92124
 E-mail: rodrv@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov

 David Rosenblatt
 New Jersey Department of Environmental
 Protection, DWM/ACB
 POBox418
 401E. State St.
 Trenton, NJ 08625-0418
 E-mail: drosenbl@dep.state.nj.us

 Suesan Saucerman
 USEPA Region 9, WTR-5
 75 Hawthorne St
 San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
 E-mail: Saucennan.Suesan@epamail.epa.gov

 Steven Schaub
 USEPA - Office of Science and Technology
 401M St. SW (4304)
 Washington, DC 20460
 E-mail: schaub.stephen@epamail.epa.gov

 TerriSchilder
 Mphave County Environmental Health
 P.O. Box 7000
 3675 E.Hwy 66, Suite B
 Kingman,AZ 86401
 E-mail:

 Dave Schlesrayc
 City of San Diego
 Metro Wastewater Department
 600 B Street
 SanDiego,CA91902
 E-mail: d5s@citymgr.sannet.gov

 Kristin Schwall
 California Regional Water Quality Control
 Board
 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A
 SanDiego,CA92124
 E-mail: schwk@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov

John Skinner
 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON)
 1724 Highland Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
E-mail: jskinnermd@aol.com
 Deborah Smith
 California Water Quality Control Board -
 Los Angeles Region
 320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: dsmith@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

 Don L. Smith
 CDS Technologies
 2635EdgeviewLn.
 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
 E-mail: dsmith@cdstech.com

 Darwin L. Sorensen
 Utah State University
 Utah Water Research Laboratory
 8200 Old Main Hill
 Logan, UT 84322-8200
 E-mail: dsore@cc.usu.edu

 Connie Stavros
 Contra Costa Environmental Health
 2120DiamondBlvd., Suite 200
 Concord, CA 94520
 E-mail: cstavros@hsd.co.contra-
 costa.ca.us

 Walter Stein
 CDS Technologies
 16360  S. Monterey Rd., Suite 250
 Morgan Hill, CA 95037
 E-mail: wstein@cdstech.com

 Kathy  Stone
 City of Encinitas
 505 Vulcan Avenue
 Encinitas, CA 92024
 E-mail: kstdne@ci.encinitas.ca.us

 Alexis  Strauss
 USEPA Region 9
 75 Hawthorne Street
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 E-mail: strauss.alexis@epa.gov

 Xavier Swamikannu
 California Environmental Protection
 Agency
 Los Angeles Region
 320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
 Los Angeles, CA 90013
 E-mail: xswami@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

 Mitzy Taggart
 Heal the Bay
 2701 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 150
 Santa Monica, CA 90405
 E-mail: mtaggart@healthebay,org

 Glenn Takeoka
 California Department of Health Services
P.O. Box 942732 (MS 396)
 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
E-mail: jgtakeoka@dhs.ca.gov
128

-------
                                                                                               List of Attendees
KenTheisen
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board
3737 Main St., #500
Riverside, CA 92501
E-mail: ktheisen@rb8.swrcb.ca.gov

Doug Thomas
Lake Havasu City Public Works
HSOMcCullochBlvd
Lake Harasu City, AZ 86403
E-mail: lhcww@ctaz.com

May Trieu
Union Sanitary District
5072 Benson Road
Union City, CA 94587-2508
E-mail: may_trieu@unionsanitary.com

Carlos M. Urranaga
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA90013
E-mail: currunag@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov

Patricia Vainik
City of San Diego, Metropolitan
Wastewater Dept.
4918 North Harbor Dr., Suite 201
SanDiego.CA 92106
E-mail: pmv@mwharbor.sannet.gov
Jon Van Rhyn
San Diego County Dept. of Env. Health
P.O. Box 129261
San Diego, CA 92112-9261
E-mail: jvanrheh@co.san-diego.ca.us

Diane Vermeulen
CALTRANS
2829 Juan Street
San Diego, CA
E-mail:

Pavlova Vitale
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board
3737 Main St. Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92503
E-mail: pvitale@rb8.swrcb.ca.gov

Kathy O.Walker
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
24501 S.Figueroa St.
Carson, CA 90745
E-mail: kwalker@lacsd.org

GuangyuWang
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
320 W. 4th St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
E-mail: gwang@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
Geraldine Washabaugh
County of San Diego - Laboratory
3851RosecransSt.
P.O. Box 85222
SanDiego,CA92186-5222
E-mail: gwashahe@co.san-diego.ca.us

Gerry Winant
Santa Barbara County Environmental
Health Services
225 CaminoDelRemedio
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
E-mail: Gerry@co.santa-barbara.ca.us

Karen Worcester
Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board
81 Higuera St., Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
E-mail: kworcest@rb3.swrcb.ca.gov
                                                                                                            129

-------

-------

-------

-------
East Coast Regional
 Beach Conference
  October 18-19, 1999
    Tampa, Florida


   Proceedings

-------

-------
                                                                                      Agenda
East  Coast Conference  Agenda

Goals:      To provide a forum for all levels of beach water quality managers and public health officials to share
           information and provide input on the future directions of EPA's BEACH Programs.
Objective:  1)  Present EPA's BEACH Program.
           2)  Present the state of the science.
           3)  Discuss local and regional water quality management issues through case study presentations.
           4)  Obtain feedback on major topic areas for EPA's Beach Guidance document.
Monday, October 18-Day 1

8:00-9:00    Registration

9:00-9:10    Welcome
            Rick Hoffmann
            USEPA, Office of Water, Standards and
            Applied Science Division

9:10-9:25    Water Quality Issues in the Gulf of
            Mexico
            Fred Kopfler
            USEPA, Gulf of Mexico Program Office,
            Region 4

9:25-11:20   Session 1: Water Quality Standards,
            Indicators, and Implementation

9:25-9:45    Overview of Water Quality Indicator
            Microbes
            Jake Joyce
            USEPA Region 7

9:45-10:05   Boston Harbor/Charles River Beach
            Monitoring Effort: Comparison of
            Two Indicator Methods
            Matt Liebman
            USEPA Region 1

10:05-10:25  New Indicators of Water Quality for
            Recreational Water Use
            Steve Schaub
            USEPA, Office of Science and Technology

10:25-10:40  BREAK

10:40-11:00  New Tools for Assessing Healthy
            Beaches
            Joan Rose
            University of South Florida

11:20-12:00  EPA's Beach Plan
            Geoffrey Grubbs, Director
            USEPA, Office of Science
            and Technology
11:00-11:20  Q & A/Discussions

12:00-1:30   LUNCH

1:30-3:30    Session 2: Risk Assessment, Exposure,
            and Health Effects

1:30-2:00    The Relationship of Microbial
            Measurement of Beach Water Quality
            to Human Health
            Al Dufour
            USEPA, National Environmental
            Research Laboratory

2:00-2:20    Qualitative Review of Epidemiology
            Studies
            Tom Mahin
            Massachusetts DEP

2:20-2:40    Epidemiological Research on Bather
            Illness and Freshwater Microbial
            Contamination
            Rebecca Calderon
            USEPA, Office of Research and
            Development

2:40-3:10    Q & A/Discussions

3:10-3:30    BREAK

3:30-5:30    Session 3: Monitoring and Modeling

3:30-3:50    Indiana'sE. coli Interagency Task
            Force
            Arnold Leder
            USEPA Region 5

3:50-4:10    Predictive Modeling of Bacterial
            Indicators Along the South of Lake
            Pontchartrain
            JeffWaters
            Lake  Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
                                                                                          133

-------
                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conference
4:10-4:30    A Regional Modeling Tool for
            Impacts of Spills and Bypasses
            Phil Heckler
            New York City Department of
            Environmental Protection

4:30-5:00    New Jersey's Recreational Monitoring
            Program
            David Rosenblatt
            New Jersey Department of
            Environmental Protection

5:00-5:30    Q & A/Discussions

Tuesday, October 19-Day 2

8:30-8:45    Summary of Day 1
            Geoffrey Grubbs, Director
            USEPA, Office of Science and Technology

8:45-9:05    Great Lakes Monitoring Program
            Paul Horvatin
            USEPA, Great Lakes National Program
            Office, Region 5

9:05-9:20    Factors Affecting Escherichia coli
            Concentrations at Lake Erie Public
            Bathing Beaches
            Donna Erancy
            USGS, Ohio District

9:20-11:20  Session 4: Beach Advisories, Closures,
            and Risk Communication

9:20-9:50    Recreational Rates, Fish
            Consumption, and Communication
            Joanna Burger
            Rutgers University, Department of
            Biological Sciences
9:50-10:10   Florida's Beachwater Web Site
            Robert Nobles
            Florida Department of Health, State
            Health Office

10:10-10:30 Florida Monitoring and Coordination
            Efforts
            Paul Stanek
            Florida Department of Health, Pinellas
            County

10:30-11:10 Q & A/Discussions

11:10-11:15 Organization of Breakout Groups
            Purpose: Discuss the major components
            of the Beach Guidance. Provide
            recommendations  and key elements to
            be included in the document.
            Break
11:15-11:30

11:30-12:30

12:30-1:30

1:30-3:30.

3:30-4:30


4:30-4:45
            BREAKOUTSESSIONS CONVENE

            LUNCH

            BREAKOUTSESSIONS CONTINUE

            Open Discussion and Information
            Synthesis

            Closing Remarks and Adjourn
            Geoffrey Grubbs, Director
            USEPA, Office of Science and Technology
134

-------
                                                                           Day One: Welcome
Welcome
Rick  Hoffmann
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
        Mr.  Hoffmann welcomed the audience
        and noted that this was the second of
        two regional beach conferences.  He
also noted the  changes to the agenda.  More
than 200 people registered for  this conference,
and the participants were evenly distributed
from Maine to Florida and the  Great Lakes
states.  Other participants came from as far as
Canada, Trinidad, and Palau.
     The purpose of the conference was to
provide a forum for beach water quality manag-
ers to talk about water quality issues such as
issuance of beach advisories, monitoring,  and
notification to  assist EPA in the development of
a program to protect the public from microbial
pathogens in recreational waters.   The confer-
ence was designed to allow sharing of informa-
tion about the current state of the science for
water quality standards, disease indicators,  risk
assessment, and risk communication.  It was
also to provide a forum for presenting local and
regional issues through case studies.  EPA is in
a "listening mode" prior to developing useful
guidance related to recreational beach pro-
grams.  EPA will use the recommendations
from this conference and the West Coast
Conference (which was held in San Diego,
California, on August 31 and September 1) in
the development  of the guidance document
later  this year.
                                                                                        135

-------
                                                           East Coast Regional Beach Conference
Water Quality  Issues  in  the
Gulf of Mexico
Fred Kopfler
US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Region 4
         Water quality is a very important issue
         in the Gulf.  Tourism is a $20 billion
         industry based  on the beaches and
gambling. Gambling is extensive in Missis-
sippi, where the casinos  are on barges adjacent
to the land.  The area was once a sleepy back-
water area, but it is not that anymore.  The
population in Mississippi has increased 30
percent since 1969 when hurricane Camille hit.
     Most of the land surrounding the Gulf is
wetlands.  Rapid growth presents a problem for
sewage treatment.  Sewage tends to bubble to
the surface and overflows in most areas be-
cause of  the wetland environment.  Determin-
ing the presence  of sewage and microbial
pathogens in recreational waters is a big area of
concern for the Gulf.
     In the Gulf  Coast area, there are 95 8-digit
watersheds, 93 of which have a least one
segment impaired due to the presence of fecal
coliform  or other pathogens.   Approximately
800  segments are not meeting their designated
uses due to pathogens. It will be interesting to
understand  how monitoring  recreational  waters
using new indicators will relate to the ambient
water  quality monitoring program, since  the
TMDLs are all based on fecal coliforms.
    The shellfish program is also an issue.
The Gulf of Mexico provides most of the
shellfish to  the United States. The program is
overseen by the Food and Drug Administration,
and they are adamant about  using fecal
coliforms as their indicator.  They also use the
MPN  method for enumerating fecal  coliforms.
Since  EPA  is responsible for making sure
waters meet their designated uses, if the  shell-
fish waters  are impaired based on fecal
coliforms it will be interesting to see how this
will all work out.  Beach monitoring and new
indicators are a very important issue.  This
problem will need to be addressed in the future,
and this conference will help facilitate these
types  of discussions.
136

-------
        Session One:
        Water Quality
Standards, Indicators,
  and Implementation

-------

-------
                                             Day One: Session One
Overview of Water Quality Indicator
Microbes
fake Joyce
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Please refer to page 11 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.
                                                       139

-------
                                                         East Coast Regional Beach Conference
 Boston  Harbor/Charles River  (MA)

 Beach  Monitoring  Efforts:

 Comparison  of Two  Indicator

 Methods

 Matthew Liebman
 US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
 Mike Calvin1, Paul Dipietro1, Diana Liu2, Kathy Baskin3
 1 Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA, 2 G and L Laboratories, Quincy, MA, 3CharIes River
 Watershed Association
      Boston Harbor and the Charles River are
      affected by sewage-derived pathogens
      from illegal sewer connections, storm
 water, combined sewer overflows, and poorly
 treated sewage.  Although improving in quality,
 Boston Harbor beaches are posted many times
 per year and the lower Charles River frequently
 violates state water quality standards for fecal
 coliform contamination during wet weather.
 The  overall goal of this EMPACT (Environmen-
 tal Monitoring for Public Access and Commu-
 nity  Tracking) program, and BEACH program-
 funded project was to rapidly convey to the
 public whether Boston Harbor beaches are safe
 for swimming and the lower Charles River is
 safe  for boating.
     In the Boston Harbor area, the Metropoli-
 tan District Commission (MDC) routinely
 samples 16 saltwater and 4 freshwater beaches
 for enterococci and fecal coliform on a weekly
 basis during the summer.  The samples are
 collected on Wednesdays (through 1998) in
 preparation for the weekend, with resampling
 until  densities are below established  thresholds
 (e.g.,  104 enterococci colonies/100 mL for
 saltwater beaches).  Some historically contami-
 nated beaches are sampled on a daily basis.  In
 the lower Charles River basin, the Charles River
 Watershed  Association (CRWA) routinely
samples from four or five stations at or near
boathouses  for fecal coliform and enterococci
 five days per week. The MDC reports results to
 the public as swimmer's advisories by flags
 posted at the beach and via the Internet, tele-
 phone and newspaper.  The CRWA reports
 numerical results on a daily basis on its Internet
 web site and posts boater's advisories at boat-
 houses with similarly designed flags (blue =
 safe, red = use caution).
     Since 1986, EPA has recommended the
 use of enterococci  bacterial density as a better
 indicator of fecal contamination in recreational
 waters. Recently, EPA developed a new
 enterococci membrane filtration method—EPA
 Method 1600—that reduces incubation time
 from 48 hours to 24 hours (U.S.EPA,  1997).
 As part of the first year of the EMPACT project,
 we field tested the  new method using an MDC
 contract laboratory.  We compared Method
 1600 (mEI medium) to the existing test (EPA
 Method Number 1106.1, mE medium,
 U.S.EPA,  1985) based on  statistical tests,
 specificity, and  cost-effectiveness.  We de-
 signed this field test to be consistent with EPA's
 alternative method  testing protocols and the
 approach described in Messer and Dufour
 (1998). Samples were split in the laboratory.
 Verification (specificity) of enterococci identifi-
 cation was performed  to determine the percent-
 age of false positives and false negatives.  We
performed a paired t-test on both untransformed
and  natural log-transformed values and exam-
140

-------
                                                                           Day One: Session One
ined the data using correlation and linear
regression.
     In 1998,  we sampled weekly for 11
consecutive weeks at  14 sites at five beaches in
Boston Harbor and one freshwater pond
(Houghton's Pond)  under dry and wet weather
conditions. In the Charles River, we sampled at
four or five stations on 25 separate days from
May to October spanning a range of rainfall
conditions. The total number of paired samples
was  272 (Boston Harbor: n =  132; Houghton's
Pond: n = 22;  and Charles River: n = 118).
     Overall, there  was fundamentally  no
difference between  the two methods.  The
Pearson correlation coefficients for  Boston
Harbor, Houghton's Pond and Charles River
samples (natural  log-transformed) were 0.85,
0.80, and 0.93, respectively.  For Boston
Harbor, the geometric means were similar (8.1
[Method 1600] vs.  7.6 [standard]).  There was
no significant  difference  between the methods
based on a statistical  comparison of
untransformed and natural log-transformed
values, using the paired t-test for all samples.
However, examination of the data graphically
indicated Method 1600 values were higher than
the standard method when the mean density  of
the two methods was  above 70 colonies/100
mL.  Based on a paired t-test, when the mean
was  above 70 colonies/100 mL, Method 1600
resulted in significantly higher values (p < 0.01,
n =  17).  It is  possible that Method 1600 is more
selective at detecting enterococci colonies, but
there was no difference in false positive (2
percent and 4  percent) or negative rates (7
percent and 8  percent) for Method 1600 and the
standard method, respectively.
     Because  the MDC posts Boston Harbor
beaches when enterococci density exceeds 104
colonies/1.00, mL, there may be a slight increase
in number of postings. In only  two  samples (of
132 saltwater  samples) both methods predicted
an exceedance. In seven samples Method 1600
predicted an exceedance when the  standard
method did not, and on one occasion the
standard method  predicted an exceedance when
Method 1600  did not.
     Based on these results, the MDC replaced
the existing test in 1999  with Method 1600.
Because of the reduced incubation time, the
MDC now samples on Thursdays instead of
Wednesdays.   The increased cost to the MDC
of the new method ($20 per sample compared
to $17 per sample) was balanced by the re-
duced number of days required to  resample  a
beach before a weekend.  The MDC uses both
fecal  coliform  and enterococci measurements in
determining whether to post a beach. Now that
the enterococci incubation time is in line with
the fecal coliform method, the beach sampling
program is more cost-effective and protective
of public health.
References

Messer, J.W., and A.P. Dufour.  1998. A rapid,
     specific membrane filtration procedure for
     enumeration of enterococci in recreational
     water.  Applied and  Environmental  Micro-
     biology 64(2):678-680.
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, Office of Research and Develop-
     ment.  Washington, DC.
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.
                                                                                           141

-------
                                                                                                   East Coast Regional Beach Conference
            Boston Harbor/Charles River (MA) Beach
                        and River Monitoring

                    A comparison of two bacteria indicator
                           (Enterococci) methods
                             M«thcw IJebnvm. US EPA Region 1. New England
                             Mite G«lvin und Pail DiKelro. MDC {Boston. MA)
                               Diana Uii,GnndL Laboratories (Quincy.MA)
                                     Kilhy Basljn, CRWA (Newlon.MA)
                                                                                             Boston Harbor and Charles River
              Boston Harbor and Charles River
                             Background

           Boston Harbor and Charles River polluted by fecal-contaminated point
           and nonpoinl sources
           Foci of major cleanup efforts
           Boston Harbor and Charles River are major recreational resources
           swimming, boating, crew, sailing
           Public demands safe swimming and rowing opportunities
           Exposure to pathogen related pollution varies on a daily basis
             EMPACT Project Goals
   Protect public health with routine monitoring of enterococci and fecal
   coliform
   Inform public within 24 - 30 hours in a variety of media, including
   Internet, television, newspaper, telephone and FLAGS
   Field test new EPA Method 1600
   Evaluate use of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) as monitoring tool
   Transfer technology to local slate laboratory
   Develop rainfall predictors
            EMPACT Project Accomplishments

          Routine monitoring ongoing
          Public notified within 30 hours of sampling
          Flogging and media coverage ongoing and successful
          Method 1600 field tested
          PCR technology in development
          Tech transfer to state laboratory delayed
          Rainfall predictor study ongoing (MWRA)
                                                    Rrp'^clrCt".l
         Metropolitan Boston Routine

              Monitoring Programs

   Boston Harbor area (MDC):
    -  21 beaches, 38 sites including freshwater ponds
    -  routinely sampled on Wednesday* and Thursdays to prepare for weekend
    -  7 days per week at four historically contaminated sites
    -  enterococci, fecal coliform
    -  24-48-hour turnaround in 1998, 24-hour turnaround in 1999
   Lower Charles River (CRWA)
    -  5 sites, at boat houses or bridges
    -  routinely sampled Monday thru Friday
    -  sampled by volunteers (in 1998) or staff (in 1999)
    -  enterococci, fecal colifonn
    -  24-48-hourturnaround in 1998, 24-nourtumaroundin 1999
EPA Beach Conference
October 1999
142

-------
                                                                                                                 Day One: Session One
   Boston Harbor SW sampling stations
      (Source:  www.mwra.state.ma.us/harbor/)
EPA Beach Conference
October 1999
Lower Charles River sampling stations
              (Source: www.crwa.org)
                       Methods
   Boston Harbor 1998
    - split samples from 14 stations, 11 weeks June through August
    - tested for new Method 1600 (mEI medium) and EPA Method 1106 (standard
      method, using mE medium) and fecal coliform
    - N= 132 in Boston Harbor, N = 22 in Houghton's Pond
    - range of rainfall conditions
   Charles River 1998
    - split samples from 5 stations, 25 separate events May through October
    - tested for new Method 1600 (mEI medium) and EPA Method 1106 (standard
      method, using mE medium) and fecal coliform
    - N=118
    - range of rainfall conditions
       Statistical tests and specificity


 . Verification (= specificity) of enterococci identification
  - Method 1106 mE medium:  78 positive colonies and 63 negative colonies
  - Method 1600 mEI medium: 83positivecoloniesand71 negative colonies
 Paired t-test of untransformed and natural log-transformed values
 Correlation (Pearson product correlation coefficient)
 Linear regression
 Calculation of RPD (relative percent difference)
 Analysis of field and laboratory duplicates
                                                                               EPA Beach Conference
                                                                               October 1999
                Geometric means of
             bacterial indicators,  1998
                            Method 1106   Method 1600
 EPA Beach Conferenc
 October 1999
         Correlation of both methods
                                                                                                       BOSTON HARBOR
                                             A
                                            ^Sf
                                            Region
                                                                                                                                            143

-------
                                                                                    East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                Correlation of both methods
                          HOUOHTONSPONO
Difference vs. mean
                                                                                             BOSTON HARBOR
                                                                         EPA Beach Conference
                                                                         October 1999
               Correlation of both methods
                           CHARLES RIVER
       ETA Bach Cbtfetncc
Difference vs. mean
                                                                                             CHARLES RIVER
                         «f5k

                         9
                   Difference vs. mean
                 (<200 colonies/100 ml)
                   CHARLES RIVER <™.n< 200 Cotaite/100 ML)
   Statistical tests
                                                                             Eoam Harbor (all sanplc?)
                                                                             Boston Harbor« 70 colonies)
                                                                             Boston Harbor (> 70 coloiios)
                                                                             Houston's Pond
                                                                             Oiaitcs River
                                                                        EPA Beach Conference
                                                                        Oaobet 1999
144

-------
                                                                                                          Day One: Session One
           Number of times sample
                exceeded criteria
            SWcriterion* KMcoiorecs/IOOnJi FWenter
EPA Beach Conference
October 1999

                  Specificity
Boston Harbor/Houghton's Pond 1998
                                                                                                          N  FalseneotivefS.)	N
                                                                                   Melted 1106 (n£ indium)
                                                                                   Method IHXHroEInwlium)
                                                                          EPA Beach Conference
                                                                          Oc(oberl999
          Relative percent difference
           Boston Harbor 1998 only
               Fecal colifbrm
               Mcitod ll0670 colonies/100 ml), Method
    1600 gives significantly higher values than standard method in Boston
    Harbor, but also to some degree in freshwater as well
    Slight increase in postings in Boston Harbor area beaches may result
    But, specificity between the two methods is similar and acceptable
    (< 10%)
    Increased cost of new method compensated by fewer number of
    sample days needed
    24-hour turnaround time aligns with fecal coliform method
    MDC used Method 1600 in 1999 on Thursdays and Fridays
  EPA Beach Conference
  October 1999
                                                                                                                                     145

-------
                                       East Coast Regional Beach Conference
 New Indicators of Water Quality for

 Recreational Water Use

 Steve Schaub
 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
 Please refer to page 21 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.
146

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session One
New  Tools  for  Assessing  Healthy
Beaches
Joan Rose
University of South Florida, Department of Marine Sciences
      ecreational  waterborne disease  can result
      from water contamination from numerous
         rces, including human and  animal
wastes, urban runoff,  industrial pollution,
wastewater,  storm waters, large concentrations
of bathers, and even from indigenous sources
such as red tide. While historically the focus of
monitoring has been on enteric diseases such as
those causing diarrhea, of even greater concern
are infections of the skin, wounds, respiratory
and genital tracts, eyes, and ears. Transmission
of diseases has been documented from indi-
viduals swimming,  wind surfing,  and even
boating in or on polluted waters.  Concern for
such transmission has been heightened with the
emergence of new pathogens (e.g., E. coli and
Cryptosporidiuni), antibiotic-resistant strains,
and a  more susceptible population (due to more
elderly, AIDS, and immune suppressant medi-
cal treatments). Public health and safety are tied
to the understanding of sources of pollution, so
that prevention and remediation can  be accom-
plished and  timely (preferably advance) public
information can be made available. The key-
 stone of any effort is the measurement of water
quality and protection of these waters from
pollution.

 Clean beaches and the recreational activities
 associated with them form the backbone of the
tourist industry in Florida; however, most of
Florida may be classified as a tropical water.
There are significant concerns the water quality
indicators in general use do not faithfully reflect
pollution and public health concerns.  Also,
decisions are based  on local interpretations as
to what level should result in a beach closure.
The limitations of total and fecal coliforms in
recreational waters,  particularly subtropical
waters, are now  well recognized. Other indica-
tors such as Enterococcus, Clostridium
perfringens, and bacteriophages (viruses that
are parasites of bacteria) have been suggested,
but each appears to  have its own limitations
when relied upon to indicate the presence of
human pathogens such  as Staphylococcus,
Pseudomonas, and viruses. A multipronged
approach is required, perhaps with a suite of
indicators coupled with pathogen monitoring.
The goals of this program are to establish
criteria, protocols, and monitoring plans for
integrated management strategies to be  used  for
assessment and response to public health
concerns for subtropical beaches in Florida and
the U.S. Using a scientifically based risk-
assessment approach, land use, sources, climate
factors and broad water quality monitoring can
be used to address  appropriate management
strategies in the  future.
                                                                                          147

-------
                                                                    East Coast Regional Beach Conference
V : 	 ! 	
New Tools for Assessing Healthy
Beaches
Joan Rose
University of South Florida


Beach Sites.Tampa Bay
i 4
€ 3.5-
I 3

1 ,.
CFUorPFUrtOO
= g - bt

Courtney
Campbell 	
Causeway


i










1 Honeymoon
	 Island



1 fl
L
i
John's
	 Pass 	






' + '"+"


V
I-




«#
-



North
; Baach,
Ft. Da Soto





IE

-
-
-


-


""'

• EnMrocoed
• dOHrkSum
• Collphog*

               CUEARWAtER
                    PETERSBURG
                        21
       B.fragilis JEJacteriophage

   Siphoviridae, double-stranded DNA
   Flexible tail
   Somatic phage
   Found in 13% of human population
   B40-8 (ATCC 51477) human strain
   B56-3(RYC2056) animal and human strain
            B.fragilis phage B40-8
                 (ATCC 51477)
      TBl Delaney Creek
      TB7 Bullfrog Creek (Little B.F. headwaters)
      TB12 Hillsborough River
      TB17 Allen's Creek
1.000E+08

1.000E+06
                                                         1.000E+00
          30 degrees C Survival
                                                                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
                                                                                Days
148

-------
                                                                                                    Day One: Session One
          Sampling Sites
TBl Delaney Creek
TB2,SAIaria River
TB3A«,',8 Bullfrog Creek
TB9,10 Little Manatee River
TB11 Manatee River
TB12 Hillsborough River
TB13 Courtney Campbell Causeway
TB14 Sweetwater Creek
THIS Tarpon Lake Canal
TB16 Honeymoon Island
TB17 Allan's Creek
TB18 Joe's Creek/Cross Bayou
TB19 John's Pass
TB20 North Beach, Ft DeSoto
TB2I Salt Creek
TB22 Control Site-Middle of Bay
                                                                     B.fragilis phage B56-3 (RYC2056)
TBl Delaney Creek
TBS, 4,6, and 8 Bullfrog Creek
TBS Alafla River at 301
TB12 Hillsborough River
TB14 Sweetwater Creek
TB17 Allen's Creek
TB18 Joe's Creek/Cross Bayou
TB21 Salt Creek
(TB 4 and 6 have tested positive for both Aug and Sept)
                                                                                                                            149

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
 EPA's  Beach  Plan
 Geoffrey Grubbs
 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
      EPA is holding this conference to provide a
      forum for beach water quality managers
      and public health officials to share informa-
 tion and to provide input that will assist the Agency
 in development of a program to protect the public
 from microbial pathogens in recreational waters.
      EPA has several objectives for this confer-
 ence. The first is information sharing. We want to
 present our ongoing and planned recreational
 waters program activities and to present informa-
 tion that describes the current "state of science" in
 recreational water standards, disease indicators,
 risk assessment, monitoring, and risk communica-
 tion. We also want to discuss local and regional
 recreational water quality issues through some
 case study presentations.  Second, EPA wants
 your feedback on development of national guid-
 ance. The guidance document will address public
 health issues at U.S. beaches and establish nation-
 ally consistent beach monitoring and notification
 programs. We want to hear from the state and
 local perspective what would help you in develop-
 ing your beach program.
     In May 1997 EPA Administrator Carol
 Browner announced the establishment of the
 BEACH Program in response to concerns about
 water quality in recreation areas. BEACH is an
 acronym for Beaches Environmental Assessment,
 Closure, and Health Program. The program was
 developed as part  of the Clean Water Action Plan,
 an effort to enhance the quality and improve
 protection of the Nation's waters.  EPA spent a
 year developing its Action Plan for Beaches and
Recreational Waters to address  concerns and
chart the Agency's future directions. The Beach
Action Plan identifies EPA's multiyear strategy for
monitoring recreational water quality and commu-
nicating public health risks associated with patho-
gen-contaminated  recreational rivers, lakes, and
ocean beaches.
      Five concerns are identified in the Beach
 Action Plan. The first concern is persistent beach
 water quality problems, evidenced in beach
 closings and advisories.  In 1997 the Natural
 Resources Defense Council's 8th annual survey on
 beach water quality reported 4,153 days of beach
 closings and advisories caused by pollution.
 EPA's annual National Health Protection Survey
 of Beaches, completed in 1998 and 1999, indicated
 that many beaches continue to have water quality
 problems. In 1999 EPA. gathered information on
 more than 1,000 east coast, west coast, and Great
 Lakes beaches. Approximately 25 percent of
 these beaches were associated with an advisory or
 closing at some time during the year.
     The second concern identified in the Beach
 Action Plan is substantial inconsistency in monitor-
 ing approaches among and within states.  EPA's
 National Health Protection Survey of Beaches has
 confirmed that a wide variety of standards and
 monitoring approaches are used at beaches
 throughout the United States. In 1998 only one-
 third of survey respondents reported using E. coli
 or enterococcus as an indicator organism.  The
 third concern identified .in the Beach Action Plan is
 inconsistency in beach posting and notification
 programs. EPA surveys have indicated that,
 because of varying resources and diverse local
 circumstances, the local agencies (county health
 departments and sanitation districts) responsible
 for notifying the public of water quality problems
 use a wide range of risk communication practices
 (web sites, newspaper, radio). Some of these
 methods do not effectively communicate health
 risks to the public.
     The fourth Beach Action Plan concern is
 awareness of the health risks posed by exposure
 to microbiological contaminants. It is a fact that
recreational  water users are at risk of infection
from waterbome pathogens through ingestion or
150

-------
                                                                            Day One: Session One
inhalation of contaminated water or though contact
with the water.  Some people might face a dispro-
portionate risk from exposure to the pathogens
because of heightened susceptibility. For example,
children may be more vulnerable to environmental
exposure because of their active behavior and
developing immune systems. We need to focus
research efforts to better understand the health
effects of these microbial pathogens.
     The fifth concern identified in the Beach
Action Plan is stress placed on coastal ecosystems
by human population growth and development. In
the United States, it is estimated that 75 percent of
the population will live within 1 hour of the coast in
the next 10-20 years. Habitat destruction and
pollution resulting from this future coastal develop-
ment and growth will have a great impact on the
coastal ecosystems. It is a goal of scientists not
only to discover means of pollution prevention, but
also  to derive reproducible methods to better assist
environmental managers in monitoring and improv-
ing coastal water quality.
     An important part of the Beach Action Plan
is to  assist in state, tribal, and local implementation
of monitoring and public notification programs.
EPA will strengthen water quality standards
implementation programs by establishing appropri-
ate policies (e.g., what should be done in tropical
waters) and assisting local managers in their
transition to EPA's currently recommended
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria.  The
transition to EPA's current water quality criteria
will be a priority for the triennial water quality
standards reviews to be completed in FY2000-
2002. Beginning in FY2000, EPA will develop
management agreements with the states and tribes
that will include commitments to have states and
tribes adopt the current criteria. Where a state
does not amend its standards to include the 1986
criteria, EPA will act to promulgate the criteria
with the goal that they apply in all states not later
than 2003.
     As part of the Beach Action Plan, EPA is
also coordinating the planning and issuance of
national BEACH Program guidance documents.
The  guidance document, entitled National Moni-
toring and Notification Guidance for Recre-
ational Beach Managers, will address recre-
ational water quality monitoring, risk assessment,
risk management, and risk communication. The
document is heavily developed with input from
state and local government agencies. This confer-
ence will assist us in developing the guidance.
     EPA is taking a number of other steps to
implement the Beach Action Plan. The agency
will continue to conduct the annual National Health
Protection Survey of Beaches.  EPA uses the
survey to collect detailed national data on state and
local beach monitoring efforts, applicable stan-
dards, beach water quality communication meth-
ods, the nature and extent of beach contamination
problems, and any protection activities.
     Surveys have been completed during each of
the past 2 years, and the results have been made
available to the public on EPA's Beach Watch
Internet web site, www.epa.gov/ost/beaches.
EPA will continue to maintain this web site to
provide timely recreational water quality informa-
tion to the public and to local authorities. The
current web  site will become a real-time electronic
database with links to state and local beach health-
related information.  The web site will also provide
information identifying those beaches where
monitoring and assessment activities are conducted
in a manner consistent with EPA's national
guidance. An important part of EPA's effort to
make beach information available to the public is to
develop a national digitized inventory of beach
maps.  EPA will develop a protocol for mapping
beaches and will begin mapping in priority areas.
These maps will ultimately be linked to the loca-
tions of pollution sources through a geographic
information system.
     EPA has recognized the need for developing
better and faster indicators of water quality.
Indicators are needed to identify risk before
exposure takes place and to determine the potential
presence of pathogens causing nonenteric dis-
eases.  Work has  begun to complete research
necessary for development of new indicators.
     In modeling and monitoring research, a
number of mathematical models have been or are
being developed to assess the pollution in recre-
ational waters.  These models can be used to
rapidly determine public health risks at beaches
following rainfall events or spills. EPA has
catalogued a range of predictive tools and is
improving them. A  catalogue and evaluation of
existing models is available on EPA's Beach
Watch web site. Models can range from rules  of
thumb for predicting risks, such as the occurrence
of intense rainfall, to complex hydrodynamic
models.
     Research is planned to investigate the risks of
combined sewer overflows, the role that interstitial
waters play in microbial exposure to bathers
(particularly children), human exposure factors
(such as inhalation, skin contact, time spent in the
                                                                                             151

-------
                                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
 water, and skin abrasions or cuts, and crowding of
 swimmers at small recreational areas) that contrib-
 ute to adverse health effects. EPA has identified a
 need for epidemiological studies to establish a link
 between water quality indicators and disease
 endpoints. New and innovative indicator methods
 will be used to assess and validate their efficiency
 for determining health risks.
     EPA activities have taken on greater promi-
 nence because Beach Program legislation has
 been proposed in the U.S. Congress. The House
 of Representatives passed H.R. 999, the Beaches
 Environmental Awareness, Cleanup and Health
 Act, sponsored by Congressman Bilbray. Senator
Lautenberg has introduced a similar beach bill (S.
522). The Senate may take action on a bipartisan
bill (either H.R. 999 or S. 522) during the next
session. General Provisions of Beach Legislation
include a requirement for adoption of revised state
water quality standards consistent with EPA's
current ambient criteria for bacteria (i.e., E. coli or
enterococcus) within 31A years, establishment of
state or local beach monitoring and notification
programs, and issuance of grants to state and local
governments to support monitoring and notification
programs. The passage of these bills will spur the
development of a national beach program.
152

-------
                                                                    Day One: Session One
Question-and-Answer  Session

Panel: Jake Joyce, Matt Liebman, Steve Schaub, Joan Rose, and Geoffrey
Grubbs
Q (Lou Glatzer, University of Toledo):  This question is for Dr. Rose.  What was the mecha-
nism by which you were measuring these parameters by Polymer Chain Reaction  (PCR)?
What was the definition of the parameter for bacteriophages,  Clostridium, and so forth?

Joan Rose:
     The indicators were all done  with membrane filtration and cultivation techniques.

Q (Lou Glatzer):  But you were showing quantitative levels.

Joan Rose:
     Yes.  For the indicators, it was membrane filtration cultivation techniques for
Clostridium, enterococci, and coliphage.  PCR was only for the human viruses.  In some of
our studies, we used cell culture for the human viruses and we did get quantifiable num-
bers. The PCR for the human viruses was taken from a concentrated sample.  Part of the
sample was put on cell culture for  analysis by routine CPE, and part of the concentrate then
was  assessed with a variety of primer sets for the human viruses.  That was presence/
absence only.

Q (James Woodley, USEPA Headquarters, Oceans and Coastal Protection  Division):  This
question is for Dr. Rose.  You mentioned some potential causes of microbial contamination.
Did you look at other studies that  have been or are currently looking at the correlation
between recreational  and commercial boating and fecal contamination?

Joan Rose:
     That is certainly a source of contamination at certain sites in the Tampa Bay  area.  To
my knowledge,  we have not investigated whether a marina itself or a high-use boating area
is a high risk.  Clearly the John's Pass area, which we are investigating, is a very high
transit area for boats coming out of the upper reaches of the Bay and into the Gulf.  We're
hoping to understand  the sources, and we have a variety of sites. I don't know of other
studies that are being  done like that, but that's a really difficult question to  get at and I think
it's an  important one.  It's  a nonpoint source that's problematic.

Q (Helena Solo-Gabriele, University of Miami):  This question is for Jake Joyce.  You made
a statement  indicating that  E. coli  was an ideal indicator because it doesn't grow outside
the body.  Is that a strong statement or is there evidence to indicate that it  doesn't or are
things starting to change?

Jake Joyce:
     I've seen some papers from the state of Hawaii where they were looking at the fecal
coliforms and some E. coli. I am not certain if E. coli could have been still viable if it is
bird or animal droppings and not necessarily in human contamination.  Historically, we
                                                                                   153

-------
                                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    believe that E.  coli is not an environmental microbe like Serratia or some of the other ones.
    There is recent evidence in tropical areas that some of these things can live in leaf litter if it
    is well fertilized.
    Q (Helena Solo-Gabriele):
    rnents?
Is there evidence that it doesn't grow in nontropical environ-
    Jake  Joyce:
         I am not certain.  Can someone help us out? [No comments from the audience.]
    is an  area of future research.
                                                        Here
    Q (Bob Howard, Connecticut Department of Public Health Laboratory):  My question is for
    the EPA representatives.  Right now, EPA recommends E. coli and enterococci as the
    indicator organisms.  Do you see in the future that EPA will mandate specific laboratory
    procedures to be used for these indicators, as they do in the Drinking  Water Program?

    Steve Schaub:
         We think that the current indicators are the best that are available  right now for making
    sure  that public  health is practiced appropriately and that we are protecting the health of our
    beaches goers.  For the new indicators, I would anticipate that  there will be a  standardiza-
    tion process that will occur through our Office of Science and Technology.  New methods
    are required to go through collaborative testing to establish the precision,  bias, and accuracy
    and bias of any  new methods that are deemed equivalent to the existing methods.  I think
    this will be a continuing requirement for any indicator to supplant or be utilized as a re-
    placement for E. coli or enterococci.  We want to make sure  that if we do come up with a
    new  indicator, it is risk-based, and the indicator replacement must demonstrate the same
    pathogen loading that we have currently identify with the E.  coli or enterococci -  at least for
    our current approach and criteria.  If we are talking about new indicators for different sets of
    diseases or pathogens that are currently  targeted, they also will have to go  through a  devel-
    opment process, collaborative testing,  and then epidemiological studies to  demonstrate the
    risk correlation of the  indicator versus the types of diseases  which it is  supposed  to indicate
    for that type of waterbourne exposure.

    Q (Arnie-Leder,  USEPA, Region 5): This question is for Jake Joyce. After E. coli is dis-
    charged from a failed  septic system or a wastewater  treatment plant and not properly
    disinfected, what kind of a life span or life cycle does it have in the water?  How  long can
    you reasonably expect it  to last,  particularly in freshwater?

    Jake Joyce:
         That is  a difficult question because there are so many  different environmental  param-
    eters that would factor into it, such as salinity, temperature,  the amount of nutrients avail-
    able, other microbial predation on the E. coli, different competition between the naturally
    occurring microorganisms, and so forth.   I'm not sure whether that answer is available.
    Again,  that is another area of open research  because E. coli  is a very important indicator of
    fecal pollution.  Could they [E. coli} replicate with appropriate nutrients and temperature?
    I'm not certain.  It seems that in warmer areas there is some indication  of that  occurring,  as
    in  tropical areas where the temperature  is more consistent with that of  the  human body.

    Q (Arnie Leder):  This question is for  Dr. Rose.  You mentioned that you used  tracers in the
    septic systems to identify plumes.   Could you elaborate on that in terms of what was used
   for the  tracer?
154

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session One
Joan Rose:
     We used virus and bacteriophage tracers.  We used the PRD1.  It's a phage that is
grown using  a Salmonella host, and we don't find this particular phage in human sewage
very often. We might find it once in a while, but it's very rare in terms of naturally occur-
ring, compared with coliphage.  We also used a vibriophage that was isolated in Hawaii and
we had never found it in Florida waters. We had those two viruses.  We grew them to about
ten billion and injected them over an hour time frame, just flushing them once an hour
down the toilet. Then we monitored for up to  5 days at about six stations  throughout the
canals in some monitoring wells that looked  at some of the surficial ground water, as well as
using a boat  in the other  areas, and took currents and other measurements.

Q (Nancy Hatfteld, BioCheck Laboratory): My  question is for Joan Rose.  I  wondered if
you could say a little bit  more about the pH-dependent desorption of Vibrio from  sedi-
ments?

Joan Rose:
     This is just some preliminary work that's been going on.  Dr. Lipp, during her study of
Charlotte Harbor, looked  at sediment and water column for the fecal  organisms and specifi-
cally for Vibrio vulnificus. In this case, she was able to start building a model based on
salinity and temperature as to when you would  see different concentrations of Vibrio in the
water column, but it did not correlate with the  concentrations seen in  the sediments. She
was also looking in the laboratory  at adsorption coefficients, where  she was  taking marine
sediments and looking at  how much the bacteria adsorbed to the  sediments.  She found a
desorption occurring at a  certain pH.  One of our hypotheses now (and this is something
that needs further  investigation) is that under these optimal temperature and salinity condi-
tions vibrios  desorb into the water column.  We are not sure at beach sites how much might
be found in sediments. That is  an issue for swimmers who might have cuts on their feet
acquiring  vibrios.  That is another area of investigation—the idea of the vibrios on the
beach sites as opposed to  out farther in the estuaries. They do have an optimal salinity, so if
there  is high  salinity, you don't seem to find the vibrios as you would at moderate salinities.
This is  one of the things that we want to look at, but there were both  laboratory studies and
some studies  in the field that suggested that in these conditions,  the sediments acted as a
reservoir and that there was partly a desorption  and then  a regrowth based on the  optimal
temperature and salinity.

Q (Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program):  This  question is for Steve Schaub.  I
was interested in the real-time indicators, the dip-stick method.   How viable are those
considered and is  this something that EPA will be approving in the short or long term?

Steve Schaub:
     Al Dufour of the Office of Research and Development is in charge of the studies being
conducted by EPA.  They are  looking  at caffeine, detergents, and other chemicals as poten-
tial dip-stick  indicators. There is a lot of research going on in this area.  Nick Ashbolt and
his associates over in Australia are looking at the fecal sterols, and they have some promis-
ing techniques if they can simplify them and make them more cost-effective. The fecal
sterols are very good for  discriminating various types of  fecal sources/types.  Right now,
these tests are still in the  laboratory phase, and  obviously researchers  are going to have to
go out  and test them in real-world  waters, plus  perform the collaborative testing, to make
sure anybody can use them  with a high degree of precision and accuracy.   Then we will
look at them from the standpoint of how practically  they represent fecal contamination in
epidemiological studies.  Again, as Rick Hoffmann was  alluding to  earlier, we are probably
                                                                                         155

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    a number of years from where we need to go in the process to have official methods for
    these dip-stick tests.

    Q (Leslie Williams, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection):  This ques-
    tion is for the EPA representatives that we have here today.  Will EPA be coming forth with
    a definition of beaches for us?  The concern there is whether the indicator system, as
    proposed for bathing beach areas,  will be specifically associated with our bathing beaches.
    Or whether they are anticipating that all  of our Class III or recreational (fishable/swim-
    mable) waters will include the new  indicators?

    Jake Joyce:
        I'm from Region 7, and I'd still love to see some inland waterways because we have a
    lot of polluted swimming holes that people are  in.  It seems like a lot of the work so far has
    been done on both of the coasts with the  large Atlantic cities, Miami beaches, the Santa
    Monica Bay,  and the big coastal areas.  I  would personally like to see us start to move into
    freshwater because there is an awful lot of exposure that occurs  in these bathing areas on
    small lakes and swimming holes  where there are no sanitation devices and [waters] are
    shared  with animals.  There could be a lot of pathogen transfer.   As far as I know, most of it
    has  been geared toward the large beaches in the saltwater areas,  not so much for the fresh-
    water rivers, lakes, and ponds.

    Q (Leslie Williams): The reason  that this question  comes up for  us is that in order to be
    able to change the water quality  criteria,  we need  to be able to  determine whether the
    indicators, as proposed,  are focusing on  a designated bathing beach type area, and
    whether it is appropriate to use those indicator densities to apply to all  of the fresh and
    marine waters that are recreational waters.

    Steve Schaub:
        I might expand on that a little bit. Currently, the criteria we have are for designated
    recreational sites where  the local  authority or the state has specifically defined them as a
    primary use beach. Also, we  do have guidance which we are putting out for lesser used
    swimming areas or secondary  recreational uses, such as for  scuba  diving, water skiing, and
    other contact uses where there is potential exposure.  It is my understanding that Office of
    Water is  coming  out with improved guidance for secondary  exposures in the near future
    that will  have different allowable exposure criteria  that will use the fecal indicators.

    Matt Liebman:
        Also, Ambient Water  Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986 mentions a procedure for how
    to calculate the threshold values  for less  frequently used beaches based on measured
    variability from a site-specific case.

    Q (Joanna Mott, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi):  I had a question about the E. coli
    methods.  If EPA came  out with Method 1600  as the recommended method for the entero-
    coccus, is there going to be one recommended  method for E. coli?  I know that there  are a
    number of methods that are very similar but slightly modified from each other.

    Steve  Schaub:
        The current  approach that EPA uses  is that any methods for E. coli or enterococci have
    to be equivalent to the current E. coli or  enterococci which  the prescribed methods  (1986
    Criteria) currently  measure.  The reason is that when we developed the  original analytical
    methods that were used in the epidemiology studies to  characterize their association or
156

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session One
relationship to acute  gastrointestinal disease incidence, the ingredients of the media pro-
vided growth capabilities to  the general strains of the two indicators that were considered
representative of fecal contamination.   Therefore,  unless or until new epidemiological
studies can be conducted on new candidate indicators, those that are to  be considered as
equivalent to the recognized methods  must be demonstrated to detect and quantify the same
indicator strains that  were used to establish the epidemiological relationships, e.g., it is
measuring the same organisms and therefore the same potential health risks.  This of course
requires that the methods go through  the evaluation process for equivalency to insure that
the precision, accuracy,  and  bias  are statistically the same as the currently recognized
methods.

Matt Liebman:
     In New England, we've been getting a lot of calls about the use of the method called
Enterolert®. Maybe  that is one of the things you are asking about.  As far as I know,
headquarters is evaluating the use of  Enterolert® for measuring enterococci under the
procedures that Steve just talked about for inclusion in the Part 136 regulations.

Q (Dick Svenson, New York  State Department of Health):  I have  a question for Steve
Schaub.   You mentioned waterfowl, bird droppings.  I am particularly interested in small
waterbodies, and you indicated that your  studies showed increased levels due to their
droppings.  Have there  been any studies on  specific pathogens related to waterfowl and
water quality?

Steve Schaub:
     There are some specific pathogens of birds that are also pathogens of humans, for
example strains  of  the Salmonella and Shigella group.  Also, it has recently been recog-
nized that birds may passively transfer human pathogens from environmental sources.  For
example, it has been  shown that geese often feed on cattle manures and  if the cattle are
infected with Cryptosporidium parvum the manures  are likely contaminated with high
concentrations of the oocysts, although birds are not infected or diseased from  these para-
sites. There does not appear to be a significant amount of degradation of the parasites in the
bird's digestive tract. When the contaminated birds then fly to water to  nest  and defecate
near to  an area of  human exposure such as a beach they can significantly contaminate the
water as a typical goose can  produce up to a pound of fecal material a day. I think that Dr.
Ron Payer at USDA's Agricultural Research Service Labs in Beltsville,  Maryland has shown
that Cryptosporidium oocysts are not  significantly diminished in number or viability when
passing  through goose intestines.   Thus there is pathogen  transmission potential from
infected avian species or indirect contamination from their feeding and  nesting  behaviors.

Q (Dick Svenson):  I understand  the potential.  On the particular studies of huge amounts
of waterfowl or birds on small waterbodies, have there been any studies where they have
documented that occurring?

Steve Schaub:
     By inference,  maybe. I am  not familiar with any specific studies directly relating bird
populations to indicator levels but one might search the literature and find some.  I think
there have been studies that  have shown that there is a loose association of conforms and
enterococci and high bird populations  when there  is no other obvious source of contamina-
tion.  Again,  I  don't think there  have been any direct measurements of  waterfowl associ-
ated indicator levels in  water.  Indigenous animals like muskrats and beavers may also
contribute fecal indicators to the water.
                                                                                          157

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
   Comment (Rick Hoffmann, USEPA,  Office of Science and Technology):  I just wanted to
   comment on a couple of questions.  One of the issues  was the definition of "beaches." I
   think as EPA works  on beach health issues, we are asked a somewhat different question
   than we were asked in the past.  The ambient water quality standards, as most of you know,
   start with use designation of waters as either primary or secondary use waters.  In other
   words,  the state designated the particular use, and our criteria were  designed as ambient
   water quality standards. They have typically been used to measure  if you meet a standard
   when your dischargers are discharging into those waters.  When we  get into an issue of
   beach  advisories or advice to people who are currently using the beach for recreational
   purposes, it raises a somewhat different issue. That is, you might use a geometric mean to
   characterize the overall, average  water quality over a 30-day period.  The  question is
   whether that measurement is sufficient for the people who are out there swimming right
   now.  In many cases  it is not.  That is why many states and localities are using a single
   sample maximum or  some other thing that better characterizes their  exposure.  That is one
   of the things  that we will try to address as we develop the guidance document—beach
   closures and openings and that sort of thing.  It is somewhat of a different take than what
   has been addressed through the ambient water quality  standards.  We really didn't get into
   the definitions of "beaches" with ambient water quality standards because you  simply
   designated all waters as to whether they are primary or secondary  contact.  So we did not
   have to get directly into an issue of what constitutes  a  beach.  We started to get into that
   when we talked about a national beach survey, and we decided to accept  whatever a county
   health department calls its own beaches.  Will that issue come up in the guidance? It may
   be something that we need to talk  about tomorrow as one of the issues that we need to
   address in subsequent guidance.
        A final thing is that some of  the new indicators that may come along may be sufficient
   to detect a presence or absence of fecal contamination.  In other words, they may be used in
   a recreational beach.   Whether they will be sufficient  as a regulatory standard for discharg-
   ers or the designation of compliance with water quality standards is  what Steve is starting to
   get into for the longer-term issues.  They get-fairly complicated.

   Q (Joan Rose, University of South Florida):  I've heard a number of states, in looking at the
   E. coli standard,  talking about changing their effluent discharges  as well  as their reclaimed
   water  discharge standards.   They say,  "Well, this is good enough for swimming in.  That
   means  it's good enough for treating wastewater and putting  it on food crops" and things
   like  this.  This really concerns me because that means that the fecal coliforms and the
   treatment itself will actually be lessened at the wastewater treatment plant. The disinfection
   step will be  decreased, the efficacy of that particular process,  and I am really concerned
   about  the disconnect between the dischargers and the  users at the endpoint there.  I am
   wondering what kind of dialogue is going on at the federal level on these  types of issues.

   Geoffrey Grubbs:
           I agree that there, is a need for dialogue between dischargers, pollution sources, and
   those who set standards. I am participating in an ongoing discussion primarily with  city
   managers and people  in politically elected positions to discuss this issue.   How do you get
   out of  additional  control requirements  for combined sewer overflows and  for separate sewer
   overflow events?   I  also met  with the state directors last week. They're concerned about
   the potential increase  in costs associated with pollution control as well.  They told me it's
   going to cost them a lot of money not only in terms of constituents but also for the time
   investment for their staffs to implement the changes. We need to be sure that we get  the
158

-------
                                                                        Day One: Session One
science correct first.  After all, that's one of the main reasons for this conference.  Then, and
only then,  should we address the consequences of pollution control.

Q (Mike Flannery, Pinellas County Health Department,  Healthy Beaches Program):   My
wife was watching TV last night and saw that the temperature in San Diego in the water was
62 degrees. She noticed ours was dropping now to 82  degrees.  We have done a lot  of
research at looking at E. coli as an  indicator.  The kids that died in Japan got E. coli 0757-
87 from radish sprouts that were growing in the warm, humid climate. My question to  you
is do you think that lots of the information that EPA is  using was developed in cold water
areas?  May it not be proper to  have two separate standards, one for subtropical areas like
Florida and maybe other ones for where you have breeding conditions and perhaps  other
environmental concerns?

Geoffrey Grubbs:
        The EPA studies performed  on marine and fresh waters were located between
Louisiana and New York and Ohio.   So you can see that the studies represented a wide
range of water temperatures. Earlier today, Thomas Mahin showed us a literature review of
papers that span from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong.  So,  I think that the research is
covering many conditions.    However, both the EPA studies and those presented by Thomas
Mahin were not performed under tropical and subtropical conditions.  This leads us to the
topic of two separate indicators for subtropical and temperate regions  of the country.  EPA
is currently investigating the issue of tropical indicators. First, we  have to determine if  the
organisms  are reproducing under natural conditions.  Then we can proceed to address
separate standards.  Keep in mind that the guidance document will allow for flexibility  for
states to use additional  organisms based on their varying conditions.

Comment (Rick Hoffmann):   Just one comment on that.  You can raise those same questions
this  afternoon because Al Dufour and several other folks have been talking about the
various studies.

Q (Robert Nobles, Florida State Health Office):   You mentioned $20 million.  When will the
money be available?  If available, how will the states be notified?  Who is  the contact
person and how can the state of Florida be on the mailing list?

Geoffrey Grubbs:
        Actually, we costed the implementation  of the BEACH Program at $30  million.
What we know right now is  that  the House has passed H.R. 999 and we are waiting for the
Senate to act on either H.R. 999 or S. 522.  The draft of the Senate bill does not have cost
figures in it yet.  The way the money will come is first by getting folks to agree that you
need it, and we have reached that first step, agreement.  The next step is to put it into  a  bill
that  authorizes the money,  the President signs it, and we are hopeful for that next year.
Then, in the appropriations process, the President requests and  the Congress appropriates
money that we then distribute/grant.  The granting mechanism would primarily  be the states.
Remember, the money is available only  if Congress passes the legislation.  When that
happens, EPA will have a major  effort to notify states and localities through mailing lists
and  the regional offices of the availability of funds.
                                                                                         159

-------

-------
       Session Two:
   Risk Assessment,
Exposure, and Health
             Effects

-------

-------
                                        Day One: Session Two
The Relationship of Microbial
Measurement of Beach Water
Quality to Human Health
Al Dufour
US Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory

Please refer to page 39 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.
                                                 163

-------
                                        East Coast Regional Beach Conference
Qualitative Review  of Epidemiology
Studies
Tom Mahin
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Please refer to David Gray's presentation on page 43 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.
164

-------
                                                                       Day One: Session Two
Epidemiologic  Research  on  Bather
Illness  and  Freshwater  Microbial
Contamination
Rebecca Calderon
US Environmental Protection Agency, National Health 8. Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
^HPJhis presentation is an outline of some of
  •  the epidemiologic issues that have been
 M. identified over the last 15 years in the
conduct of epidemiologic studies to evaluate
water quality  parameters that may be related to
the occurrence of illness.  Epidemic disease has
long been recognized in this country.   A review
of the recreational outbreaks from 1991-1996
indicates that  the majority of the outbreaks are
of a parasitic  etiology followed by bacterial.
Surveillance for outbreaks is a passive system
in this country, and  the information collected
represents only a fraction of outbreaks that
occur.  The health effects associated with
swimming are gastrointestinal illness, eye and
ear infections, upper respiratory illness, skin
wounds, skin  rashes  and drowning.  The focus
of my talk will be on gastrointestinal illnesses.
     In the last 15 years, studies have  been
done on every continent except South America.
The majority  of studies are evaluations of
marine waters.   In general, two types  of epide-
miologic study design have been used: cross-
sectional and  cohort. Both a prospective and a
retrospective  approach have been used in
conducting cohort studies.  Epidemiologic
studies can be either observational (investigator
does not control  exposure to the risk factors) or
experimental  (investigator controls the degree
of exposure).    The  advantage of observational
studies is  that they evaluate real world expo-
sures under real  world conditions and therefore
are the exposures of interest.  The disadvantage
is that because there is no control by the inves-
tigator these studies  can be subject to bias,
especially bias due  to exposure misclassifi-
cation.   The advantage of experimental studies
is that because the investigator controls the
parameters of the study the design can be more
efficient (fewer subjects)  and therefore more
cost- efficient.  Because the investigator con-
trols exposure, there  should be little if any
exposure misclassification.   The disadvantage
of these studies is that like observational
studies,  they can  be  subject to confounding and
it is often unknown if the exposures are the
ones of  interest.  The issue becomes more
confusing if a quasi  experimental design is
used.  In these studies it is  unclear whether the
investigator is accurately measuring the expo-
sure or has the degree of control as originally
designed.
     With gastrointestinal disease the focus of
many studies, health effects have been assessed
by reporting of symptoms either by interview-
ing or use of a daily diary.  Some investigators
have employed a physician-based diagnostic
evaluation,  and even fewer investigators have
endeavored to collect and evaluate either  stool
specimens or serological specimens.  Exposure
assessment  is usually some measure  of water
quality,  generally a bacterial indicator.  Recent
studies have employed some measure of bather
habits as part of  their exposure assessment
(e.g., duration in  water, head wet).  Another
issue in conducting these studies is that many
of the organisms that cause gastrointestinal
illness can  also be transmitted by other means
(food, person-to-person, animal contact, foreign
travel).  It is very difficult  with current method-
ologies  to determine when  an episode is related
to food, contact with an infected person or
                                                                                      165

-------
                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conference
recreational water exposure.  That is why many
studies take a population comparison approach.
It is assumed that for any given population the
other sources of organisms are the same  for
swimmers and non-swimmers.  To date no
studies have been done to validate or invalidate
that assumption.
     Bias and confounding  are major sources
of error that make it difficult to interpret  epide-
miologic studies.  A major concern is non-
differential bias of exposure classification.  In
most cases this random misclassification  in both
cases of disease and cases of non-disease
generally tends to lower associations identified
in studies.  There have been cases  where non-
differential bias has artificially raised the
association.  In general, it is felt that because of
the random nature of the error, the effect in
studies of large associations (greater than
relative risk of 3), is that non-differential bias
has little impact.  A major concern is differen-
tial bias, which is disproportionate exposure
misclassification in either the  diseased or non-
disease population.  This can  have a substantial
impact on the  magnitude of the effect and the
direction of the bias can  be in either direction.
This bias can also have substantial impact
regardless of the magnitude of the relative risk.
Another area of concern  is the issue of con-
founding.  Confounding  occurs when a risk
factor  is associated with  both  the exposure of
interest and the health effect.  Typical confound-
ers are age and socioeconomic class.
     Another issue is the type of statistical
analysis.  The  appropriate analysis is a function
of the study design and the a priori hypotheses
to be evaluated by the investigator.  If the goal
is to determine individual risk, analyses  that are
attempting to evaluate population risks  may not
be appropriate.  The reverse is also true.  When
the goal is to assess a population's  risk,  a
measure called  the risk difference is more
appropriately evaluated.
     What will the  next generation of new
bathing beach  studies look like?  There  have
been advances in assessment of health  effects
through  the  collection of biological specimens,
particularly blood for serological analysis.   Also
computer-assisted interviewing can be de-
ployed, eliminating  the effect an interviewer
may have on the subject's responses. On the
exposure side,  a new generation of water
quality indicators has been developed, and  we
understand bather behavior better and we can
incorporate  some determination of  other
sources of organisms  into study designs to
evaluate bias and confounding.
     The research portfolio should  be much
broader  with investigators employing a  variety
of different study designs.  Given the increased
knowledge today about other modes of  trans-
mission for the microbes  of concern, that issue
should be more aptly addressed in  new  studies.
The  important  goal  should be to conduct many
studies of different study designs and look for
congruence in the results.  Hopefully as  in the
previous generation of studies,  dose-response
information can be obtained with less uncer-
tainty.
166

-------
                                                                                   Day One: Session Two
  EPIDEMIOLOGIC ISSUES IN BATHING
           BEACH STUDIES:
PREPARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION
          OF BEACH STUDIES
       Rebecca L. Calderon, Ph.D., MPH
    Chief, Epidemiology & Biomarkers Branch
 National Health & Environmental Effects Laboratory
     US Environmental Protection Agency
WATERBORNE DISEASE OUTBREAKS
            1991-1996
                                                                                            n PROTOZOAN
                                                                                            • UNKNOWN
                                                                                            • VIRAL
           HEALTH EFFECTS

      • Gastrointestinal disease
      • Respiratory illnesses
      • Ear and eye infections
      • Skin wounds
      • Skin rashes
      • Drowning
REVIEW OF EXISTING STUDIES
                                                                          TYPES OF STUDIES
                                                              Cross-sectional
                                                              Case-control
                                                              Cohort
                                                                • Prospective
                                                                • Retrospective
                                                                                                        167

-------
            OBSERVATIONAL VS EXPERIMENTAL


    Observational
      Pros:  Real World, Natural Variability, Right Exposures
      Cons: Subject to bias and confounding, No control over
            exposure conditions
    Experimental
      Pros:  Control the exposure conditions, More efficient
      Cons: Artificial conditions, Subject to bias and
           confounding
                  QUASI EXPERIMENTAL
                                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                                                                               HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
       • Self report (Diary or interview)
       • Medical confirmation
       • Biological specimens
         • Blood
         • Stools
                 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
        • Water Quality Measurement
        • Bather Habits
           • Ingestion
           • Inhalation
           • Dermal Contact
           • Head Immersion
           • Duration
                                                                              OTHER EXPOSURES OF INTEREST
• Food
• Previous Illness
• Animals
• Young Children
• Travel (International)
• Ingestion of Untreated Water (Hiking)
                          BIAS
           Nondifferentlal Exposure Misclassification
                                                                                          BIAS
                                                                           Differential Exposure Misclassification
168

-------
              BIAS
  Differential Exposure Misclassification
                                                                           Day One: Session Two
                                                                      Disease
                                                       Exposure
                         Confounding
                                                                 CONFOUNDING
        ANALYSIS OF DATA


Population versus Individual
   Objective of Study
   Study Design

Relative Risk versus Risk Difference
        NEXT GENERATION
  HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
Biological Specimens

Computer-Assisted Technology Interview
        NEXT GENERATION
     EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
         Water Quality
         Bather Behavior
         Other Risk Factors
        NEXT GENERATION
         STUDY DESIGNS
         Observational
              Cohort

         Experimental
              Cohort

         Mixed Design
              Cohort
                                                                                              169

-------
                                                             East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Question-and-Answer  Session
    Panel: AI Dufour, Tom Mahin, and Rebecca Calderon
    Q (Richard Eskin, Maryland Department of the Environment):  This session was very
    interesting; it was very helpful; it related to  the factors that are important and compared
    the indicators. Accepting for the moment that enterococcus is  indeed the best indicator,
    you have still not addressed how you set the threshold of that indicator and what level of
    potential risk that threshold is allowing.  I'd like to hear more about that and what level of
    protection EPA thinks  is appropriate and is assessing in setting the threshold for the
    indicator.

    Al Dufour:
         I believe that the Agency has made a judgment with regard to thresholds.  For marine
    waters, that threshold is at 18 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers.  For freshwater,
    it is about 8 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers.  That judgment was made in
    1986, and it was  based on what was felt to be the acceptable risk at that time relative to all
    of the monitoring that  had gone on before using the 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliter
    value.  It was based on what is  acceptable; there may be better  ways of doing it, but that's
    the way that it was  done.

    Q (Richard Eskin):   If a lot of information has accumulated since then, would EPA consider
    going back and saying, "Yes, the threshold we chose does  still represent this threshold"?

    Al Dufour:
        It  is my belief that if the beach plan is followed—if we develop better indicators, make
    better risk assessments, and do  follow-up epidemiological studies—the Agency  and every-
    body else will be able  to make better judgments about "acceptable," or I like the word
    "tolerable" better.  Acceptable means you sort of like it  and accept it;  tolerable means you
    don't like it but put up with it.  In the future,  I think that we will be able to come up with
    tolerable levels.

    Tom Mahin:
        If you look at the UK Beach Trial data,  just a word of caution in applying this to other
    countries because if you look closely at that data, at the higher levels they had a greater
    illness rate than has been detected in studies in  the U.S.   Currently, the standard in marine
    waters is  104, and it raises questions about the  daily maximum at that  level,  based on the
    UK Beach Trials, that those could be high illness rates.  There is a lot of different data out
    there.  We would recommend that EPA analyze the reasons for  differences in illness rates
    relative to the daily maximum levels for marine waters.

    Q (Barry Davis, National Park Service):  I have spent about 20  years with the CDC and am
   fully familiar with the dilemma of epidemiological association of exposure and illness,
   particularly in bathing waters. It seems like we are in the same place we were in 20 years
   ago with being focused primarily on the  easy part of the issue,  which is the microbiological
170

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session Two
sswRtt.
indicators and the nuances thereof.  I was glad to hear the presentations on the
epidemiology].  But I still don't see any plans for any good epidemiology, and my question
is are there any epidemiology studies being planned and are there any funds available to
implement those studies?

Rebecca Calderon:
     It is my understanding that in outlying budget years, starting in 2001, the plans are to
conduct epidemiological studies. We are beginning to draw that information together, and I
would anticipate that we will begin to conduct those studies either in 2002 or 2003. The
question is how many will we be able to conduct and where will they be conducted? In the
past, they have tried to be as  geographically representative as  they possibly could and to do
an even amount between marine and freshwater.  I believe  that it is our intent this time
around to do as many geographically representative samples of sites as we possibly can that
meet some sort of criteria  that we will develop in the next year or so.  One of the things that
will make an ideal site is a wide range of exposures.  In other words, there will have to be a
high probability over the course of the summer that you are going to have low and high
days.  I know, historically, a lot of places who think that they  may be having high days are
not interested in having  you come along and do  a study so you can tell the world,  "Yes, we
have high days," particularly if your results show that  there were illnesses associated with
that.  There are social impacts associated with doing studies.  My group has had bad luck,
particularly in air pollution episodes.  When we  came to town to do a study, miraculously
there  was no pollution.  So, please  welcome us  with  open arms because your pollution
might go away because  we have come to town to do a study.

Tom  Mahin:
      From  one state's perspective, we would love to see an epidemiological study based on
 a separate newly constructed separate sewer and drainage system  so we knew that it wasn't
 being impacted by  illicit connections.  We would like to see the impacts of nonpoint source
 runoff, as EPA has done in Connecticut, to follow  that up with a point source drainage
 system  situation and also sample for pathogens (Giardia cysts, Cryptosporidium) and some
 PCR work on viruses.  We could try to put that all together and resolve this urban storm
 water situation.

 Q (John Barrett, Texas Coastal Coordination Council):  The  1986 guidance document
 contained a promise from EPA that they would assess  the effects of nonpoint source runoff
 on disease or enteric illnesses.  Then,  the study that has been referred to as the Connecticut
 study, that was published in  1991 as the answer to that question that was raised in the
 guidance document.  There are some dramatic  conclusions in that  report from a manager's
 standpoint.  There  are some inconsistencies in the  beach plan where it states that nothing is
 known today about animal impacts on illness.  I am  wondering if the two principal authors
 on the panel still feel that study is defensible.

 Al Dufour:
       When I reported on  that study, I made it clear that it  was a  small study. I thought that
 the data were provocative and that there should be follow-up  studies.  I think that, for its
 size,  the results were quite defendable.  However, I have been saying for some time that
 follow-up studies  are needed.  Unfortunately, in 1992, the interest in wastewater studies
 increased (most of our bathing beach studies are associated with wastewater) and the budget
 went way down.  Any hope to do a follow-up study disappeared.  I think with the  current
 EPA Beach Plan one of the  key elements is to have a  good method for determining what is
 human and what is animal pollution.  I think that would describe point and nonpoint source
                                                                                          171

-------
                                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conference
     pollution.  With those methods, when we get them, we will be able to do appropriate stud-
     ies.  Since I am from a laboratory, I don't want to make any promises for the Agency.

     Q (John Barrett):  We are making a lot of progress with the DNA and other methods in
     differentiating  the sources.  The question in my mind as the manager is what are we going
     to do once we have differentiated the sources?   We find out that-we have a bird problem,
     geese, as a contributor to fecal coliform  in a stream.   Is the 1991 study putting that stream
     on "kings x" or are you saying that we need additional studies along the same lines as the
     1991 study to  refine those questions?

     Al Dufour:
          That's what I was  saying.

     Q (Bob Nuzzi,  Suffolk County, New York Department of Health Services):  Given that the
     threshold levels were developed from the epidemiological studies and the vast  majority of
     the epifdemiological] studies  were performed in areas where there are and were point
     sources of pollution, do  you think that it might be possible that those thresholds might be
     overly conservative for areas where  we don't have those point sources of pollution?

     AI Dufour and Rebecca Calderon:
          Yes.

     Q (Bob Nuzzi):  As a manager and someone who is responsible for regulating  bathing
     beaches, how can I cope with a standard that's being suggested  or recommended that,  in
     my case, would appear to have me closing more beaches for longer periods of time without
     any indication  that there is any public health relationship to those closures?

     Rebecca Calderon;
         Remember your indicators are just one piece of information.  The first speaker that we
     had this morning said that it needs to go  hand in hand  with things like a sanitary survey and
     other  pieces of information.  As a manager, I would be uncomfortable making  a black-and-
     white decision  based on indicator levels.

     Comment (Bob Nuzzi):  We never make those kinds of decisions based just on  indicator
     levels. However, I would also like to indicate to you that there are people looking  over our
     shoulders, in the public and environmental groups.  We're in a very litigious society.  If I
    come  up with a number  based on  these standards that I should close this  beach, I have a
    very hard time  not doing so.   So I think you have to consider what is being done here, in
    that if there is  a  standard being proposed based on information that's collected  from areas
    where there are large point sources of pollution, I think we have to be very careful if we're
    going to utilize these same standards.  If we're going to a federal  standard that is going  to
    be utilized  in all areas, we have to take a lot of care with that.

    Tom Mahin:
        We do have to be careful because even if the studies show that pure storm water runoff
    doesn't pose the same health risk, at least where we  are, the sewer systems are so old we see
    a lot of illicit connections in most storm drains.  When it rains, you don't just get street
    runoff, you get  sewage which  is in the system that gets pushed out.  We don't want the
    pendulum to go too far the other way and have something that says, "wet weather  events
    are okay, so let's not remove illicit connections." This  is a different standard.  We  think that
    there is a wet weather problem.  The  public health risk, we believe, comes from illicit
172

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session Two
«•«£»»»
 connections, and that should be the focus.  We believe that EPA's Phase II regulations
 should really focus on illicit connections also.

 Comment (Bob Nuzzi):  But those illicit connections are coming out of pipes.  They are
 point sources.

 Tom Mahin;
      Absolutely.  You just have to  be careful on how the study is done because when you
 analyze pure storm water outfalls, to some people think that storm water outfalls are not a
 problem. But they are a problem when you have illicit connections.

 Q (Dick Svenson, New York State Department of Health):  We  look at the indicators as a
 tool—as one of the factors that you consider before you open or close a beach.  As a
 regulator, these  numbers that were put together—35, 33, and  126—are rather precise.
 When you look at your charts, whether you are dealing with a log-log or a multi-log-log,
 and start plotting points and then pull them off for regulatory purposes, we can debate the
 threshold level  All'things equal, how are you going to do it in the future to have some
 degree  of tolerance knowing when  you have small  numbers and you're plotting them on
 those kinds  of scales?  These numbers obviously amazed me when they came out  in  1986
 compared to what we had before.   It's just one  more area to think about when you're
 looking at the numbers.  I would like to have some feedback as far as when you do future
 epidemiological  studies and plot them up  and come up with another tool to discuss.

 AI Dufour:
      I believe, just as we are going to come up with new and better methods, new and
 better ways of doing epidemiological studies,  hopefully,  we will be  very creative  in how we
 set the  limits. I think that there are new and better ways today that have been considered
 since 1986.  And  hopefully,  we will use them.  I think that most people don't understand
 how conservative  the current indicator level is, and I think that at the time, in 1986, al-
 though we  did have this data showing the relationship between indicators and health
 effects, there was  a feeling that there was still a lot that the Agency did not know and,
 therefore, they went with the most conservative system available or that they could come
 up with.

 Comment (Dick Svenson):  This will  explain some of the reluctance of the states  to jump up
 from a regulatory standpoint to pick those kinds of numbers and have to go with  them as
 far as the degree of tolerance.  When we looked at them back  in 1986 when they first came
 out, the obvious recommendation  was what you are doing, which is doing more  research
 and looking at them and fine tuning them.  I  think that is some of the difficulty when you
 look at defining, and this gets back to defining  what are bathing waters  and what is  swim-
 ming.  If the national goal is let's get it all there, then these are so important—to  describe
 what's really bathing waters as far as if you are going to use this as one of the criteria.

 Al Dufour:
       I'm sure the Agency understands that problem.  I hope I  can speak for the Office of
 Water. One of the reasons for these conferences is that they want to get input from  the
  states and cooperation from the states so that the limits that are chosen, first of all, make
  sense,  and  secondly, so that everybody buys into the system.

  Q (Deana Levengood, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, League of Women Voters):   As a
  member of the public, we're glad that you're having this forum and that you've invited us
                                                                                          173

-------
                                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conference
     to participate because it's kind of nice to know what you're grappling with.  We are edu-
     cated in our process  through the estuary program, but the general public as a whole
     doesn't really know what a lot of these issues are about.  A couple of questions from the
     public's perspective might be,  as I recognize, is that as managers, you have to develop your
     criteria and do your best effort to protect the masses, but I think that a lot of information is
     not passed through the public and that the public can assist in helping to make informed
     decisions in that regard—what's  important to them  and what's not—especially  with commu-
     nity groups that are looking at these kinds of issues.  Particularly in  light of our area here
     dealing with wet seasons or wet weather events.  We have a lot of them here in  Florida. In
     this area, in fact, they contribute a great deal to a lot of our issues and we have some of our
     normal sewage  challenges.  We have the overflows at times of very wet weather because we
     don't have the best places for injection wells and because of our water supply being so
     close to the  surface and  contaminated a  lot.  What's happening now,  with regard to some of
     the hurricane opportunities, and I'll say that they are challenges, but they are also oppor-
     tunities, in light of looking  up in  the Carolinas, what's  been happening there with the
     animal waste and the other things.  Are there any studies in place or being planned so you
     can capture  some of the  data that might be available, taking water quality sample informa-
     tion at this time and seeing what  kind of epidemiological impacts it may have in the future,
     what kind of health impacts, and then trying to tie them together? It  seems to me that when
     we have these crisis types of situations, we have to be prepared to go in and do some
     massive sampling all at one time and I don't  know if that is practical  or effective.  We may
     be able to learn something from it by having  it happen all at one time and in a  large dose.

     Rebecca Calderon:
         Since I am from North Carolina, I'll  answer the question.  In terms of what the Agency
     is doing, I believe that particularly in Region  4, [the  Agency] is working with the state of
     North Carolina to look at some of the impacts on the beach areas, particularly in terms of
     flooding in the freshwater rivers and the delta where the freshwater rivers  run into the
     marine  environment.  It would be very  difficult to do a recreational study  in North Carolina
     now because it's past the recreational season and a lot of the beach areas, because of the
     hurricane, no longer have access to them because of  the flooding or a lot  of people just
     have packed  it up and gone home for the season.  We are in the process of our third hurri-
     cane in the last 2 months, and I think that a lot of people are going to  pack it in for this year.
    In terms of an opportunity there to do recreational studies, probably not.   Given the random
    nature of hurricanes, I would be very reluctant to plan a recreation-related type of epidemi-
    ology study based on hurricanes.  It would just be really difficult to do.  But there could be
    a lot of things that could  be learned, at least from a microbiological standpoint.

    Q (Deana Levengood):  Maybe I should clarify something.  I'm not talking about recre-
    ational studies.   I'm talking about when people  are displaced or they're flooded, people are
    exposed to coastal waters.  Maybe not  recreational, but there  are people  wading around
    being exposed to those  waters and in some cases having to swim through  those waters to
    get through different areas.  And that is an opportunity, again,  to do  sampling for different
    kinds  of exposure.

    Rebecca Calderon:
        I'll tell you what the state of  North Carolina told us: "You  tell me what's more impor-
    tant, getting people back into livable housing  or running around collecting health informa-
    tion from individuals who  may or may not be  ill."  It's just a matter of public health priori-
    ties when emergencies  like this happen.   And  they actually got annoyed with the Office of
    Research and Development because they were more interested in us providing crews to
174

-------
                                                                         Day One: Session Two
help with the clean-up efforts than they were in having us come down and do those kinds of
health studies.  So, while it's an interesting idea, I think that you have to look at where the
priorities are when something like that comes to town.  And it's probably not in whether or
not Joe Blow out  there running around in his little skiff is going to get  diarrhea because he
fell in the water.   It's difficult to  look at that. Now, one of the things that we are interested
in is the impact that this flooding is going to have on ground water supplies.  Ground water
is a major source  of water in eastern North Carolina, and that is something we are working
with the state to look at over the long haul.

Comment (Jennifer Wigal, USEPA, Water  Quality Standards Branch):  There is a point  that
I want to revisit and perhaps make a couple of clarifications regarding the risk levels  associ-
ated with the 1986 criteria. I want to reiterate that those criteria levels, as Al mentioned
earlier,  are for  application on a conservative nationwide basis.  Those are also to be used in
conjunction with a designated  use setting,  when the states set their goals for the waterbody.
These are the criteria we feel are appropriate to protect those designated uses and also to
assess the long-term health of a waterbody and whether or not  it is meeting  that use over the
long  term.  For beach opening and beach  closing situations, I think that perhaps there is a
lot more flexibility than is being perceived by some of the states as to how they do a day-to-
day open-and-closing decision.  This is  our recommendation on a national basis for  what
we feel is probably at this time the most appropriate way to protect those waterbodies over
the long term.

Tom Mahin:
      We do have a lot of problems with people trying to interpret the mean, geometric
mean, and daily maximum, and  some people sample once every 2 weeks and some  sample
once a week.  It seems very unclear to us when to apply the 200 and when  to apply  the 400,
so I would hope that in the future, that, if there are any changes, the system is simplified
because there are a lot of different beaches out there and there are all kinds  .of different
sampling frequencies.

Q (Gary White, Macomb  County Health Department):   The question that I have is regarding
sampling techniques, such as the depth  of the water the samples are collected in and depth
below the surface and things like that.  Have any of those issues been looked at in any  of
 the studies that have been done,  or are there any plans to look at how best  to measure
 exposure through varying  sample techniques  and what not?

 Rebecca Calderon:
      The UK  study looked at three depths: there was the knee depth, there was the chest
 height, and I forget what the third one was.  And the chest height in their studies turned out
 to be the best  one. Since I was one of these people who literally waded out into  the water,
 we did ours at about between 3  and 4Vz feet in terms of where we  collected  the water on the
 beach.  Part of the problem in beach studies is that you have these tidal actions and I re-
 member, particularly in the Boston area, having to walk quite a ways to  some point  at low
 tide  to get out there where it was at least up to my knees in the water.  I think that in the
 next round of studies that may possibly be a component in terms of what's  a  more appropri-
 ate measure of exposure.

 Comment (Gary White):  I think that would be a very important thing to look  into.
                                                                                          175

-------

-------
 Session Three:
Monitoring mid
     Modeling

-------

-------
                                                                       Day One: Session Three
Indiana's  Escherichia  coli Task  Force
Arnold Leder
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
      Beaches at the Indiana Dunes National
      Lake Shore and the State Park in north-
      western Indiana usually close  several
times each year during the summer  swimming
season due to E. coli contamination.  E. coli is
an indicator organism which indicates  the
presence of fecal material in the water.  For  the
past year, USEPA, USGS, National Park Ser-
vice,  Indiana DNR, Indiana Department of
Environmental  Management, Indiana Depart-
ment of Public Health, numerous county and
local agencies,  and universities have been
working together in an effort to identify the
sources of the E. coli discharges which are
responsible for closing the beaches.  Areas
being looked at include not only direct dis-
chargers with NPDES permits, but also Com-
bined Sewer Overflows, failing septic  systems,
contributions from concentrated animal feeding
operations, improperly land applied sewage
sludge, marine vessel contributions  and even
contributions from wildlife.  In addition to the
research aspects of this  task force, IDEM and
USEPA are working in partnership to  maintain
an especially effective compliance and enforce-
ment presence  in the watershed to ensure that
all point source dischargers comply with
NPDES permit requirements.
      Northwest Indiana E. coli Task Force
Accomplishments 1999:  Beach closures at
Northwest Indiana beaches, monitored by the
National Park  Service,  experienced  an increase
in 1999 (23) over 1998 (12).   While 10 of 12
beach closures last year were  associated with
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO), this swim-
ming season was generally dryer without the
major storm events after July, suggesting that
 other factors play a part in the problem as well.
 In spite of the increases in beach closings, the
 following  successes were achieved  by the
 multi-agency task force:.
Continued the efforts of the voluntary
monitoring network and completed a
report of last year's results.  The report
identifies Combined Sewer Overflows as
a major contributor to beach closings.
IDEM  and USEPA continued enforce-
ment and compliance assistance efforts in
the watershed, with special attention paid
to minor dischargers.
Non-Point Source  Committee initiated
stream surveys to identify failed septic
systems and subsequent actions by state
and local health departments.
The Indiana Dunes State Park (Indiana
DNR)  began a sewer system  evaluation
and is  doing intensive monitoring of
tributaries within the park. Dunes Creek
runs through the park and regularly
exceeds coliform standards at its mouth.
Dunes  Creek divides the State Park beach
into an east and west beach.   This year
the State Park took steps to restrict access
to Dunes Creek through the use of
signage and cones.
Indiana University and  USGS conducted
monitoring during  three major storm
events at Burns Ditch in an effort to
determine E. coli loadings to Lake
Michigan and area beaches.
USGS conducted trials  of a new  flow
cytometer which measures E. coli cells in
order to  study whether  it will provide a
more rapid indication of when the
beaches  should be closed.
Indiana Geological Survey completed the
Derby Ditch Study in an effort to deter-
mine beach closing predictors. The
results of the Derby Ditch Study can be
accessed from the  Lake Rim Web Site at
http://129.79.145.25/indmaps/ims/
lakerimmo/lakerim_front.html.
                                                                                         179

-------
                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conference
        During the course of the year citizen
        groups became more involved and press
        coverage and public awareness of the
        problem  increased.
At the request of the E. coli Task Force,
the Great Lakes Commission will hold a
workshop on marine  sanitation  devices
later this fall.
180

-------
Northwest Indiana E. coli Task
               Force
  Little Calutnet-Galien
  USGS Cataloging Unit; 04040001
              Arnold Leder
   US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
                                                                             Day One: Session Three
       E. coli Task Force

Officially formed in 1995, at the suggestion
of commercial interests in northwest
Indiana who came to a number of state and
federal agencies and asked for assistance in
solving the coliform contamination
problems at Indiana's Lake Michigan
beaches.
  •.wountBalcy   8. stale parK.ta
  ZConbolAvomjo  7. Portor Beach
  3 Lake Vl«w Beech 3 Done fens
  i DelbyCitet)   g.OgcenDunes
                                                             Beaches affected include:

                                                          Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore
                                                          Indiana Dunes State Park
                                                          Municipal beaches
      The watershed includes:

  The northern half of Lake, Porter and
  LaPorte counties in northwestern Indiana
  Includes the Grand Calumet and Little
  Calumet River systems, Trail Creek,
  portions of the Saint Joseph River, Derby
  Ditch and Dunes Creek.
       The watershed (cont):

  Home to one of the world's largest
  concentration of steel manufacturing
  Rapid growth in the southern portion of the
  watershed ahead of municipal sewer
  systems
  Because of the parks and beaches, tourism
  in northwest Indiana is also a major
  industry.
                                                                                                   181

-------
          Sources of Contamination:

       Combined Sewer Overflows
       Failed septic systems
       Agricultural inputs from land-applied
       manure
       Major and minor point source discharges
       Marine discharges
       Storm water
                                                                      East Coast Regional Beach Conference
      Potential Sources (cont):

  Wildlife
  Infrastructure at park facilities (sewer
  systems, pump outs and privies)
                    History:

       Prior to the Clean Water Act, many beaches
       in the area were routinely closed
       Treatment plant expansion led to reopening
       many beaches in the late 70's and early 80's
       Over the past decade, the rivers, creeks, and
       ditches of northwest Indiana have exceeded
       state criteria for swimmable waters (< 235
       E. co//per 100 ml H2O).
         Member Agencies:

  US and Indiana Geological Surveys
  Indiana and Purdue Universities (Sea Grant
  Program)
  National Park Service
  Indiana Department of Natural Resources
  Indiana Department of Health
  Indiana Department of Environmental
  Management
          Member Agencies (cont)

     ' USEPA
     • County health departments from Lake,
      Porter and La Porte Counties
      Representative from local municipalities'
      wastewater treatment plants
      Industry representatives
      Natural Resources Conservation Service
      (USDA)
        Completed projects:

• USEPA and IDEM, in 1997, completed
 CSO Inspections at all major municipalities
 with CSOs in the watershed.
 For the past 4 years, IDEM and USEPA
 have focused compliance inspections in the
 watershed, with particular attention being
 paid to minor dischargers which have
 resulted in state and federal enforcement
 actions.
182

-------
            Task Forces:

 Nonpoint Source
 Point Source Task Force
 Monitoring
 Marine
                                                                           Day One: Session Three
   Point Source Task Force:

In the fall of 1997 began monitoring at 80
different locations in the watershed.
Worked with the municipalities and health
agencies and the Park Service in order to
ensure that each agency has implemented
approved methods for E. coli sampling and
analysis.
 Standardized E. coli Monitoring
Standardized Operating Procedures for
Recreational Water Collection and Analysis of
E. coli on Streams. Rivers. Lakes, and Wastewater
       Cooperative Efforts

An example of the cooperation being
achieved by the task force can be found in
the case of Oak Tree Mobile Home Park.
Although this facility only discharges
60,000 gallons per day, the treatment plant
had failed and the load being discharged
was equal to what a complying 3 million
gallon per day plant would be discharging.
     Cooperative Efforts (cont)

  The company, under federal enforcement,
  was ordered to come into compliance with
  NPDES permit requirements.
  In order to solve this problem, the City of
  Portage allowed the mobile home park to
  install a pump station and force main in
  order to eliminate their discharge.
   Cooperative Efforts (cont)

 The owners have agreed to fund research in
 the area as part of a supplemental
 environmental project.
                                                                                               183

-------
                                                                      East Coast Regional Beach Conference
           Point Source Task Force

       Has established a voluntary monitoring
       network at 80 locations throughout the
       water shed.
       Voluntary participants in this project
       include the three county health departments,
       major municipalities and the National Park
       Service and several major industries.
                           Point Source Task Force (cont)

                         • Samples are taken each Wednesday at the
                           interior sites and each Thursday at the
                           beaches.
                         • The results of this monitoring will assist
                           officials in isolating sources of E. coli
                           throughout the watershed.
          Northwestmdiana Beach
                    Closings
              Memorial Day through Labor Day
               Year
                     1999
                     1998
                     1997
                     1996
                     1995
                            Closings
24
12
18
10
10
                           Fixed & Nonpoint Monitoring
                                                             Nonpolnl Bourn Martorlng
                                                             Mapped CSO
                                                             N=DES.TvpaSTA
                                                             IM5DE5- Tspa PUB
                                                             N=DE3.Typ!.BFP
                                                            • strrams^nd
                                                            , Malr Roads
                                                             Local R034S
                                                            !! I flhnn nnd W
                                                             TnccjnyArfl
          Little Calumet Network
                             Grand Calumet Network
184

-------
     Trail Creek Network
                                                                       Day One: Session Three
      St. Joseph Network
    FY99 Accomplishments

IDEM and USEPA continued enforcement
and compliance assistance efforts in the
watershed with special attention paid to
minor dischargers.
Continued the efforts of the voluntary
monitoring network and completed a report
of last years results. The report identifies
Combined Sewer Overflows as a major
contributor to beach closings.
FY99 Accomplishments (cont)

Non-Point Source Committee initiated
stream surveys to identify failed septic
systems and subsequent actions by State
and local health Departments.
The Indiana Dunes State Park (Indiana
DNR) began a sewer system evaluation and
is doing intensive monitoring of tributaries
within the park.
FY99 Accomplishments (cont)

Indiana University and USGS conducted
monitoring during 3 major storm events at
Burns Ditch in an effort to determine E. coli
loadings to Lake Michigan and area
beaches.
USGS Conducted trials of new flow
cytometer which measures E. coli cells in
order to study whether it will provide a
more rapid indication of when the beaches
should be closed.
FY99 Accomplishments (cont)

Indiana Geological Survey completed the
Derby Ditch Study in an effort to determine
beach closing predictors.
At the request of the E. coli Task Force, the
Great Lakes Commission will be holding a
workshop on marine sanitation devices later
this fall.
                                                                                          185

-------
                                                                    East Coast Regional Beach Conference
      Clean Water Compliance Watch
               Or Where We Go From Here

     • OECA's fiscal year 2000 EMPACT Project
       intends to focus on development and
       implementation of its hazard assessment
       tool in northwest Indiana watersheds.
     • The hazard assessment tool, is a system that
       combines baseline information,  monitoring
       data, and modeled results to estimate
       conditions prevailing in the watershed at
       any time.
186

-------
                                                                    Day One: Session Three
Predictive  Modeling  of  Bacterial
Indicators Along the South  Shore  of
Lake  Pontchartrain
Jeffrey Watere
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation

A.J. Englande, Jr.1, Henry B. Bradford 2, Mike Schaub3
1 Tulane University, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health 8.
Tropical Medicine,z Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Division of Laboratories, Office
of Public Health,3 US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
JiWJhe south shore of Lake Pontchartrain has
  •  for years been polluted to such an extent
  A. that swimming and other recreational
activities have been prohibited.  The metropoli-
tan New Orleans area lies mostly below sea
level and is  completely encircled by flood
control levees.   Storm water runoff is collected
in a system  of drainage canals and pumped into
Lake Pontchartrain as a flood control mecha-
nism.  Water quality problems in Lake
Pontchartrain are directly related to pumped
storm water  runoff, and state health officials
have declared that swimming is not advisable
within 1A mile of the south  shore due to bacte-
rial contamination.  However, over the last
several years, there has been an effort to
revitalize the lake and recent water quality
sampling suggests that conditions have im-
proved along the south shore.  The purpose  of
this project is to characterize the movement  of
certain bacterial indicators in runoff from
drainage and to develop a predictive model  to
assist state and  local health officials in deter-
mining when and where primary contact
recreation activities may be pursued in Lake
Pontchartrain.  The specific objectives of the
project include:
    • Define microbiologically the dimensions
      of the water "plume" that is being dis-
       charged into the lake for a given rainfall
      event.
    •  Determine the titers  of certain microor-
     ganisms within the plume of pollution
     and the titer reduction rate of these
     organisms in the initial area of observa-
     tion.
   • Define the movement patterns of mi-
     crobes.
   • Develop a model that will allow the
     accurate prediction of indicators  and
     infectious  organisms  that would migrate
     away from the original plume area.
   • Use this model as a tool to open the lake
     for primary contact recreation activities at
     least in specific areas.
    To determine what factors may  influence
the fate of indicator organisms, an integrated
rainfall/runoff-oriented lake water sampling
design  was effected.  The indicator organisms
studied are E. coli, the enterococci group, and
fecal coliform.  Additionally,  physicochemical
parameters and environmental  data are  re-
corded  to facilitate the development of  a model
that may produce reasonable projections on the
movement  and fate of these organisms  and their
titers.   Physicochemical parameters monitored
include dissolved oxygen (DO),  pH,  turbidity,
salinity, conductivity, Secchi disk transparency,
and temperature. Environmental data collected
include wind speed  and direction, rainfall
amount and intensity, current  direction and
velocity, and pumpage volume and rate. The
overall purpose of the project is to characterize
the distribution of certain indicator microorgan-
                                                                                     187

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
 isms in the urban runoff into Lake Pontchartrain
 based on sampling events.  A deterministic
 model incorporating biotic and abiotic param-
 eters, hydraulic and rainfall information, and
 GIS mapping is being developed to evaluate the
 distribution  and fate of pertinent microorganism
 indicators.   A neural-network model is also
 being developed that will allow for predictions
 of lake water  quality based on physicochemical
 parameters.
      The project  was recently enhanced
 through the procurement of a grant from the US
 Environmental Protection  Agency EMPACT
 (Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
 and Community Tracking) program. With
 funds from the grant, the  Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation (LPBF) and the US Geologi-
cal Survey-Water Resources Division (USGS/
WRD) have  installed a continuous multiprobe
recorder at Lincoln Beach on the south  shore of
Lake Pontchartrain.  The multiprobe recorder
measures DO, pH,  salinity,  conductivity, and
turbidity and is equipped with a satellite uplink
so that  continuous monitoring data is available
and posted on the LPBF and USGSAVRD web
sites. Because the predictive model links
bacterial indicators  to  physicochemical  param-
eters, the availability of continuous, real-time
monitoring data through instant access to the
multiprobe recorder will allow continuous
assessment of water quality  conditions at
Lincoln Beach.
188

-------
                                                                          Day One: Session Three
  Predictive Modeling of Bacterial
 Indicators Along the South Shore of
    Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana

1 Jeff Waters, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
1 AJ. Englande, PhD, Tulane University School of
 Public Health and Tropical Medicine
• Henry Bradford, PhD, Office of Public Health,
 Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals
• Mike Schaub, USEPA, Region Six
   Pontchartrain Beach Circa 1950
   South Shore Lake Pontchartrain
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
   Volunteer Water Quality Testing
                Program

•  17 Sampling Locations on South Shore

•  Samples Collected by New Orleans Power Squadron

•  Analyzed for Fecal Coliform by LaDHH

•  Period of Record: January 1994 to Present
                                                                                            189

-------
                                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                   Project Goals
     Characterize the distribution of certain indicator
     microorganisms in urban runoff to Lake Pontchartrain.

     Develop a deterministic model to understand the
     distribution and fate of pertinent indicator organisms.

     Develop a predictive model that will assist state and local
     health officials to determine when and where primary
     contact recreation activities can be pursued in the lake.
        Three Phase Approach
Phase I - Characterization and Model Development

Phase II - Continued Model Development and Lincoln
Beach Characterization

Phase III — Model Validation
        Phase I - Model Development

     Stormwater Characterization

     ARGOS Buoy Deployment

     Grid Sampling
  Phase I - Parameters Measured
Rainfall
Discharge Volume
Current Speed/direction
Wind Speed/direction
• Fecal Coliform
• Ecoli
• Enterococci
• pH
• DO
• Conductivity
• Turbidity
• Secchi Disk Transpency
• Air/water Temperature
190

-------
                                                                                 Day One: Session Three
                                                              Duncan Canal Pumping Information
                                                                           (8/13/98)
                                                                                load cu ft \
                                                                          10     15     20    25
Duncan Canal Dissolved Oxygen (8/13/98)
                  Timeflirs)
Duncan Canal Turbidity (8/13/99)
                                                               15:36    - .- 16:48     .   18:00       19:12
                                                                             TTme(hrs)
   Duncan Canal Conductivity (8/13/98)
Duncan Canal Bacterial Indicators
             (8/13/98)
                                                            ' 500° A " I  \
                   Time(hrs)
 15:36      16:48      18:00    .  19:12
             Time(hrs)
                                                                                                     191

-------
                                                                      East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                                                                Duncan Canal Pumping Information
                                                                             (3/14/98)
                                                                            10    15     20
                                                                                             14000000 cu ft

         Duncan Canal Bacterial Indicators
        .„	(S/14/98)
                      Time(hrs)
Duncan Canal Dissolved Oxygen (8/14/98)
                                                                               T!me(hrs)
         Duncan Canal Turbidity (8/14/98)

                       Time(hrs)
  Duncan Canal Conductivity (8/14/98)
                                                                               Time(hrs)
192

-------
                                                                                                   Day One: Session Three
  August  15-16,1998 Dissolved Oxygen  (mg/l)
       August 15-16,1998 Secchi Disk (ft)
      August 15-16,1998 Turbidity (NTU's)
                                             Buoy Path
                                         an 5/98
                                           .  2-3.5
                                           ,  2.5-5
                                           .  5-S.5
                                           .  65-8  .
                                           •  8-9.5
                                         8/1998
                                           •  2-3.5
                                           .  3.5-5
                                           .  5-6.5
                                           •  6.5-8
                                           .  8-9.5
a                                             Jefferson Parish
                                             3. diaries Parish
         August  15-16,1998 Salinity (ppt)
                                           •  Buoy Path
                                         8/15/98
                                           .  5.3-5.39
                                           .  5.4-5.49
                                           •  5.5-5.6
                                         8/16/98
                                           .  5.3-5.39
                                           .  S.4-S.49
                                           .  5.5-5.6
                                         [   1 Jefferson Parrish
                                         ff§ St. Charles Parrish

                                                 N
August 15-16,1998 Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
                                             Buoy Path
                                          8/15/98
                                           .  9000-9200
                                           •  9201 -9400
                                           .  9401-9600
                                           .  9601-9800 .
                                           •  9801-10040
                                          8/1998
                                           .  9000-9200
                                          . .  9201 -9400
                                           .  9401 -9600
                                           .  9601-9800
                                           •  9801-10040
                                          |   | Jefferson Parrish
                                          IJ^B a. Charles Parrish
August 15-16,1998 Enterococci  (MPN/100 ml)
                                             Buoy Path
                                         8/1998
                                           .  0-3
                                           .  3-6
                                           .  6-9
                                           .  9-12
                                           .  12-20
                                         S/16/98
                                           .  0-3
                                           .  3-6
                                           .  6-9
                                           .  9-12
                                           •  12 -20
S                                             Jefferson Parrish
                                             9, Charles Parrish
                                                                                                                           193

-------
   August 15-16,1998 E. Coli (MPN/100 ml)
                                                                          East Coast Regional Beach Conference
 August 15-16, 1998 Fecal Coliform
           (MPN/100

                     Phase II



     Continue Development of Deterministic Model

     Characterization of Lincoln Beach Water Quality
         Deterministic Model



Statistical Relationship Between Indicator Organisms and
Physicochemical Parameters

Deterministic Near Field Model - Steady State Model

Deterministic Far Field Model - Time Variable Model
        Lincoln Beach Water Quality

   • 12 Stations sampled five times/month
     (June-October, 1998)

   • Fecal Coliform - Log Mean Range: 2 to 5 MPN/100 ml

   • Enterococci   - Log Mean Range: 2 to 7 MPN/100 ml
     Ecoli
                 - Log Mean Range:  1 to 3 MPN/100 ml
               Phase III



Validate Deterministic Model

Develop Predictive Model
194

-------
                                                                               Day One: Session Three
Environmental Monitoring for Public
   Access and Community Tracking
               (EMPACT)


•  Continuous Real-Time Multiprobe Recorder

•  Satellite Uplinked

•  Available at www.saveourlake.ore or
  www.ldlabre.er.usss.sov
       Multiprobe Recorder
  Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data
                    Salinity
              oaoo OOLOO  .flftbo Saw ottai
             i. DATA - SUBJEtf TO CHANGE UPON FINAL REVIEW
   October 99 Drifter Buoy Event
          [Friday 08-Tuesday 12]
                                                                                              Buoy Location
                                                                                              Orleans.shp
  Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data
               Specific Conductance
                                     1.500 |
                                     6,000 £
    IST-SDO'   '                "*"   """*"""

      960'i   • -~f r~
                 oaoa ' ott'oo
     ^PROVISIONAL, DATA - SUBJECT Tp CHANGE UPON FINAL REVIEW
Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data
                                                                         Dissolved Oxygen
                                                                ROVlSIOnAL DATA - SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON FINAL REVIEW ;3
                                                                                                   195

-------
                                                                             East Coast Regional Beach Conference
      Lincoln Beach Water Quality Data
       Status and Future Goals

December 1999- Deterministic Model Validated

December 1999 - Predictive Model Complete

June 2000 - Louisiana Department of Health &
Hospitals initiates monitoring program at Lincoln Beach

June 2001 - Louisiana Department of Health &
Hospitals "reopens" Lincoln Beach to swimming using
Predictive Model and multiprobe recorder to provide
daily status
196

-------
                                                                      Day One: Session Three
A Regional  Modeling Tool  for
Impacts of Spills and  Bypasses
Phil Heckler
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
  1A  Regional Bypass Group, formed in July
 jQL  1997, was composed of representatives
M.  JLfrom various governmental  agencies
concerned with unplanned/planned bypasses of
raw sewage to receiving waters which may
impact bathing areas and/or shellfish beds.  At
the time,  there were no formal procedures to
inform the various entities of a bypass and there
were no readily available tools to quickly assess
whether action measures  should be taken.
Existing measures at the time could include
enhanced monitoring of a potentially impacted
area and  the possibility of temporarily closing a
bathing or shellfish area.  Therefore, the Re-
gional  Bypass  Group was committed  to develop
methodologies  to quickly assess the impact of a
bypass and to  develop procedures to  communi-
cate the occurrence of  an event.
     Beginning in September 1997, a Modeling
Analysis  subgroup met periodically to develop
a predictive tool for use by Administrators. Our
consultants, Hydroqual, provided technical
insight throughout the  process  to develop a
model  that could quickly assess the severity of
a discharge. The basic  premise for  the modeling
effort was that a methodology  would  be  devel-
oped to determine the  impact on beaches  and
shellfish beds of a bacterial discharge due to a
raw sewage bypass.  Three types of output were
generated—graphical,  tabular, and a computer
program (Regional Bypassing Program).  Since
the graphical and tabular outputs are quite
voluminous, the Regional Bypassing Program
is by far the easiest to use.  The program is a
menu-driven, user-friendly tool  which  displays
maps locating discharge and receptor sites.  The
user specifies  some basic information of the
discharge (volume, concentration and water
temperature) and the program interpolates
archived model output to these conditions.  The
user can view which areas are impacted by the
discharge and then can tabulate or graph
receiving water responses at the various recep-
tor sites.  Within minutes, therefore, the user
can quickly assess the severity of a discharge
and if it will impact a beach or shellfish bed.
This information then helps decision-making
authorities formulate an action  (or no action)
plan.
    The  program was completed in May  1998
and has been used successfully for the  last two
summers. This predictive model has helped
prevent the unnecessary closure of beaches in
several cases.  In one or two instances it has
been used proactively by Health Department
officials to close a beach during the time period
during  which the beach would be impacted by
a raw sewage bypass.
                                                                                      197

-------
                                  ewater
                    Phil Heckler
            NYC Dept of Environmental
                     Protection
                       Beach conference
                                                                       East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
              Background

•f Harbor-wide water quality improvements
  - all NYC public beaches reopened
  — wet weather advisory lifted or relaxed
•f Planned shutdown sensitizes region (Jan 97)
-f Unrelated pump station failures (June 97)
  - pipeline leak & station shutdown
  — both disinfected within hours
          Widely Varying Response

      •f First event (pipeline leak)
         - NYC closes adjacent beach, one day
         - Westchester closes 26 beaches up to week
      •f Second event (station shutdown)
         - NYC closes nearby embayment beaches one day
         - Westchester closes distant open water be
           » remain closed up to five days
         - CT closes beaches for extended period
         - Helicopters track " sewage slicks"
      What caused the widely
         varying response?

 -f Lack of communication
 + Media hype
 -f Algae slicks and wet weather slicks
 •f No acceptable predictive tool
 •f Weekend boat activity not previously
   measured
            Communication Begins

      + July 1997 meeting in Tarrytown, NY
        - attendees (-30) include NY & CT_regulators
          and dischargers and ISC
        - frank discussions
      •f Subcommittees established^
        - modeling analysis
        - communication & notification
    Bypass Modeling Subgroup

•f Expanded to include EPA and NJ
  Goal established:
   - develop a predictive model to reduce
    unnecessary precautionary closures
   - gain acceptance by regulators and local
    and sanitation authorities
198

-------
              Participants
•f Wastewater
  - NYS DEC
  - NJ DEP
  - CT DEP
  - ISC
  -EPA
  - NYC DEP

+ Consultant
  - HydroQual, Inc.
Shellfish & Health
- NYS DEC
- NYS DOH
- NJ DEP
-FDA
- Nassau Co DOH
-West Co DOH
- NYC DOH
                                                                                    Day One: Session Three
        Model Considerations
-f Parameter of concern: bacteria (total and
  fecal coliform, enterococcus)
-f Water bodies:
   - NY-NJ Harbor
   - LIS & Atlantic Ocean
•f Variables:
   - wind, temperature, hydrodynamics
   - duration, quantity & quality of dischargi
Approach
+ Use Mathematical Model
   - System-Wide Eutrophication
    Model (Hydroqual)
   - Apply Coliform Kinetics
   - Calculate Unit Load - Responses
      » Select Discharge Locations (29)
      » Select Receptor Site Locations (53)
      « Specify Seasonal Temperatures (3)
                                          Types of Model Output
                                   •f Graphical
                                      - Temporal Profiles
                                         »> 2500 Profiles
                                      - Spatial Profiles
                                         » > 1000 Profiles
                                   -f Tabular
                                         » > 250 Tables
                                   •f Computer Program
     Regional Bypass Program
 •f Discharge Characterization(input)
   - Select Discharge Location
   - Volume (MG)
   — Concentration
   - Water Temperature
 -f View Results(output)
   - Choose Threshold Cone. (Optional)
      » View area-wide results
   - Select Receptor Site Location
      » View Temporal Profile
                                                                  Discharge Sites; Hunts Point Discharge
                                                                                                         199

-------
                                                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
           Receptor Sites. Hums Point Discharge. Threshold at 70 MPN
                                                                                          Hunts Point Discharge - Response at Rockaway Shores
                                                                                                 120
                                                                                             I   100
                                                                                                        Response at 16} Rockawoy Shores
                                                                                             11

                                                                                                                                     Discharge
                                                                                                                                     Duration
                                                                                                                                      (M
                                                                                                    01234  56789  10 11 12
                                                                                                          Days From Start of Release
            Hunts Point Discharge, Threshold at 2400 MPN/lOOmL
                                                                                           Hunts Point Discharge, Response at Orchard Beach
                                                                                                4000
                                                                                                J3500
                                                                                            <=„ 300°
                                                                                            5^ 2500
                                                                                            § « 2000
                                                                                            |S! 1500
                                                                                            a  1000
                                                                                                         Rasponsn a!28) Orchard Beach
Discharge!
Duafon
  foul
                                                                                                    0  1  23455789 10 11 12
                                                                                                          Days From Start of Release
                 Throgs Neck Spill. Threshold at 2400 MPN
                                                                                             Throgs Neck Spill, Response at Orchard Beach
                                                                                                2500

                                                                                            |   2000

                                                                                            I I 1500
                                                                                            |I
                                                                                            "gg 1000
                                                                                            _E &
                                                                                            S    500

                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                        Raaponae at 28) Orchard Beach
-- 12
... 24
-•-516
                                                                                                   0  1  23456789  10 11  12
                                                                                                          Days From Start of Release
200

-------
               Throgs Neck Spill
         0  I 2  3  •)  5  6  7  S  9  10 11 12
               Days from Stait of Release
                                                                                      Day One: Sessfon Three
      Throgs Neck Spill, Response at Stamford, CT
                                                                     0.30

                                                                  I  a25

                                                                  § 9 °-20
                                                                  •3 o
                                                                  SI 0.15
                                                                  "*= £s
                                                                  |g. o.io

                                                                  E  0.05

                                                                     0.00
                                                                             Response at 35) Stamford
                                     -- 12
                                     ... 24
                                     — - 96
          0  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
               Days From Start of Release
Observations

•f The June 1997 Westchester, Connecticut,
  Beach Closures Would Not Have Occurred
  With Regional Bypass Program
-f The Program Was Used Successfully
   - 1998 New Rochelle &Yonkers
   - 1999 various
   - No Unnecessary Beach Closures
Finally

•f The Collective Efforts of Many Tristate
  Agencies Are Acknowledged
   — Immensely Improved Communications
   - Developed a Predictive Tool to Evaluate
    Impacts of Spills and Bypasses
                                                                                                           201

-------
                                      East Coast Regional Beach Conference
New Jersey's  Recreational

Monitoring Program


David Rosenblatt
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Please^ refer to page 59 in the West Coast Conference Proceedings.
202

-------
                                       Day One: Session Three
Questkm~and~Answer  Session
Panel: Arnold Leder, Jeff Waters, Phil Heckler, and David Rosenblatt
No questions were asked.
                                                  203

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
  Great  Lakes  Monitoring  Program

  Paul Horvatln
  US Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Program Office
         Great Lakes comprise 20 percent of the
      surface freshwater in the world.  Another
      20 percent is locked up in the ice caps.
 More than 33  million people live in the Great
 Lakes  states,  which have approximately 10,000
 miles of shoreline.  Great Lakes states report
 more than 571 beaches with an  additional 200
 in Canada, totaling over 770 beaches in this
 region.
      SOLEC,  State of the Lakes Ecosystem
 Conferences, produces a biennial report to meet
 the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
 Agreement.  The  process is science-based,
 comprising over 20 teams who assess and
 report the condition of the Great Lakes. The
 teams assess the physical, chemical, and
 biological issues related to the Great Lakes.
 The teams take this information and process it
 to try to  achieve the desired outcomes—
 fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.   They look
 at the Great Lakes region by geographic
 zones—offshore, nearshore,  and  coastal wet-
 lands and terrestrial.  They also address
 nbngeographic  issues such as human health,
 land use, and  stewardship.
     The process for SOLEC indicators in-
 volves establishing a core group and panel of
 experts to  mine existing documents for indica-
 tors.  They are to  select, revise, combine, and
 create indicators. At the end of the process
 they will propose a suite of indicators.  The
 process also involves stakeholders who help
 revise the indicators.   Including the stakeholder
 process builds consensus,  collaboration, and
 cooperation.  For example, SOLEC may iden-
 tify fecal pollution levels of nearshore recre-
 ational waters as important to the International
 Joint Committee  (IJC) desired outcome of
 swimmability.  The indicators  would be fre-
 quency of beach closings at specific locations
 and counts  of fecal coliforms and/or E. coli in
 recreational waters.  To examine  the
 swimmability, the indicators would  be beach
 closings as  median number of consecutive days
 closed for a given year and coliform counts,
 turbidity, phosphorus concentrations,  aesthet-
 ics,  and beach characteristics.
     Currently, fecal coliform and E. coli are
 being investigated.  Fecal pollution  levels of
 nearshore recreational waters in Canada are
 monitored using E. coli.  The IJC has  been
 collecting data since 1981 and they  have found
 that  out of the 571 beaches, one-third currently
 measure and close beaches using E.  coli, 28
 percent use  total and fecal coliform, and 29
 percent are not monitoring at all.  They've also
 learned that  they need to close beaches after
 storm events.
     Most of the beaches (88  percent) were
 open for the entire swimming season, from
Memorial Day to Labor Day.  Half the  beaches
are monitored on a regular basis, but 2 percent
are monitored only when there is  a complaint.
The remaining 48 percent are not  monitored at
all. The overall goal of the  program  is to keep
'em great.
204

-------
Selecting Great Lakes Indicators:
  The United States and Canada
             Experience

            Paul J. Horvatin
               U.S. EPA
   Great Lakes National Program Office
          Beaches Conference
                                                                           Day Two: Session Three
                                          What is SOLEC?

                                   State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
                                   Biennial report on progress toward meeting
                                   goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
                                   Agreement
                                   Science-based, consultative process to
                                   assess and report the condition of the Great
                                   Lakes
     Organizing Frameworks

  Science Disciplines
  (Physical, Chemical, Biological)
  Desired Outcomes (IJC)
  (Fishability, Swimmability, Drinkability....)
 1 Geographic Zones and Nongeographic
  Issues
  (Offshore, Nearshore, Coastal Wetlands,
  Nearshore Terrestrial, Human Health, Land
  Use, Stewardship)
                                   Process for SOLEC Indicators

                                   Establish Core Groups & Panels of Experts
                                   Mine Existing Documents for Indicators
                                   Select, Revise, Combine, Create Indicators
                                   Propose Suite of Indicators
                                   Involve Stakeholders (Review, Revise,
                                   Review, Revise, Review, Revise...)
                                   Build Consensus, Collaboration,
                                   Cooperation
     Great Lakes Beach Quality
               Indicator
 SOLEC:
 Fecal Pollution Levels of
  Nearshore
  Recreational Waters
 • Frequency of beach
  closings at specific
  locations
 • Counts of fecal
  coliforms and /or E.
  coli in recreational
  waters
IJC:
Swimmability

• Beach closings as
  median number of
  consecutive days
  closed for a given year
• Coliform count,
  turbidity, phosphorus
  cone., aesthetics,
  beach characteristics
                                      General Criteria for Beach
                                                 Closing
   Not
Monitored
  39%
                                                                                               205

-------
                                                                             East Coast Regional Beach Conference

Monitoring Practice VS Percent
of Season Open 1996
Percent
of
season
open
100
95-99
90-94
<90
Totals
Monitored
on a
regular
basis
203
41
12
10
276
Monitored
on
complaint
73
3
-
-
76
Not
monitored
210
2
_
1
213
Totals
486
46
12
11
555


                                                                        U.S. Great Lakes Bdach Closings 1996
                                                                             KB
                                                                  •  *  *   •  •  10  12  14 21 28  36  52  54 St 70 (2
                                                                                    Days Cloud
206

-------
                                                                Day Two: Session Three
Factors Affecting  Escherichia  coli
Concentrations  at Lake Erie  Public
Bathing Beaches
Donna Francy
US Geological Survey, Ohio District
^•^he environmental and water quality factors
 • that affect concentrations of Escherichia
 M coli (E. coli) in water and sediment were
investigated at three public bathing beaches in
the Cleveland, Ohio, metropolitan  area. This
study was done to aid in the determination of
safe recreational use and to help water resource
managers assess more quickly and accurately
the degradation of recreational water quality.
Water and lake-bottom sediments were col-
lected and ancillary  environmental data were
compiled for  41 days from May through
September 1997. Turbidity, antecedent rainfall,
volumes of wastewater treatment plant over-
flows  and  metered  outfalls, a resuspension
index, and wave heights were found to be
statistically related to E. coli concentrations;
however, wind speed, wind direction, water
temperature, and the presence of swimmers
were shown to be statistically unrelated. Mul-
tiple linear regression (MLR) was used to
develop a model to predict E. coli concentra-
tions at the three beaches. The chosen MLR
model used weighted categorical rainfall,
turbidity, and  wave height to predict E.  coli
concentrations. This model accounted for  58
percent of the variability in E. coli concentra-
tions.  For 1997 it predicted the recreational
water quality as well as and in some  cases
better than the current method.
    For more information, please refer to:
Francy, D.S.,  and R.A. Darner.  1998. Factors
Affecting Echerichia coli Concentrations at
Lake Erie Public Bathing Beaches. U.S. Geo-
logical  Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 98-4241.
                                                                                207

-------
       Factors affecting Escherichia coli
           concentrations at Lake Erie
             public bathing beaches

             Water-Resources Investigations
                    Report 98-4241
             by D.S. Francy and R.A. Darner
                                                                    East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
       In cooperation with

 Ohio Water Development Authority
 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
 Ohio Lake Erie Office
 Cuyahoga County Board of Health
 Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineers
 Cuyahoga River Community Planning
 Organization
                     Problem

         Water quality advisories
         Current methods to determine water quality
         take 24 hours to complete
         Factors that affect E. coli concentrations are
         not well understood
           -Resuspension of bacteria from sediments
            Objectives

What environmental and water quality
factors are related to E. coli concentrations?
Can E. coli concentrations be predicted
accurately from other factors?

How do sediment-stored bacteria affect
water quality?
208

-------
                                                                           Day Two: Session Three
       Sampling Frequency

 Eight field studies
 41 sampling days
 May through September 1997
 Sampling from 6 to 9 a.m.
1 10 days also included an afternoon
 sampling
      Removing bacteria from sediment
            Escherichia coli
                                                                 Ancillary data

                                                        Wind speed and direction
                                                        Wave height
                                                        Number of swimmers
                                                        Rainfall amounts
                                                        Flow and duration of WWTP overflows or
                                                        metered outfalls
                                                        Water-quality parameters
                                                                                               209

-------
                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
Concentrations of E.coli
BEACH
VlfcAngefc
anal
Sum 2
Sims 4
Edgswatsr
VMAng
Sral
Sims 2
Si™ 3
MEDIAN
WATER-
86
150
400
450
390
400
SEOJMEN
7
35 	
150
130
72 '
34 '
MINIMUM.
colonies pe
9
13
»."'•.
21
16 	 1
J3^ri 	
"°"""1
5
2
4
""2"" "
4 	 "
MAXIMUM
100ml
„ 	 .830 	
'«_
	 aolboo
__29,goo__
pSLgaojES!
38
170
'8.6ob"""~
_.%5S2_
'l?™
" 750"

DAYS >235

7
17 	
23
: 	 ,?!._
27
	 ?7._._;
drjfvrelglit_
_ — :_

                                                            Significant correlations for all
                                                               beaches and areas at Sims

                                                          E. coli concentrations and
                                                          • Turbidity
                                                          • Antecedent rainfall
                                                          • Weighted rainfall
       Significant correlations for some
          beaches and areas at Sims

      E. coli concentrations and
      • WWTP overflows
      • Resuspension of sediment bacteria
      • Suspended-sediment concentrations
     Weak or not statistically
             significant
E. coli concentrations and
• Wind direction
• Water temperature
• Number of swimmers
                                                              Prediction of E. coli using
                                                          multiple linear regression (MLR)

                                                             Determine the best set of
                                                             explanatory variables

                                                             Explain the variation in E. coli
                                                             concentrations, leaving as little as
                                                             possible to unexplained "noise"
210

-------
                                                                              Day Two: Session-Three
            MLR Model

• Weighted categorical rainfall
• Beach-specific turbidity
• Wave height
• Y-intercept terms for each beach
Accounted for 58 percent of the variability in
  E. coli concentrations
Predictions of E. coli using the
model at Edgewater Beach
Wave
height (II)
i 2-4
0-2
1-3
Weighted calegorical
rainfall pn)
>0to0.5
>0.5
0
TuibidilL
25
10
30
Predicted
E.coli
130
68
40
90- percent
prediction
interval
9-1000
10-'470
6-260

Probablity
>235
36
14
6


  Predictions of E. coli using the
       model at Villa Angela
 Wave
  3-5
  1-3
  1-3
Weighted categorical
  rainfall (in)
   >0to0.5
    >0.5
                 Midily
E.coli
prediction  ProbaMty
     '  >235
                              52-
     40-4,5001  66
                        23-
                                      49
Con
rect and incorrect predictions
MODEL
PARA-
METER
Correct
False
False
negative
DEFINITION
Overall correct
predictions
Predicted to be
unsafe, but was
safe
Predicted to be
safe, but was
unsafe
PREDICTIONS BASED ON
Edgewater-
antecedent
E. coli
68
76
20
Allbeaches-
MLR model
85
25
19


             Conclusions

  MLR models based on water-quality and
  environmental factors predict E. coli
  concentrations fairly accurately
  More work needs to be done to improve
  predictive models
   - Add other variables
   - Validate from data collected during other
     recreational seasons
                                                           Donna S. Francy
                                                       U.S. Geological Survey
                                                      Water Resources Division

                                                           6480 Doubletree Avenue
                                                            Columbus, OH 43229
                                                                614/430-7769
                                                             dsfrancy @usgs.gov
                                                                                                  211

-------

-------
             Session Four:
Beach Advisories, Closures,
  and Risk Communication

-------

-------
                                                                       Day Two: Session Four
Recreational  Rates,  Fish
Consumption, and  Communication
Joanna Burger
Rutgers University, Department of Biological Sciences
       One key aspect of global change in
       coastal areas is a decrease in ecological
       integrity as more and more landscapes
are developed, leaving a mosaic of intact
refuges and degraded patches that may not be
sufficient for conserving biodiversity. While
increases in human population and shifts in the
distribution of people affect land use, the
temporary movement of people can have major
implications for conservation and biodiversity.
Tourism and recreation are on the increase
worldwide and will continue to increase as
global economies  improve  and  leisure time
increases. For the  United States as a  whole,
walking is the most popular recreational activ-
ity, followed by sightseeing, picnicking, swim-
ming, fishing, bicycling, and birdwatching.
Some types of tourism and recreation are
increasing more than others. Birdwatching,
hiking, backpacking, downhill  skiing, and
primitive camping are the  five  fastest-growing
activities in the United States, and many of
these occur in coastal areas. In 1982, 21.2
million Americans (12 percent) were
birdwatchers, while in 1995 the number had
grown to 54.1 million (27  percent of Ameri-
cans). Fishing is one of the most popular and
important recreational activities, and  it differs
from many other  activities in coastal regions
because people consume the fish. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency reported  that
the number of water bodies under fishing
advisories rose by 14 percent from 1994 to
 1995, and this represents 4 percent of the
Nation's total river miles. All of the  Great Lakes
and their connecting waters, as  well as a large
portion of U.S. coastal waters,  are also under
advisories.
     One fact that is clear from the wide range
of studies on the perceptions of risk from eating
fish is that the public consistently underrates or
ignores the risk and continues to fish in con-
taminated waters, although this is partly a
function of not communicating to the specific
target audience. There is a gap  between policy
and practice. In this case, there  is a discrepancy
between the scientist and regulators' view of
the risk from eating1 some fish and that of the
general public; the public views eating such
fish as less serious than does the scientist. Fish
continue to be an important source of protein,
leading to conflicting communication mes-
sages.  Understanding of consumption adviso-
ries is often ethnically based, both in terms of
understanding the advisories themselves  and  in
evaluating the  long-term health effects.  One
aspect of risk  assessment and  environmental
management that is often ignored is the ques-
tion  of who receives the gains and benefits. The
relatively low levels of  interest  in fish consump-
tion  advisories by the public can partly  be
explained by the gains  that fishermen experi-
ence: they enjoy fishing, it gets  them outdoors,
it is  an activity that can be done with every
member of the family (regardless of sex or
age), it can be done with friends, it can vary
seasonally as  well as by target  fish, equipment,
and  method, and lastly, it provides food.  Many
of the reasons for fishing involve complicated
social dimensions that may far  exceed merely
obtaining fish  for consumption.  The added
benefit of supplementing the family food with
fish  is particularly important for some groups.
Risk scientists, in contrast, often concentrate
only on the latter benefit when computing risk
and  issuing advisories,  spending most of their
                                                                                       215

-------
                                                                 East Coast Regional Beach Conference
 time with probability and magnitude,  rather
 than including the more complex issues that
 people may use in evaluating risk. Recreational
activities do not occur in a vacuum, but clearly
involve a web of social factors that allow the
fishermen to meet their social needs.
216

-------
                                                                         Day Two: Session Four
     Recreational Rates, Fish
        Consumption, and
         Communication

              Joanna Burger
             Rutgers Untve? rsHy

Contaminant
Loads
Exposure
Assessment
1

**
Human Health
Ecological Health


Ecological
BIOINDICATORS
^ ^

Economic/Social
Indicators
+ 	 „

Fate
k- &
Transport
I

Remediation
Restoration
Long-term Biomonitorlng *
LAND USE

i
STEWARDSHIP

\. Recreational Rates
2. Perceptions about Estuarine Resources
3. Consumption Patterns and Risk
4, Communication and Risk
                                                             AK Sites under 1he US Park Service
                                                           I960  1965  1970  197S  1980
             Yearly Visitors to National toks
        I960  1965  1970 1975  1'
                                                                   Nation Sea Shores
                                                    •s,..
                                                       1975 1980 19BI 198! 19S3 19W 1986 1984 1987 1988 1'
                                                                             > 1991 1992 1993 199J 1
                                                                                           217

-------
                           low Angles

                           Fresh WolefAngtefS

                           Nonccnsumplto
         l«0 1965 1970 1975 1980 190S 1990
              YEAR
                                                  East Coast Regional Beach Conference
O
<
fl Lewltlon Woman    p^i  ~~1
| Moyfest Woman      |   j

nJkMJ
                                                 Hunt  Fish  Hike Camp Photograph
                                                 Hunt
                                                         Hike  Camp Photograph








n /to"
jb 35-
Q) M-
« *•
Q" M-
£ 15-
._ 10-
-§ ^


, T
ft
1 * *
*
FISH HUNT HIKE PHOTO ' CAMP
• FEMALE
— MALE
BHX
VHOSUf
Ml tOAlS
9MAU BOATS
K«
-------
                                                                                                                 Day Two: Session Four
      0 10 20 3D 40 50 60
           FISHERS
   PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS
    MENTIONING A CHANGE
                                               t-H
                                   •»••"""'     w   '""•"

                                      DEGREE OF CHANGE
                                                                                             FISHERS PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN BARNEGAT BAY

                                                                                                            NUMBER OF FBI!
                                                                                              OCR£AS£D    SAME     NCREAXD  NEVERNODCtD
New
Jersey
                                                    £
                                            Atlantic Ocean.
WWE     BIACK     HISPANIC
     ETHNICITY
                                NO  DONTKNOW
                                                                                                 DOCTOR

                                                                                               HEH.IH DEPI,
                                                                                                          10  20  30  40  50  60
                                                                                                                Percent
                                                                                                                                           219

-------
                                                                          East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                          OTHER FISHERMAN
                                                                               in  flpnflpn
                                                                            3     BRA**:
                                                                              ll  .ll  ill
                                                                              ILlJli
                                                                                    INCREASE   INCREASE
                                                                                    RISK TO    HISK TO
                                                                                    UNBORN   CHILDREN
                 S«T
                 JO.
                    AWME   AWARE OF   THINK
                     Of   counter   RJHAHE
                   WABNWOS  WARNINGS  SAFE JO EAT
                Nunnber o( years (tehed on Savannah River
                                                              •£ 40-

                                                              o 30-
                                                               . so-
                                                                lo
                                                                              Consumption
                                                                               • Black/White  D
                                                                  KG 10   20   30    40   50  60   70
                                                                              Fish Eaten per Year
220

-------
                                                                                    Day Two.- Session Four
ETHNICITY, EDUCATION, AND CONSUMPTION
                          -
       Leu lh*nHijh School   Huh School only
                 Education
                                                              INFORMATION SOURCES FOR FISHING ADVISORIES
Correct Knowledge about Habitat of Common Fish C%)
apaclaa „ fiaonei l-snermen t,latr tsluasnis






















SharK
Bluefteh
Flounder
Tuna
Swordfish
Cod
Snapper
Trout
Halibut
Catfish
Carp
Pickerel
Haddock
Striped Bass
Hake
Tilofbh
Suntish
Yellow-flnedTuna
Perch
Bass
Salmon
Tilapla
	 y,t-. andBreferrojp
a
S
S
S
s
s
s
F
s
F
F
F
S
S/6
S
S
F
S
F
F
B
F
actively to
yy
99
97
97
94
94
93
85
80
78
76
76
75
72
67
67
65
65
64
47
40
7
altwatar.tresl
— TOO 	
86
86
96
96
86
61
86
68
71
61
33
57
29
36
43
64
29
43
75
61
25
iwater, and bbth
92
59"
66
80
81
54*
42*
71
48*
43*
37*
25*
26*
15*
20*
16*
48
15*
38*
60*
42*
5*






































Correct Knowledge




about Habitat of Common Fish (%>)
Species Habitat Fisherman
Shark
Bluefbh
Flounder
Tuna
Swordfish
Catfish
Haddock
Striped Bass
Yellow-finedTuna
Salmon
Tllapia
S,F, and B referresp
S
s
s
s
s
F
S
S/B ,
S
B
F
99
99
97
97
94
78
75
72
65
40
7
ectively to saltwater, (reshv
staff
100
86
86
96
96
71
57
29
29
61
25
vater, and
Students
92
59*
66
SO
81
43*
26*
15*
15*
42*
5*
both
















Number of Fish Meals per
9-
7-
&•
4-
3-
2'
1-


* I I I
I I

Jamalca Arthur Raritan New Savannah
Bay Kill New Jersey River
New New Jersey Shore South
York Jersey Carolina
Month

I



Boqueron Humacao
Puerto Puerto
Rico Rico

                                                                     GENERALITY OF PERCEPTIONS

                                                                          H Have You Heard Warnings?
                                                                          • Are Fish Safe?
                                                         Humacao    Jamaica
                                                          Puerto       Bay
                                                           Rico      New York
 Arthur Kill
New Jersey
 New
Jersey
Shore
Savannah
  River
  South
Carolina '
                                                                                                       221

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
  I * Recreational Rates Are Increasing
  i
   * Conflicts Exist Among Users
   * Perceptions Differ About Estuarine
       and Coastal Resources
       - State of the Resource
       - Health of the Estuary
       - State of the Conflicts
       - Safety of Fish Consumption
222

-------
                                                                          Day Two.- Session Four
Florida's  Beachwater  Web  Site
Robert  Nobles
Florida Department of Health, State Health Office
"•plorida's  gulf and ocean beaches are princi-
•Upal components of the state's successful
M. tourism  industry.   Unfortunately, various
media  reports have indicated that the bacterio-
logical quality of many of Florida's beaches  is
not routinely evaluated.  To combat negative
media  reports and to protect the health of the
public, the Department of Health began devel-
opment of a statewide beachwater  sampling
program.  Without proper funding  and statutory
authority it was impossible to implement a
uniform statewide marine  water  monitoring
program.  As a result,  a Pilot Beach Water
Sampling  Program was developed by the
Department  of Health, Bureau of Facility
Programs, under a grant sponsored by the
Department  of Community Affairs, Florida
Coastal Management Program, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).  This $50,000 grant was  allocated  for
one year,  which  began July 1, 1998, and
extended through June 30,  1999.  Five repre-
sentative coastal counties were selected for
participation: Broward, Okaloosa, Pinellas,
Sarasota and Volusia.   Upon completion of the
Pilot Monitoring Program, the Florida Depart-
ment of Health secured a  $95,000 grant from
the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency for
one year beginning July 1, 1999, and extending
through June 30, 2000.  This beach water
sampling and public notification program was
developed to serve  an additional purpose,
which  was to determine levels of bacteria in the
surf of Florida beaches during dry  weather and
wet weather conditions. EPA preselected six
cities  and associated counties according  to
specifications of the beach BMP ACT program:
Clearwater-Pinellas  County, Tampa/St. Peters-
burg-Hillsborough County, Miami/Miami
Beach-Dade County,  Ft.  Lauderdale-Broward
County, West Palm Beach/Boca Raton-Palm
Beach  County,  and Jacksonville-Duval County.
     Once selected, the county health depart-
ments in each of the participating counties were
required to monitor 8 to 10 beachfront sites
along the counties'  coastline every other week.
Counties selected  the sampling sites  according
to heavy recreational use, history of  problems,
proximity of point source outfalls, direct impact
by land-based pollution, limited tidal flushing,
and accessibility to bathers.  Once the water
quality samples were collected, county staff
were then required to transport the samples to a
Department of  Health-certified laboratory
within  six hours of collection and at a standard
temperature of four degrees Celsius.  The
laboratory analyzed the samples  for  enterococ-
cus using  the EPA approved and recommended
Method 1600, which is a 24-hour membrane
filter test method.  After laboratory analysis,
county health department staff obtained the
results  and forwarded them to local media
contacts for publishing and to the State Health
Office  for Internet posting,  which are both
required under  the grant  specifications.
     The Florida Department of Health beach
web site was designed as the foundation of our
public  notification process  allowing residents
and tourists to view the water quality in various
areas around the state.  Using Front-page 98,
the web site has been the DOH icon for water
quality for the past two years.  Upon visiting
the web site, you will find a beautiful map of
Florida with the counties  sampling for entero-
coccus highlighted in red and yellow.  From  the
homepage, you  are able to go to  a number of
locations within the web site. By clicking on
one of the associated counties, you will be able
to view a map of that county with the sampling
points  indicated, the name of the beaches for
that county, and a water quality rating for each
beach area sampled for the most recent sam-
                                                                                         223

-------
                                                              East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
 pling date.  A link to the history page for that
 county can then be  viewed by clicking "previ-
 ous history" in the top left of the page.  From
 the history page, the option to  visit another
 county or to return to  the homepage exists by
 using the Java script drop-down box. From the
 homepage, a description of the study can be
 viewed by clicking on "This years study." The
 headings found within this location of the site
 are study overview, study participants,  indicator
 organism and analysis, sampling protocol, data
 interpretation, public notification,  and question/
 comment contacts.  Also from  the homepage, a
 link to the National  Center for  Genome Re-
 sources can be obtained by clicking on the
 word enterococcus,  which  gives a biologic
 description  of enterococcus.  Information about
 the DOH Pilot Beach Water Sampling Program
 is also located on  the web site.   By clicking
 "Click here to view  data from last year's
 study," last year's web site  can be viewed,
 which includes maps and sampling histories for
 the participating counties.  The complete
 summary of all of the  data and the findings for
 the Pilot Study can be viewed by clicking on
 "Pilot Study."  Within this site  an executive
 summary and approximately 17 pages of data
interpretations and Department of Health
projections can be viewed.
     The information provided is a summary of
the Department of Health beach water sampling
and public notification programs.   The web site
was created for the public, and any suggestions
or comments regarding the functioning and/or
the layout of the site are welcomed and will be
greatly appreciated,  (www.doh.state.fl.us  - then
use the drop-down box to go to "Beach Water
Quality.")
Questions/Comments

     If you have any questions, comments, or
concerns, please feel free  to contact Robert
Nobles at the Bureau of Facility Programs -
State Health Office by  one of the following
methods:
     1. E-mail: robert_nobles@doh.state.fl.us
     2. Phone: (850) 487-0004
     3. Fax:   (850) 487-0864
       Mail:  Department of  Health
              Bureau  of  Facility Programs
              2020 Capital Circle, SE BIN A08
              Tallahassee,  FL 32399-0700
224

-------
                                                                       Day Two: Session Four
   Florida Beach Web site


    ...an important part of our public
          notification process

          Presented by: Robert Nobles

                   Florida Department of Health

                   State Health Office

                   Division of Environmental

                   Health
                   Bureau of Facility Programs

Please see www.doh.state.fl.us for more detailed information
      Florida's Beach Water

              Sampling

 Florida's beaches classified as "Bum
 Beaches"   •
  - only 13 of the 35 coastal counties reported
   beach sampling in 1997
  - no statewide standardization of sampling
   methods, indicator organisms, sampling
   frequencies, or laboratory methods
 July 1,1998 The Pilot Beach Water
 Sampling Program developed
 Pilot Beach Water Sampling

      Program 1998-1999

• 5 counties selected
  - Broward, Okaloosa, Pinellas, Sarasota,
   Volusia
• Each county required to monitor 8
  beachfront sites along their county's
  coastline biweekly
• Funding $50,000
• General public notified of results via
  local newspapers or the Internet site
  (www.doh.state.fl.us)	
      1998- 1999 Participating Counties
    Beach Water Sampling
        Study and Public
 Notification Program 1999-
               2000
•  6 Counties Involved
  - Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm
   Beach, Pinellas
•  Funding: $95,000
•  10 sites sampled biweekly
  Public Notification Program
            County Sampling
             Lab Analysis
              CHD Director

    *          *           *
Broadcast Media    Print Media    State Health Office
                                                                             Web Site
                                                                        Local & State Residents
                                                                          Visitors & Tourists
                                                                                       225

-------
                                                                     East Coast Regional Beach Conferences
       EPA Enterococci Limits for
               Marine Water
       fiood = 0-34 Enterococci per 100 ml
       of marine water
       Moderate = 35-103 Enterococci per
       100 ml of marine water
       Poor = 104 or greater Enterococci per
       100 ml of marine water
                                                         Broward County — Ft. Lauderdale Area Beaches



                                                          Previous Weeks' Results for 1999

                                                            Sample Points   7/12/99  7/26/99 8/9/99  8/23/99
                                                            Deerf ield Bch   Good    Good   Good   Poor
                                                            Park



                                                            Pompano Blvd,   Good    Good   Good   Good
                                                            Pompano Bch

                                                            Harrison St,    Good    Good   Good   Good
                                                            Hollywood


                                                           Please see web site for other sampling points and counties
  Current Results of a Few Beach Water Sampling

            Points in Broward County

 Broward County Beaches    _   ,.  „ .
                        Sampling Points    Current
                        (SP)            Results

                        l.Deerfield Bch    Good
                       Park

                       S.Pompano Blvd,    Good

  .-  -*,.,  Jr* ^BHI pomPano Bch
  * , ij TKjS .'•••••••I 9.HarrisonSt,     6ood

»•*» —ij&i'n:  "  fC||||||l Hollywood
,_  ^*_ ^ ^ J_|)ak JUilllllli       Current as of 9/20/99


      *Ptcase see wcbiile for other sampling points and counties
                                                                       Conclusions/

                                                                    Recommendations

                                                              Overall project objective of 1998
                                                              pilot program not achieved
                                                              bid complete several tasks
                                                              - development of standardized methods,
                                                                selection of monitoring sites, use of a
                                                                standard reporting format,
                                                                documentation of sampling results and
                                                                conditions, and time-efficient public
                                                                notification
         Questions?/Comments


     Contact Robert Nobles
       - email robert_nobles@doh.state.f l.us
       - phone: (850)487-0004
       - S.C.: 277-0004
       - Fax: (850)487-0834 S.C. 277-0834
       - Mail: Department of Health
             Bureau of Facility Programs
             2020 Capital Circle SE BIN A08
             Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1710
226

-------
                                                                          Day Two: Sessfon Four
Florida  Monitoring and  Coordination
Efforts
Paul Stanek
Florida Department of Health, Pinellas County
K       alias  County is located in west-central
       orida. Most of the county is surrounded
      j water.  Pinellas  County has a number
of different  types of beaches, including barrier
island  beaches,  mainland beaches near Tarpon
Springs, intercoastal beaches, and bay beaches.
Pinellas started  sampling total and fecal
coliform in  1978 and continues  today.  The
sampling includes  intercoastal beaches, barrier
island  beaches,  mainland,  and bay beaches.
Samples are collected twice a month, with half
of the  county being sampled in the first half of
the month and the  rest sampled  at the end of the
month.
     In 1998 and 1999,  Pinellas County was
one of the initial five county health departments
selected in the state to participate in the entero-
coccus sampling project. This sampling oc-
curred biweekly at eight sites for one year. The
sites included three barrier island, three bay,
and two intercoastal, which  were spaced
geographically to  get a  good representation of
the water quality in Pinellas  County.  In the
1999-2000  enterococcus sampling, Pinellas
County was one of six county health depart-
ments  sampling 10  sites biweekly for one year.
One of the  two  new sites that will be sampled is
the outfall of John's Pass to capture tidal
effects. The other site that will be sampled is a
highly used beach area,  the  Gandy Beach.
As part of the requirements  for  the enterococ-
cus study, the sample results must be published
in a press release every  two  weeks.  Due to the
timing of the results, high numbers indicate that
the beach should have been closed last week.
This poses  a problem when  people are allowed
to use the beach because of the delay in getting
the results.
     Pinellas County used to notify people
about the sample results by fax, but now we
send out e-mails because the list of recipients
keeps growing.   Pinellas County's  water quality
is generally good.  When the project first
started, it got a lot of publicity, but after that it
did not have  a regular place in the newspaper.
The only times  the sampling press  release made
it to the paper was when the results were bad.
No matter what the press release said, the
headline would  read  "Intestinal bacteria  found
off six beaches," which made the phone ring
off the hook.
     The way people use the beach and  who
uses the beach affect the sampling results.  One
of the big visitors to the beaches in Pinellas
County is  pelicans (birds).  They leave their
droppings, which may result in high sample
counts.  Also, many people bring pets to the
beach.   People bring dogs, birds, snakes, and
horses to some  of  the beaches.
     Pinellas  County undertook the healthy
beaches mission  for both the people and the
environment.  An inherent problem is that the
current methods are reactionary.  We are telling
people they shouldn't have used the beach last
week.  An ideal solution is to predict conditions
with a real-time or near real-time analytical
model.  This  model would take into account
tidal effects and rainfall to predict the risks of
swimming in  the water.  The current situation is
that there is no  national or Florida program  to
consistently sample and also develop a model
to predict risks.    Additionally, there are no
mandatory standards for testing.  Current
laboratory methods are also debated.
     The key to water quality is the determina-
tion of  appropriate indicators  for microbiologi-
cal water quality in relation to  the occurrence of
pathogens  in  Tampa  Bay  watersheds  and
                                                                                         227

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
beaches.  This is a top priority.
     In many areas, beach managers don't
really want to close beaches.  In Pinellas
County, there are certain beaches for which we
would like  to permanently post advisories, but
the beaches do have a use.  They're places
where people like to go so we do not want to
keep people off of them, but we would like to
advise them of the risks.  Water quality isn't the
only thing considered in the Healthy Beaches
Program;  drowning prevention,  mercury in fish,
sanitation facilities, and bilge  water from  ship
ballast are also of concern.
     At the beginning of the  Healthy Beaches
Program,  we got together with the  University of
South Florida, Florida Marine Research Insti-
tute, USGS, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Mote
Marine, Florida Aquarium, Clearwater Marine
Science Center, and the Center for Marine
Conservation to set up the program.  We also
have cooperation  with the St. Petersburg/
Clearwater Convention & Visitor's Bureau to
recognize the problems and help seek solutions
when necessary.
     Healthy Beaches is in the midst of Phase I
and has received  money to do an assessment of
indicator organisms and source and fate of
enterococcus.  Phase II will go to the Florida
legislature for a budget appropriation.  This
phase will develop a water quality model  for
risk assessment of pathogenic microorganisms
commonly found  in Florida waters.   This  phase
will also include  investigating the development
of biosensors and other rapid response technol-
ogy for timely quantitative analyses.
228

-------
                                                                          Day Two: Session Four
                                                            Healthy Beaches
                                                        Pinellas County Health Department
                                                         Environmental Engineering Division
                                                                   Paul Stanek
                                                          Manager, Healthy Beaches Program
                                                               727-538-7277 X 134
                                                            paul_stanek@doh.state.f I .us
                                                        East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                                                      Florida Monitoring and Coordination Efforts
    Pinellas County Florida
                                                   Pinellas

                                                   County

                                                   History
                                                    St Petersburg
                                                      Times
                                                    May 30,1999
                 ninty beaches free -" - ^
                         jious diseases  ~\
What Does the Pinellas County
    Health Department Do?
 Pinellas County's sampling program started in
  1978 and tests over 50 sites monthly for
        total <& fecal coliforms
 Total and
  Fecal
 Coliform
 Sampling
Locations in
 Pinellas
 County
                                                                                           229

-------
                                                                       East Coast Regional Beach Conference
       Pinellas Is One of 5 County Health Departments
       Throughout the State, Evaluating Enterococcus.
               8 samples, biweekly, 1 year
     Okaloosa
      1998-1999
                               Volusia
                                      Browird
        Enterococcus Results on DOH web site
PiMllac C«mty - - St. Patepibwg and Tampa Bay
   Beachae
                               Sample Prints
       Pinellas Is One of 6 County Health Departments
       Throughout the State, Evaluating Enterococcus.
               10 samples, biweekly, 1 year
                                                                      Enterococcus Sampling Sites
           Communication
                                                                               Federal
                                                                                State
                                                                             Academia
                                                                     \     / County  \     /          x
                                                              Media   )—(   Health   }—C "The Beach"
                                                                              Departments'     \^
23O


-------
                                                                                             Day Two: Session Four
        County
        Health
       'epartments.
         Public
Sample
 Press
Release
     BaachWator Quality Monitoring:
     A Pilot Research Protect

   SainptoaCoaKtodTasidty September 22*, 1999
lu CouiVHMlth Dtpinmat It (tunntly bwolwd In • MimUrplM itul

ognm ipontcnd by n* IMMd GUM EnvlrDnntiUI PmlK&in JtEirEVl
10rttuIMprtniM DIHuMitDCH). Tl» «lm of Ihli proitot li lo «wlutrt •
...	.._.-...	..-._.—.	"—'-iailta
                                                                            In County H««i MptitaM*. (7J7) 53*-l
                                                                             no uiKi -e«eii wuwa»aty-
 (. Petersburg Times August 8,1998
                                                                           St. Petersburg Times October 17,1998
BEACHES
                                                                                                                     231

-------
                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conference
                                                   BEACH
                                                USAGE AND

                                                   WATER
                                                  QUALITY
                                               (We are not alone)
                                                St. Petersburg Times September 12,1999
232

-------
                                                                       Day Two: Session Four
       St. Petersburg Times September 12,1999
                                                            St. Petersburg Times July 17,1999
    The Mission	
Healthy Beaches for People and
        the Environment
       Inherent Problem

     Current methods are reactionary
         Ideal Solution

Ability to Predict Conditions
Identify Risk BEFORE Exposure Takes Place
Real-Time or Near Real-Time Analytical
Methods Would Trigger Warnings or
Closures and/or Set in Motion a More
Rigorous Monitoring Protocol
       Current Situation

No National or Florida Program (no $)
No Mandatory Standards for Testing
Unexplained Bad Sampling Results
Debate over Laboratory Methods (Most
Probable Number (MPM) Vs. Membrane
Filter (MF) methods)
                                                                                       233

-------
                                                                                  East Coast Regional Beach Conference
             Keys to Water Quality
        Determination of the appropriate indicators
        for microbiological water quality in relation
        to the occurrence of pathogens in Tampa
        Bay watersheds and beaches is a top
        priority.
    Tentative Issues & Concerns
Alternatives to Beach Closures
Classifications of Beaches Based on Intended Use
Indigenous Pathogenic Microorganisms
Parasites in Sand and Water
Storm water Runoff
Consumption of Seafood (Mercury, Toxins)
Ultraviolet Radiation & Cancerous Melanoma
Injuries from Wildlife
Drowning Prevention
Sanitation: Public restrooms
Bilge Water from Ship Ballast
        Beginning of Healthy Beaches

                       Initiative
          •Excellent facilities nearby - USF, FMRI, USGS
          (PORTS system) Tampa Bay Estuary Program,
          Mote Marine, FL Aquarium, Clearwater Marine
          Science Center, CMC
          •Developed Phase I "Indicator Organisms"
          •St Petersburg / Clearwater Convention & Visitor's
          Bureau recognized problem
          •As did Pincllas County Government, saw potential
          to cooperate with Tampa Bay Estuary Program
Phase I - Bacteria Sources and Fates

     Combined study, by USF Marine Science Dept
            head researcher Dr. Joan Rose

    Indicator Organism Assessment:
    Tampa Bay Estuary Program

    Sources and Fate
    SWFWMD SWIM Program
    Tampa Bay Estuary Program

    Enterococcus in Pinellas Source Evaluation
    Pinellas Hotel & Motel Assn.
    TOTAL:                     $170,000
          Phase II - LBR for Pathogen and
               Risk Assessment Model
    1) Develop water quality model for risk assessment of pathogenic
    microorganisms commonly found in Florida waters
    2) Investigate and develop, where feasible, biosensors and other
    rapid response technology for timely quantitative evaluation of
    human pathogens
    3) Generalization of the results of the Tampa Bay Water Quality
    Assessment Model for application statewide based on local
    conditions
    4) Develop statewide strategy for integrated risk management
    involving the various stakeholders
    PHASE II TOTAL:                  $835,000
234

-------
                                                                     Day Two: Session Four
Question-and-Answer   Session

Panel: Joanna Burger, Robert Nobles, and Paul Stanek
Q (Lou Glatzer, University of Toledo, Lake Erie Center): This is a general question.  I'm
relatively new to this, and it may be directed to the speakers or anyone else here.  I'm very
confused about the variety of use of the terms  "advisories" versus "closings."  The question
that I have is: Is there a source, whether it's on the Web or the written word, for finding out
how many different approaches there are to advisories versus closings in the various
counties, municipalities,  and states?

Joanna Burger:
     EPA does a summary every year about fishing  advisories and consumption advisories,
and they usually put out a bulletin in which they say  how many state  waters, how many
lakes, what percent have advisories, what the advisories are due to, what percent are due to
mercury, what percent are due to PCBs, and so on. That gives you an idea of the number of
advisories, and then they often tell you how many there were in the previous year or  the
previous 2 years.

Q (Lou Glatzer):   What I'm  really asking about is the variety  of political approaches  by the
different municipalities, counties, and states with regard to, well,  do we say anything.  Do
we give an advisory, let people make their own decisions, or do we say "thou shalt close
the beach" period, exclamation point?

Robert Nobles
     I can speak for what I have seen in various counties around the state of Florida,  but I
think EPA representatives will want to speak for the  nation.

Comment (Rick Hoffmann, USEPA,  Office of Science  and Technology):  EPA looked at its
fish consumption advisory program as  a model for setting up the beach advisory program.
EPA started doing fish advisory work almost 10 years ago.  One of the first things we did in
that program was to find out what people were already doing.  And I think for the beach
program, we are in the same initial phase since we have been under way a little over  2
years.  Before we draft formal federal  guidance, we want to know what formal guidance
may be in effect at the state or local level.  Charles Kovatch [of EPA]  is compiling a  sum-
mary of existing guidance.  One of the things we are going to look at is whether there is a
 formal definition of what constitutes an advisory and a closing and that sort of thing.   We
 have also asked people in a national survey whether they have advisories  and closings.  But
 your point is actually very well made. We are  in a discussion  right now with the state of
 California because they just recently passed state legislation that defines the types of actions
 taken and they make distinctions between advisories, postings, and closings.  So they have
 three different categories.  And one of the things that we will try  to do is, first of all,  identify
 what people use, how they define those, and then try to make some  federal recommenda-
                                                                                     235

-------
                                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conference
     tions to improve consistency.  But at the moment, there is no consistent usage at least that I
     am aware of. And I am not sure within the state of Florida itself.

     Robert Nobles:
          It's very true. In the state of Florida, right now, it's based on a county-to-county basis.
     Currently, only 15 of the  35 coastal counties sample beach water.  In those counties that
     sample, some  use fecal, some use total, and some use enterococci.   A lot don't feel comfort-
     able with using enterococci to post advisories or to close beaches.   Some counties don't
     even feel comfortable closing beaches,  period.  A legislative budget request has been
     proposed, and I think that this year we  might get the statutory authority to run the beach
     sampling in the state of Florida.  Right now, it's a county-by-county basis and the only
     funding has been through grants.  Since basically what you're saying is true, county-by-
     county, they pick who wants to post an advisory, who has the most power in  that county.  If
     the hotels and the  tourist people have more power than the department of health,  then  no
     advisories will be posted because it will lose business.  This is what we have  found thus far.
     Until we get a little authority all around the state of Florida, it's ambiguous.

     Joanna Burger:
         I think that's  a problem not just in the state of Florida.  I've been out doing some of
     these surveys and seen state officials in New Jersey post the fish consumption advisories
     and a half an hour later had the local municipality officials come around and  take down the
     signs.   And when you ask them why, they say, "We don't want to  scare people.  We don't
     want people not to come here to fish anymore.  This is our business."  So there is a real
     problem between jurisdictions and what different agencies are interested in.

     Robert Nobles:
         Also, one county posted an advisory and I got a newspaper article back  saying that the
     person who was swimming, as we've seen from Joan's presentation, said, "Well, if the
     Department of Health was really concerned about our health,  they would rope off the
     beach."  So, posting advisories just doesn't work out.   I guess that  for some areas you
     would have to use  red tape if possible.

     Comment (Mike Flannery, Pinellas County Health Unit):  I just want to add to that a little
     bit. Another level of it is defining what the beach use is.  I don't think "one standard fits
     all" really works.  You saw Gandy Bridge in my presentation.  You saw the use and the
     type of people who use it.  That's probably one of our most popular beaches.  I think that
     we have three  of them like that on the causeways.  The local residents, younger people with
     their dogs, this is their life to them.  And if we  make this  standard that is really designed for
    maybe older people or a tourist area, make it uniform, I don't think it really does the pur-
    pose of a beach.  What's the beach for? It's so people can enjoy the water.  And the perfect
    way to make it so that they will never get sick is to make  sure that they never  go into the
    water.  At some place there must be an  inter-level between those two.  We have not had
    reports of diseases from  the Courtney Campbell Causeway or any of those causeways.  And
    we do have cases, say of Vibrio, occurring on the most pristine beaches. So, I'm looking at
    a program eventually  that might have an area that is for recreational dogs and everything
    else at some  level posting an advisory on that, one that's more like  a tourist  area, and a third
    might be for pristine beaches where nobody should really  be there at all, like where the
    wildlife is natural in that area.
236

-------
                                                                        Day Two: Session Four
Robert Nobles
     Mike and I talk about the future of beach sampling within the state of Florida all the
time, so this isn't anything new.  But, my opinion on the matter and what I am going to be
pushing for is that, no matter who goes to the beach, if it's a tourist or if it's  a resident, we
are going  to protect them the same.  I can agree only so much.  Okay, the dog is in the
water and you like your dog in the water, but, if your child gets sick as a result; no matter
what economic status you come from, it doesn't really matter.  So, saying we'll relax some
of the rules at this beach, we'll just let them know that you can get sick. People take their
own risk anyway, and that's the way the state is going to approach it.  But right now, we
don't have any authority so I guess in Pinellas County,  until next year or the year after, you
can do as you see best.

Q (Geoff Grubbs, USEPA, Office of Water):  First thing to say is that  it is really nice work
on the presentation that you guys are doing.   But I am  curious about,  both from  the state
level and  the county level,  when you find a problem,  what you then do internally in your
state or county to track that back to the source and to in some way effect change at  the
source to  abate the problem in the near or long term.

Paul Stanek:
     That is a good question.  In the short term, really we just go out and resample.  We
want to verify our results since what we are doing is not a perfect science and it's  something
that's been evolving.  It's something that we  are not really sure about.   We are going to go
out and resample and check to make sure that we are doing things right and  that our  lab is
doing things right and then go from there, most times we're not able to track back  to a
source.  We don't have the funds to do that for starters, and part of our Healthy Beaches
initiative is to do that and find out where we are getting those bacteria from.

Robert Nobles:
     And I may sound redundant, but I often  do.  On a statewide  level, the results come
back to me.  If I see that something  is contributing to pollution,  as in Davis Island in my
presentation about Tampa Bay, right now  we just monitor it and we notify.  What do we do
as a result?  We have epidemiologists in the  counties that can go look and do an assessment
of the  situation, but right now, it is on a county level.  Truthfully, without any money, we
cannot, as the state, provide any additional funds to the counties saying that, "Okay, you
had bad hits, bad hits, bad hits,  and now, let's go out and find it."   They document on every
sampling  occasion what the different environment is around the  site.  Not only the stuff that
I mentioned in my presentation, but they look around.  I visited a couple of  sites where we
have wastewater treatment plants 200 yards off of where we sample.  The beach manager
believes that  the mist off of the top, depending on the wind direction,  can cause the water
results to  become high.  I mean, we don't really know.  The first thing that we need to do in
the state of Florida is to see if we have a problem (1) by monitoring, (2) by  informing, and
(3) by looking at causation.  That is the approach that we have  to take,  and  without funding,
that is  the only thing that I can really say.

Paul Stanek:
     It also kind of goes back to the counties  being able to do it.  Right now, there are just a
select few that think it's important or they have gotten  some money from Tallahassee or
EPA to do the sampling.  But right now, the  majority of them aren't.
                                                                                        237

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
     Q (Matt Liebman, USEPA, Region 1):  I have a question for Robert about your web site and
     your general notification program. By the way, I thought that your web site is excellent.  I
     had a question  regarding the three levels of notification—good, moderate, and poor.  I am
    just wondering what your response is from the public when they see something that says
     "moderate," for example.  Our experience, or many people's experience, is  that the public
     might just want to know if it's safe or it's not safe.  So there is this level of inbetweenness.
     I'm just wondering.

     Robert Nobles:
          I don't know if you're the person who  called earlier in the week or somebody else.
     But the same  question came up when we started. The same question  came up from the
     counties.  The way  it was set up, and knowing the science background, [with] the geometric
     mean of 35 in one month, we're not  achieving.  We're not sampling  five times in one
     month.  We can't.  We're sampling two times in a month, five  times in two and a half
     months So we are using the one-time count of 104.  I'm bringing into the picture the
     moderate  as 35-103  because  104 is the action level  based on one-time sampling.  This is
     what we're using.  The counties are prompted to post advisories or to resample.  But what
     do I say to the public if they call or what do  I answer to you now?  I'll say that the risk is
     moderate  if we sampled five times or if you  look at the trend because I can do a geometric
    mean for  two  and a half months.  But looking at the trend, 35-103, you have a risk of
     swimming in the water, as much of a risk as anything.  It's not as  great as at 104, but you
    have  a risk. People can get sick.  It might not be  19 per 1,000, but you do have a risk of
    getting sick.  You need to take that into consideration whenever you go into  the water.  But
    if you look through  the web  site, you can choose another beach to go to.  I'm not promising
    that just because we sampled and gave the beach a good rating that the beach will still be
    good when you go on  the weekend.  I'm supposed to post the  readings from earlier in the
    week, and the water quality right then will be good.  So, ambiguously, I answered like that
    and hope  that  they can come back with another question for me to help them.

    Q (Kim Mikita, Florida Coastal Management Program):  I actually got to review the quar-
    terly reports from the pilot program and so I know that there is some trouble with one  of the
    counties reporting their results in  the newspaper.  I was wondering if you are having that
    kind of trouble this year, as well, and if you ever figured out why that one county, that shall
    remain nameless, didn't report their results?

    Robert Nobles:
         You  reviewed the quarterly reports and  the final report, I'm sure, with the 18 pages of
    attachments. I agree, reporting is difficult.  I'll name the counties.  I don't mind.  It was
    difficult for reporting to occur in Sarasota County.   It was difficult for reporting to occur in
    Pinellas County. Once you start sending out press releases,  as Paul stated, the press just
    wants to know if it's bad.  Their view is:  "We already know that the  water is good, why
    state it? Why have it in the newspaper?"  It  takes  extra initiative and  a whole lot of coop-
    eration from the local jurisdictions to  actually have  the media post the readings.  This year's
    reporting was the second part of your question. No,  it hasn't been published  in the newspa-
    pers.  We've just received articles  stating that we started a new program; EPA is funding
    this; they  might have messed up here  and there; we  have five counties; we have this much
    money, etc.  Anyway, it's all a matter of priority for that county and right now, no, it's not
    being published everywhere.  We usually just get articles here  and there when it's bad. For
    example, after  the Super Bowl, when readings are 2,000 in Tampa Bay, or if a hurricane
    caused bad sampling results.  It wasn't a priority for the media, so the reporting is based  on
238

-------
                                                                         Day Two: Session Four
priority right now.  It's unfortunate, but hopefully, if it takes me calling all of the newspa-
pers in the counties to have them report results, I will.

Q (Paul Kuehnert, State of Maine Bureau of Health):  I have a question primarily for
Dr. Burger.  You did a great job telling us,  to generalize from  what you presented, that
we're not being successful in getting these messages across.  I think that both in terms of
fish advisories and water safety issues, they are fairly  complex messages and we have
complex and conflicting  interests in our communities.  I'm just  wondering if you have,
based  on your experiences so far, figured out some  things that might be suggestions for
what works?

Joanna Burger:
     There are a lot of things that work.  All of the studies that I talked about are,  of course,
much more complex than I can present.   That is why there are  reprints over here if people
would like them.  In the case of one of the studies that we did in New Jersey, we followed
up the  study on whether people knew that there was a cancer risk and so on.  In that same
questionnaire, after we finished the questions that we wanted to ask, we  actually told the
people  we were talking to what the state  advisories were—that  the state advisories were to
eat this much fish or not that much fish and that they were based on risk to the fetuses and
that older adults were not at risk in general from eating fish, that it was primarily a develop-
mental problem.  And then we asked people a couple  of questions  after  that regarding
whether or not they would change their fishing behavior and whether or not they  would
have their pregnant wives or wives of childbearmg age change  their behavior. Everybody
said "yes."   Part of the  problem was communicating the message that it's particular people
that are at risk, not everybody, and that you can moderate your risk by eating smaller fish
rather  than larger fish.  The  classic fisherman is bringing home the biggest fish possible
because I can show that I caught a big fish.  But if you start showing people that in fact they
can catch the big fish but take home the  smaller ones to  eat, people are receptive to that.
But, we haven't given them that kind of complex message.
     The other thing that I would say is  that in the  study we did in South Carolina the
objective was to find out what people were eating and what the different risk factors were.
This summer,  we  went back to the same population with our two-page fish fact sheet, which
was written based on the kinds of things  we found out  from  people.  It was written in a very
simplified manner. There were pictures of fishermen on the fact sheet, and it talked about
how fish was very good for you, but that there were some risks and you could reduce those
risks by eating plant-eating fish rather than carnivorous fish  and things like that.  So, we
showed the fact sheet that we  had  written as  a result of this  to  the individual fishermen and
asked  them to read it and then we went away and came back in 10 minutes later and then
asked  them some  questions about it.  And several interesting things came out from doing
that approach.  In other words, this was not just putting them into somebody's office but
actually going back out  on the river with little forms and giving them to people who are
fishing. Some of the things  that we found out were: first of all, everybody read it.  Out of
50 people that we asked, only 1 person said, "I'm too busy to do this." Now that is pretty
amazing. If you went into the supermarket and gave them a two-page thing to read and
said that we are going to come back in  10 minutes and ask you some questions, how many
people would  say, "No"?  Only 1 out of 50 said that they were too busy.  Everyone else
read it and then when we came  back, they answered our questions.  The second  interesting
thing that came out was everybody asked if they could have three or four to take  back and
give to their friends  and family.  So, people want something that  is understandable—that's
not so full of gobbledy-gook that it goes  on for 18 pages. You can tell all of the risk
                                                                                         239

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    information in  18 pages and have everything covered, but no one's going to read it or very
    few people will read it or fewer people will read it, let's put it that way.  Everyone read this
    and they asked for more copies, so it's not a question that people don't want to know and
    don't want something that they can read.   I think  we haven't been, in some cases, address-
    ing the audience.  We've  been doing what we would think is appropriate and what as
    scientists we want to do, which is always go with  every contingency.   It's the same thing
    with the web.  If you look at  the web sites they're developing,  they're not making them  so
    complex that people can't get  the message right away.  I think that  there's a lot of good
    messages that we can give people about eating fish.  We don't have to tell them not to eat
    fish.  We have to tell them  enough information so  that they  can make their own risk deci-
    sions  and so they themselves are under control about how they can reduce their risk. There
    are lots of ways that people aren't aware of.

    Robert Nobles:
         I just wanted to  say  something to the people  who came down from  Canada because
    I've been seeing articles about Key West.  First, let me thank the EPA for giving $20,000 so
    that we can actually sample in Key West.  Second, they did have a leaky sewer pipe prob-
    lem.  They're trying to fix it now, and the articles  from New York stating that Key West  is
    gone to the birds are not necessarily true.  It will be cleaned up soon.   The state is actually
    spending a lot of money to help Key West fix this problem.  So, next year you all can come
    back.
240

-------
                                                                Day Two: Breakout Summary
Summary  of Breakout Groups
Each breakout group was asked to answer the following questions for each of the four topic
areas:
    1.  Are there any additional major topics that should be included in the guidance?
    2.  What are the major issues you're facing under each of these topics?
    3.  Where do you need more information or guidance  to help you address specific
       issues?
    4.  What specific recommendations would you like to  see included in the  guidance
       document?
    5.  What would you like the document to look like in terms of  format and structure to
       be most useful to you?
    6.  Recognizing that additional research can be conducted on all of the issues, what
       immediate research needs do you think are necessary for effectively implementing
       beach  water quality programs?

The following answers  provide recommendations under each of the major  topic  areas:
Microbial Indicators

    1.  Discuss alternative indicators  and analytical methods
       • identify others besides  fecal coliforms, bacteria,  or viruses
          - note that enterococci does not capture water quality
          - investigate the usefulness of cyanobacteria (floatables, chemicals, harmful
            algal blooms)
       • DNA fingerprinting and other new technologies
       • naturally  occurring pathogens
    2.  Determine the health impacts  of storm water
       • conduct more research
       • require peer review of  future data
    3.  Study  and develop thresholds for indicators across temperature and regional varia-
       tions
       • use  eco-region approach
       • consider that different  bacteria behave differently
       • take into  account naturally occurring bacteria
    4.  Develop a matrix of comparative studies (recognize that one water quality indicator
       across the nation will not work)
       • include general information and a table of given factors
          - discuss precision of techniques  (false-positives  and false-negatives)
       • clarify the health risks  and limitations associated with each indicator and their
         relation to gastrointestinal disease and other diseases
       • compare  approved/recommended methods (e.g., enterococci, Enterolert®,
         Colilert®, MPN-most probable number)
                                                                                     241

-------
                                                                East Coast Regional Beach Conference
            • describe how the indicator results can be used for beach and non-beach areas,
              recreational and non-recreational waters, and shellfishing areas
              -  full versus  partial  body contact
              -  explore if indicators for shellfishing or nonrecreational waters can be used for
                 swimming  areas
            • validate methods
            • include historical studies
         5. Allow for professional judgement and site-specific variations
         6. Develop  a rapid indicator test
            • note that Method 1600 is not specific enough for immediate public advisories
              (false  negatives)
            • EPA/FDA  cooperate in "dipstick" development (FDA developing  one for E.  coli
              detection in meat)
         7. Describe the  relationship of molecular techniques to  disease and indicators
         8. Provide  guidance for the transition from current to  proposed criteria and the imple-
            mentation of standards
            • explain how to compare old  data to chart improvement in water quality
            • discuss how shellfish managers,  source  water protection managers, recreational
              water managers, TMDL developers, NPDES permit authorities, marine  managers
              (floatables  and marine sanitation devices), and storm  water  dischargers  compare
              information if each uses different indicators for bacteria
            • describe how actions  of agencies will be coordinated  (state,  federal, and local)
            • provide guidance  on the transition  to new standards,  indicators, and methods
            • address exotic  pathogens
            • provide case studies of those states that have successfully changed their water
              quality criteria from total coliform and fecal coliform  to enterococci and E. coli.
         9. Research the  life cycles of the  indicators and pathogens
        10. Provide  criteria for monitoring  for other indicators  (e.g., sediment, turbidity, wind,
            climate,  birds
        11. Conduct  a round-robin/intercalibration study  of  nationwide laboratories for each
            method to detect  microbial indicators
    Water Quality Monitoring

        1.  Encourage watershed monitoring and  allow  for flexibility in each program
        2.  Promote frequent monitoring
           •  infrequent monitoring doesn't capture the variability of water quality
           •  encourage the development of baseline studies
        3.  Offer clear direction and justification  for the frequency and location of water quality
           sampling
           •  consider time of day for a single sample
           •  address  details  of sample methodology
              - geometric mean or single sample
              - depth  of the sample
              - wet weather events
              - number of samples per beach
              - spatial frequency
              - personal protective equipment
           •  seasonal  variation in  sampling techniques
           •  develop protocol for how to take samples under variable conditions
242

-------
                                                                 Day Two: Breakout Summaiy
    5.
    6.
• discuss  interpretation  of results
   -  geometric mean
   -  high single  sample threshold exceedances
Develop a QA/QC table format for water quality monitoring and laboratory  analysis
• address the appropriate  use of:
   -  trip blanks
   -  sampling  protocols
   -  field collection data  sheets
   -  indicator  screening
   -  chain-of-custody procedures
Identify funding sources to  support water quality monitoring
Recognize that sanitary  surveys and monitoring  need to work together and provide
guidance
Predictive Tools

    1.  Create a model that takes many environmental factors into account
       •  e.g., turbidity,  temperature,  sediment influences, wind, climates, seabirds, wild-
          life, domestic animals, CAFOs
       •  include information on how to interpret model results and/or health risk factors
          for disease
       •  include more than one indicator (E. coli and other EPA-approved indicators)
       •  validate model so it can be used to close beaches
       •  provide costs
          - what is lost because of closings
          - lost tourism
          - illness
          - lost time at  work
       •  base tools on a good sampling program and analysis and consider all variables
       •  make  data collection and models  affordable
    2.  Identify  and define components  of a good water quality model (e.g., what to look
       for, contacts for  more information, different kinds of models  [hydrodynamic or
       static], different uses [regional management or contingency plans])
    3.  Allow for flexibility
       •  use predictive  models in lieu  of sampling
       •  use models for a preliminary  step in source identification
    4.  Describe how to manage using  predictive models
    5.  Develop predictive tools to provide  information for action prior to exposure


 Risk Assessment, Management, and Communication

    1.  Create a Risk Index or Beach Index (similar to the UV Index)
       •  clarify the risks in a simple manner (safe versus unsafe)
       •  make  it uniform across the country - poor, moderate, good
       •  develop minimum signage requirements
    2.  Develop a  uniform procedure for conducting  epidemiology studies
    3.  Develop methods to  quantify exposure and designated uses
        •  describe  what  risk factors are equated to indicator values without being  overly
          conservative
                                                                                       243

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
            •  health risks may vary under different conditions (full body contact  versus partial
              body contact)
            •  effects of morbidity  and mortality
         4. Recognize that management is  site-specific
            •  encourage preventive actions (minimize exposure,  use soap after exposure,  etc.)
            •  encourage remediation and control measures
         5. Develop procedures for closing and reopening a beach
            •  investigate  the flag system (Europe)
         6  Determine whether there is a risk factor with bird, mammal, or other non-human
            versus  human  feces and adults versus child
         7. Develop recommendations for  a beach closing
            •  address the  use of predictive models or real-time assessments
            •  consider  post-event  evaluations
              -  designate uses based on water quality monitoring [303(d )and 305(b)]
         8. Recommend good communication techniques
            •  use television weather  reports
            •  use newspaper and the Internet
            •  address how to communicate with different audiences
            •  use permanent signs  at some  beaches  warning  of risk especially  after rain
            •  develop  outreach materials to explain  risk and encourage reporting  of illness
              associated with swimming exposure
            •  establish  a  dial-in number to  report swimming-related illnesses
         9. Compare risk to land use, point versus nonpoint sources, human versus other
            species, and meteorological  events.
            •  describe cost and benefit assessment of the value of monitoring and closing  a
              beach
        10. Define  a closing,  advisory, reopening, posting, public beach,  sanitary  survey,  and
            bathing beach.
        11. Study use and interpretation  of a distribution (range)  of threshold values versus
            single number.
    Additional Topics and Recommendations

         1. Use the  bottom-up approach (local-state-federal)
         2. Conduct  more research on contaminated sediments (toxins and pathogens in the
           swash  zone)  and remote sensing
         3. Encourage the implementation of source control  measures after monitoring discov-
           ers problems
         4. Include other programs such as  storm water monitoring, sanitary surveys, septic
           tank management, benefit assessments (economics),  and state reports on swimming-
           related illnesses
           •  describe roles of each player
         5. Provide additional national or regional meetings to discuss issues and implementa-
           tion of the guidance
         6. Include a 1-paragraph  statement describing the diverse  conditions and public health
           problems to confirm that the managers know their waters
         7. Make EPA the clearinghouse  for beach-related information including monitoring,
           indicators, risk  assessment, and  models
         8. Separate  freshwater and marine  water sections
244

-------
                                                               Day Two: Breakout Summary
 9. Create the guidance document in a software format and in a three-ring binder
10. Develop a generic fact sheet describing the risks of using a beach near areas with
   high concentrations of wildlife or using a beach after rain.
11. Define  the  responsible agency (funding, monitoring,  etc)
12. Describe  the procedures for disease outbreak, tracking, and investigation
13. Create a  procedure for measuring overall program effectiveness
14. Include a synopsis, glossary, and frequently-asked-questions sections
15. Be sure that language/terms are  consistent so that health  departments can understand
   the storm water regulators
16. Pro vide national and  regional meetings
                                                                                      245

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Speakers'
    Joanna Burger, Ph.D.
         Dr. Burger is a distinguished Professor of Biology in the Division of Life Sciences, and
    in the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, at  Rutgers University.
    She received her B.S. in Biology from the State University of New York at Albany, her M.S.
    in Zoology and Science Education from Cornell  University, and her  Ph.D. in Ecology and
    Behavioral Biology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.  She has taught at
    Rutgers for 25 years, where she conducts research on social  behavior of animals, ecological
    risk, and effects of contaminants on behavioral development.  For the past 15 years, Dr.
    Burger has been involved with examining recreational subsistence fishing, in terms of
    recreational  rates, consumption patterns, sources  of information, risk to human consumers,
    and methods of risk management.  For the past 5 years she has been involved with  the
    development  of ecological risk methods for Department of Energy sites, including evaluat-
    ing attitudes toward recreational and ecological services, and  future land uses.  Her main
    research interests are fate and effects of contaminants, biomonitoring, social behavior,
    environmental attitudes  and perceptions, risk perception,  and risk analysis.

    Rebecca Calderon, Ph.D.

         Dr. Calderon is currently the chief of the Epidemiology  and Biomarker Branch in the
    Human Studies Division of EPA's National  Health and Environmental Effects Research
    Laboratory.  This is the first time in 10 years that the Epidemiology Program has had a
    permanent leader.  She  has revitalized epidemiology at EPA by  converting the program
    from  primarily an extramural  program accomplished through cooperative  agreements and
    grants to primarily an intramural program that is  conducting studies led by EPA's own
    intramural epidemiologists and biomarker scientist.  Recent accomplishments in the Epide-
    miology Program include the  following: the  first study to examine endemic microbial
    enteric illness  attributed to drinking water in a U.S. population, the first study to  examine
    possible causal hypotheses of health effects  associated with particulate matter air pollution
    by examining  new physiologic parameters in the elderly,  and the first well-conducted U.S.
    study  to examine health effects associated with arsenic in a nonoccupational population.
    Dr. Calderon received her M.S. in Microbiology from the University  of Rhode Island in
    Kingston in  1979.   She received an M.P.H.  specializing in infectious disease epidemiology
    from Yale School of Public Health in  1981  and a Ph.D. in Epidemiology from Yale Univer-
    sity, New  Haven, Connecticut, in 1986.

    AI Dufour, Ph.D.

        Dr. Dufour is currently the director of the Microbiological and Chemical Exposure
    Assessment Research Division of EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory.  He
    earned his B.A.  in Biology and Chemistry from Northern Michigan University, his  M.P.H.
    specializing in epidemiology and environmental health services from  Yale University, and a
    Ph.D.  in Microbiology from the University of Rhode Island.  Dr. Dufour was with the U.S.
246

-------
                                                                        Speakers' Biographies
Public Health service for 4 years and then joined EPA in 1970.  His research interests are
analytical microbial  methods development; microbial risk assessments related to recre-
ational, drinking, and shellfish harvesting waters; and human exposure associated with
waterborne and airborne microbial pathogens.

Donna Francy

     Ms. Francy received a B.S. in Biology from Indiana University and an M.S. in Envi-
ronmental Science from Rice University.  She has been  working for the U.S. Geological
Survey for 10 years  and has served as project chief on a variety of projects  investigating  the
processes that affect the presence  of bacterial indicators and pathogens in ground water and
surface waters.

Geoffrey Grubbs

     Mr. Grubbs directs the Office of Science and Technology at  EPA headquarters in
Washington, DC.  He works with engineers, scientists, and economists to set regulations
requiring best available treatment of water pollution from all kinds of point sources; set
criteria and standards for pollutants in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and other waters under the
federal Clean Water Act; and establish the science for regulating safe levels of contaminants
in drinking water under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Grubbs has an engineer-
ing degree from  Princeton University.

Phil  Heckler

     Mr. Heckler is  the deputy director of environmental affairs of the New  York City
Department of  Environmental Protection.  He  is involved in all  facets of wastewater issues,
including construction, design,  operation, and  policy.  He is currently responsible for the
New  York City Harbor Survey, which monitors water quality. Mr. Heckler has a B.S. in
Civil  Engineering from the University of Missouri.

Paul Horvatin

     Mr. Horvatin has been with EPA for 23 years and is currently the chief of the Monitor-
ing, Indicators, and Reporting Branch  of the Great Lakes National Program Office.  He
manages Great Lakes monitoring programs for GLNPO, such as the  Integrated Air Deposi-
tion Network, fish contaminant monitoring program, and open water monitoring using the
Research Vessel Lake Guardian.  He  is also involved in binational developmental work
with Canada  on ecosystem indicators for the Great Lakes through  the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference process.

Jake Joyce, Ph.D.

     Dr. Joyce is currently assigned to EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kansas.  He is as-
signed to the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticide Division, where one  of his ancillary duties
involves being the regional BEACH Coordinator.  Dr.  Joyce began his governmental career
during the Viet Nam era as a green beret weapons specialist cross-trained as a medic.  He
then accepted a commission into the U.S. Public Health Service and  was assigned to the
U.S.  Coast Guard in New York City as an environmental/occupational health officer.  He
has also served as a supervisory sanitarian for the Indian Health Service and as an environ-
mental health scientist for EPA's Toxic Substances and  Disease Registry  in Kansas City,
                                                                                        247

-------
                                                              East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Kansas.  Dr. Joyce earned a B.S. in General Science from Mary wood College in Scranton,
    Pennsylvania, and an M.S.  in Environmental Biology from Hood College Graduate School
    in Frederick, Maryland.  He also holds another master's degree in Environmental Health
    Science  and a  Ph.D. in Environmental Health Science from New York Polytechnic in
    Brooklyn,  New York.

    Fred Kopfler, Ph.D.

         Dr. Kopfler is one of the original staff members of EPA.  Prior to the formation of
    EPA, he worked for the Agricultural Research  Service and the  U.S. Public Health Service.
    Dr.  Kopfler spent almost 20 years in EPA's Office of Research and Development investigat-
    ing  health effects  associated with chemical contaminants in drinking  water.  He joined the
    Gulf of  Mexico Program in 1989 and is currently the co-leader of the Public Health Focus
    Team. He is responsible for developing and implementing the  Public Health Operational
    Performance Plan.  He is also the team leader of the Science and Technical  Services Team.
    This team oversees the scientific peer review for the Gulf of Mexico Program Office,
    facilitates the Scientific Review Committee, and manages the  Quality Assurance  Manage-
    ment Program.

    Arnold Leder

         Mr. Leder has worked in the water enforcement program  in EPA Region 5 for the past
    25 years.  He  is currently a program manager  with several areas of responsibility, including
    Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation enforcement.  He is an agency  representative to
    the E. coli Task Force,  an interagency effort attempting to  deal with beach closures in the
    Indiana portion of the Lake Michigan Basin. As a member of  the task force, he has focused
    his efforts on ensuring that major and minor dischargers comply with NPDES permit re-
    quirements, including CSO controls.

    Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.

         Dr. Liebman is an  environmental biologist at EPA's New England regional office in
    Boston.  He received his B.A in Biology in 1980 from Carleton College  in Minnesota and
    his Ph.D in Ecology and Evolution  from the State University of New York at Stony Brook
    in 1991.  Since 1990, Dr. Liebman  has worked at the EPA office in Boston  as a project
    manager and scientist in the National Estuary Program and the Dredged  Material Disposal
    and Monitoring Program, and as a water quality specialist.  He is the regional coordinator
    for EPA's BEACH Program, Nutrient Criteria  Initiative, and National Sediment Inventory.
    He has conducted or been involved in research efforts in the fields of parasitology, marine
    ecology, disposal  site monitoring,  and water quality.

    Tom Mahin

         Mr. Mahin received his B.S. in Environmental  Engineering from the University of
    Texas at Austin in 1983.  He is chief of the Municipal Services Section of the Massachusetts
    Department of Environmental Protection's largest regional office.  He is the  cochair of the
    DEP's Pathogens Work Group,  a group of specialists from different sections within DEP.
    He is coauthor of an article on  waterborne pathogens published in  the April  1999 issue of
    Water Environment & Technology.  Mr. Mahin's areas  of specialization  include pathogen
    indicator issues at bathing beaches and water quality impacts from municipal storm water
    discharges.
248

-------
                                                                        Speakers' Biographies
Robert Nobles

     Mr. Nobles is  an Environmental Specialist III within the Bureau of Facility Programs in
Florida.  He has been with the Bureau for 2 years, working on establishing marine water
sampling criteria and a statewide protocol for sampling.  As a portion of the public notifica-
tion process, Mr.  Nobles (along with the Bureau's web manager)  developed a web site that
provides updates from beach sampling around the state.  He has a B.S. in Molecular Biol-
ogy and is an  M.P.H. candidate at Florida A&M University, Institute of Public Health.

Joan Rose, Ph.D.

     Dr. Rose is a full professor in the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of
South Florida.   She is a member of the American Academy of Microbiology and was
recently appointed to  the Water Science  and Technology Board for the National Academy
of Sciences, National  Research Council.  She is past president of the Florida Environmental
Health Association.  Dr. Rose, who has been in Florida for 10 years, has more than 120
publications in the field of water pollution microbiology  and public health risk assessment.

David Rosenblatt

     Mr. Rosenblatt is the chief of the Atlantic Coastal Bureau, Division of Watershed
Management, in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  He received his
B.S. in Environmental Science from Rutgers University and an M.A. in Teaching from the
College of New Jersey.   For the past 20 years he has evaluated nearshore coastal water
quality  and developed pollution response and remediation  programs,  including New
Jersey's Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program  for recreational beaches. He continues to
manage beach quality programs in  addition to  watershed planning and management in the
Atlantic coastal region.

Steve Schaub, Ph.D.

     Dr. Schaub joined EPA's Office  of Science and Technology  in 1992 as a senior
microbiologist for drinking water regulation support.  He coauthored EPA's Beach Action
Plan and served as  the EPA representative to the President's Council on Food Safety.  Prior
to joining EPA, Dr. Schaub served  as a Microbiology Program Officer for the U.S. Army
Medical Research and Development Command  from 1972 to 1992 in field water supply and
sanitation.  He worked on microbiological methods, military equipment evaluation, and the
effectiveness of land  application of wastewater.  Dr. Schaub also studied microbiological
pollution in the Great Lakes with the U.S. Public Health Service from 1964 to 1966.  He
holds a B.S. in Microbiology from  Washington State University and a Ph.D. in Microbiol-
ogy from the University  of Texas.

Paul Stanek

     Mr. Stanek is  the manager of  the Health Beaches Program in Pinellas County, Florida.
He has worked for  the Pinellas County Health Department for the last 10 years in a variety
of programs, including pools-bathing  places,  septic tanks, pollutant storage tanks, public
and private drinking water, and finally the beach program.  Mr. Stanek earned his B.S. in
Biology from the University of South Florida in 1988.
                                                                                       249

-------
                                                               East Coast Regional Beach Conference
    Jeffrey Waters

         Mr. Waters is the project director at the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation in
    Metairie, Louisiana.  He received his B.S. in Geology from the University of Southern
    Maine and his M.S. in Geology form Northern Arizona University.  He is currently enrolled
    as a Ph.D. candidate in the  Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of
    New Orleans.  He worked for 3 years as the staff scientist at the Tulane University Environ-
    mental Law Clinic prior to joining the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation.   For the past 5
    years he has managed more than 20 water quality  and habitat  restoration projects for the
    Foundation. Mr. Waters' main research interests are aqueous  geochemistry and  the fate and
    transport of contaminated sediments  in coastal  environments.
250

-------
                                                                                            List of Attendees
List  of Attendees
Douglas Alley
International Joint Commission
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, MI 48232-0869
E-mail: alleyd@windsor.ijc.org

AlexAlmario
National Park Service
Assateague Island
Berlin, MD21811
E-mail: alex_almario@nps.gov

ErvBall
Cuyahoga County Disctict Board of
Health
1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524
Cleveland, OH 44115
E-mail: ervball@hotmail.com

Bruce Bandurski
International Joint Commission, USA and
Canada
1250 23rd Street, NW
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20440
E-mail: bandurskib@washington.ijc.org

Sam Barber
Beach Masters
104 Boca CiegaRd
CocaBeach,FL 32931
E-mail: barberpictures@mindspring.com

John Barrett
Texas Coastal Coordination Council
P.O. Box 97
Edroy.TX 78352
E-mail: jbtxag@aol.com

Mike Beauchene
CT DEP Bureau of Water Management
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
E-mail: mike.beauchene@po.state.ct.us

Michael Berry
Florida Department of Health
1301 Cattleman Rd
PO BOX 2658
Sarasota,FL 34230
E-mail:
Paul Bertram
USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office
77 West Jackson Blvd
Chicago, EL 60604
E-mail: bertram.paul@epa.gov

Patricia O. Bigsby
State of Florida Dept. of Health
1105 E.Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33511
E-mail: patricia_Bigsby@doh.state.fl.us

Steven Binns
Ohio Department of Health
246 N. High Street, 5th Floor
Columbus, OH 43266
E-mail: sbinns@gw.odh.state.oh.us

Manja Blazer
IDEXX Laboratories Inc.
5367 Lake Normandy Ct
Fairfax, VA22030
E-mail: BLAZER@IDEXX.COM

Kristen P. Brenner
USEPA (NERL)
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
ML314
Cincinnati, OH 45268-1314
E-mail: brenner.kristen@epa.gov

ShannonBriggs
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909-7773
E-mail: briggssl@state.mi.us

Robert C. Brown
Manatee County Environmental
Management Department
PO Box 1000
Bradenton,FL 34206
E-mail: robert.brown@co.manatee.fi.us

Kelly Burch
Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Protection
230 Chestnut Street
Meadville, PA 16335
E-mail: burch.kelly@dep.state.pa.us
Dr. Joanna Burger
Rutgers University
Departmentof Biological Sciences
NelsonHall
604 Allison Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8082
E-mail: burger@biology.rutgers.edu

Brian Cagle
CDC/NCEH/NPS
AFC
1924Building
100 Alabama Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
E-mail: brian_cagle@nps.gov

Rebecca Calderon
USEPA Region4
MD58C
Research Triangle Park,NC27711
E-mail: calderon.rebecca@epa.gov

Melvin Campos
Florida Dept. Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Rd MS 3575
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
E-mail: melva.campos@dep.state.fLus

Ming Chan
Florida Dept. of Health, Bureau of
Laboratories
P.O.Box210
Jacksonville, FL 32231
E-mail: ming_chan@doh.state.fl.us

Sarah Chasis
Natural Resource Defense Council
40 West 20th St., 11 Floor
New York, NY 10011
E-mail: mark.dorfman@usa.net

JohnCimarosa
Westport Weston Health District
180 Bayberry Lane
Westport, CT 06880
E-mail: jcimarosa@wwhd.org

Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
100 North Senate
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
E-mail: dclark@dem.state.in.us
                                                                                                        251

-------
                                                                         East Coast Regional Beach Conference
KarenCollins-Fleming
Manatee Co. Environmental Management
Department
P.O. Box 1000
Bradenton.FL 34206
E-mail:

Jocly Connor
NH Department of Environmental
Services
6 Hazen Dr.
Concord, NH 03301
E-mail: j-connor@des.state.nh.us

RobertB. Cummings
Palm Beach County Health Department
345 S. Congress Ave.
Delray Beach, FL 33445
E-mail:

ElleanoreDaub
VA Dept of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
E-mail: emdaub@deq.state.va.us

Diana Davila Mesa
Environmental Protection Commission of
Hillsborough County
1900 9th Avenue
Tampa, FL 33605
E-mail:

Barry Davis
National Park Service
PO Box 25287
Denver, CO 80201
E-mail: barry_davis@nps.gov

Daniel DeMarco
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave., SCA110
Tampa, FL 33620
E-mail: ddemarco@chuma.cas.usf.edu

Judy P. Drake
Sarasota County Health Department
1301 Cattlemen Road
Sarasota, FL 34232
E-mail:

Al Dufour
USEPA ORD/NERL/MCEARD
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-1593
E-mail: dufour.alfred@epa.gov

Charles Dujardin
HydroQual, Inc
ILethbridge
Mahwah,NJ 07430
E-mail: cdujardin@hydroqual.com
Richard M. Eckenrod
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
MSI-1/NEP
100 8th Ave. SE
St. Petersberg, FL 33701
E-mail: reckenrod@tbep.org

Toni Edwards
State of Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection
3 804 Coconut Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619
E-mail: toni.edwards@dep.state.fl.us

Geoffrey Edwards
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45228
E-mail: gedwards@orsanco.org

SamirElmir
Miami-Dade County Health Department/
Environmental Health
1725 N.W.I 67th Street
Miami, FL 33056
E-mail: Sarnir_Elmir@doh.state.fl.us

Richard Eskin
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21204
E-mail: reskin@mde.state.md.us

Gene Flanagan
Pasco County Health Department
7623 Little Road, Suite 100B
New Port Richey, FL 3464
E-mail: geneplus@aol.com

D. MichealFlanery
Pinellas County Health Unit, Env.
Engineering
4175 E. Bay Drive, Suite 300
Clearwater.FL 33764
E-mail: mike_flanery@doh.state.fl.us

Donna Francy
US Geological Survey
6480 Doubletree Ave.
Columbus, OH 43229
E-mail: dsfrancy@usgs.gov

Portia Franz-Chin
Palau Environmental Quality Protection
Board
P.O. Box 1000 Public Works Building
Koror, Republic of Palau 96940
E-mail: eqpb@palaunet.com

Molly Fullwood
Dare County Health Department
P.O. Box 1000
Manteo.NC 27954
E-mail: mollyf@co.dare.nc.us
Judy Gallizzi
City of St. Petersburg-Public Utilities
Department
1635 3rd Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
E-mail: jgallizzi@ij.net

OttoE.Georgi
Pasco County Health Department
7623 Little Road, Suite 100B
New Port Richey, FL 34654
E-mail:

George Gilbert
North Carolina State Government
Shellfish Sanitation
344 lArendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
E-mail:
George_Gilbert@ss.enr.state.nc.us

Dr. Lou Glatzer
University of Toledo/Lake Erie Center
6200 Bayshore Road
Oregon, OH 43618
E-mail: lglatze@utoledo.edu

Ruben Gonzalez
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
San Juan, PR 00910
E-mail: JCAaqua@prtc.net

Louis Gosson
Flagler County Health Department
P.O. Box 847
Bunnell,FL32110
E-mail: Louis_Gosson@doh.state.fl.us

Holly Greening
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
100 8th Street Ave. S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
E-mail:hgreening@tbep.org

Dena Gross Leavengood
3207 San Jose Street
Tampa, FL 33629
E-mail: leayengood@worldnetatt.net

Geoffrey Grubbs
USEPA-Office of Science and Technology
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail:

JeffHagerty
Florida Department of Health, Volusia
County
501 S. Clyde Morris Blvd.
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
E-mail: Jeff_Hagerty@doh.state.fl.us
252

-------
                                                                                              List of Attendees
DougHaines
Health Canada
PL 1904B, Jeanne Mance Building
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1AOK9
E-mail: Doug_Haines@hc-sc.gc.ca

Mark Hammond
Southwest Florida Water Management
District
7601 Highway 301 North
Tampa, FL 33637-6759
E-mail:
mark.hammond@swfwmd.state.fl.us

Joel Aaron Hansel
USEPARegion4
61 ForsythSt, 15th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303
E-mail: hansel.joel@epamail.epa.gov

CraigHatfield
The University of Toledo
2928Sherbrooke
Toledo, OH 43606
E-mail: chatfie@geology.utoledo.edu

Nancy Hatfield
BioCheck Labs & The University of
Toledo
2928Sherbrooke
Toledo, OH 43606
E-mail: nhatfie@uofl02.utoledo.edu

Phil Heckler
NYC Department of Environmental
Protection
96-05 Horce Harding Expressway
Corona, NY 11368
E-mail: pheckler@nysnet.net

RickHofftnann
USEP A - Office of Science and Technology
401M St. SW (4305)
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: Hoffhiann.Rick@epa.gov

BarbaraHoggard
Palm Beach County Health Department
345 S. Congress Avenue
Dekay Beach, FL 33445
E-mail:

Nanette Holland
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
MSI-1/NEP
100 8th Avenue, S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
E-mail: nanette@tbep.org

PaulHorvatin
USEP A, Great Lakes National Program
Office
77 West Jackson St. (G-17J)
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: horvatin.paul@epa.gov
Robert Howard
Connecticut Dept. of Public Health
Laboratory
10 Clinton St.
Hartford, CT 06106
E-mail: robert.howard@po.state.ct.us

LeonardHuggins
University of Pittsburg
114-6001 St. Marie St.
Pittsburg, PA 15206
E-mail: lenhuggins@horniail.com

Alesia Jones
Environmental Protection Commission of
Hillsborough County
1900 9th Avenue
Tampa, FL 33605
E-mail: Jones@EPCJanus.EPCHC.ORG

Jake Joyce
USEP A Region 7/WWPD
901 North Fifth Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
E-mail: joyce.jake@epa.gov

Brad Kaffenberger
RIDOH
Camion Building
3 Capitol Hill
Providence, RI02908
E-mail: ronl@doh.state.ri.us

Keith Keene
Charlotte County Health Department
18500 Murdock Circle
Port Charlotte, FL 33948
E-mail: kkeene@thenuthouse.com

Tim Kelly
Hillsborough Co. Health Department
PO BOX 5135
Tampa, FL 33675-5135
E-mail:

George Kennedy
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
P.O. Box 5911
VirginiaBeach,VA23471
E-mail: gkennedy@hrsd.dst.va.us

DonKillinger
Cuyahoga County Board of Health
1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524
Cleveland, OH 44115
E-mail: estaff@neticom.com

B enj amin Kirsner
Florida Department of Health/
Miami-Dade County
1725 NW 167th Street
Miami, FL 33056
E-mail:
Barbara Klieforth
USEPA-ORD/OSP
1300 Pennsylvannia Ave., MC 8104R
Washington, DC 20004
E-mail: klieforth.barbara@epa.gov

Bernadette Kolb
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.
Ten Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
E-mail: kolbbh@cdm.com

FredKopfler
USEPA - Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Building 1103,Room202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
E-mail: kopfler.fred@epa.gov

Charles Kovatch
USEP A-Office of Science and Technology
401M St., SW (4305)
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: kovatch.charles@epa.gov

Paul Kuehnert
State of Maine, Bureau of Health
157 Capitol Street
Augusta, ME 04333-0010
E-mail: Paul.Kuehnert@state.me.us

Raymond C. Kurz, Ph.D.
Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc.
4013 E. Fowler Ave.
Tampa, FL 33617
E-mail: rkurz@scheda.com

Peter LaFlamme
Vermont Dept. of Enviromental Conser-
vation
103 South Main Street
WQ Division
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
E-mail: petel@dec.anr.state.vt.us

Laura Landry
Rhode Island Department of Health
Cannon Building, 3 Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908
E-mail: roni@doh.state.ri.us

Arnold Leder
USEPA
WC 15-J
77 West Jackson Ave
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: leder.arnold@epa.gov

RonaldLee
Rhode Island Department of Health
Cannon Building, 3 Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908
E-mail: roni@doh.state.ri.us
                                                                                                           253

-------
                                                                         East Coast Regional Beach Conference
CristinaLegarza
Institute of Marine Affairs
Hilltop Lane
Chaguaramas, Trinidad West Indies
E-mail: alegarza@trinidad.net

Robert F. Levy
Sarasota County Health Department
1301 Cattleman Rd
PO BOX 2658
Sarasota, FL 34230-2658
E-mail:

Jordan Lewis
Florida Department of Health,
Hillsborough County
1105 E. Kennedy Blvd.
P.O. Box 5135
Tampa, FL 33675-5135
E-mail: jordan_lewis@doh.state.fl.us

MattLiebman
USEPA Region 1
OneCongress Street, Ste. 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
E-mail: liebman.matt@epa.gov

Daniel V.Lim
University of South Florida, Department
ofBiology
4202 E. Fowler Ave., SCA110
Tampa, FL 33620-5200
E-mail: Lim@chumal .cas.usf.edu

Dr. Erin Lipp
University of South Florida
Department of Marine Science
140 7th Ave S
St Petersburg, FL 33701
E-mail: elipp@marine.usf.edu

JillLis
Cuyahoga County Board of Health
1375 Euclid Ave., Suite 524
Cleveland, OH 44115
E-mail: estaff@neticom.com

Kathy Luther
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
504 North Broadway
Suite418
Gary, IN 46402
E-mail: kluther@dem.state.in.us

Thomas Mahin
Massachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Protection
205A Lowell St.
Wilmington, MA 01887
E-mail: thomas.mahin@state.ma.us
Mary Maloney
Florida Department of Health
1190 W.LeonardSt, Suite2
Pensacola,FL 32501
E-mail: robert_merritt@doh.state.fl.us

Christopher Mantooth
South Carolina Dept of Health and
Environmental Control
1362 McMillan Avenue, Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29405
E-mail: mantooca@nochas30.chec.state.sc.us

KelliMcGee
American Oceans Campaign
600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20003
E-mail: aockm@wizard.net

Trish McKenzie
USEPA
401M Street SW, 2222 A
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: mckenzie.trish@epa.gov

Diane W.Mealo
Reedy Creek Imrpovement District
P.O. Box 10170
Lake Buena Vista, FL32830
E-mail: diane_jnealo@rcid.dst.fl.us

B.J.Meder
Cyahoga County Board of Health
1375 Euclid Ave., Suite524
Cleveland, OH 44115
E-mail: bjmeder@neticom.com

Pat Metz
Illinois Department of Public Health
525 West Jefferson
Springfield, IL 62761
E-mail: pmetz@idph.state.il.us

Kimberly Mikita
Florida Coastal Management Program
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
E-mail: kimberly.mikita@dca.state.il.us

Thomas Morris
North Carolina Department of Health &
Human Dervices
Division of Public Health
1912 MSC
Raleigh,NC27699-1912
E-mail: thomas.morris@ncmail.net

Joanna Mott
Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
Biology Program
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
E-mail: jmott@falcon.tamucc.edu
Chris Murray
Ohio State University
2120FyffeRd.
Columbus, OH 43210
E-mail: murray.255@osu.edu

Judith F. Nelson
Westport Weston Health District
180 Bayberry Lane
Westport, CT 06880
E-mail: jnelson@wwhd.org

Davivd Nichols, P.E.
CDS Technologies, Inc.
1255 La Quinta Drive, Suite 218
Orlando, FL 32809
E-mail: dnichols@iag.net

Robert Nobles II
Florida Department of Health
2020 Capital Circle
Tallahassee, FL 32399
E-mail: robert_nobles@doh.state.fl.us

Robert Nuzzi
Suffolk County Department of Health
Services
County Center
Riverhead,NY 11901
E-mail: robert.nuzzi@co.suffolk.ny .us

Ellen J. O'Neill
Florida Department of Health
1190 W. Leonard St, Suite 2
Pensacola,FL 32501
E-mail: ellen_o'neill@doh.state.fl.us

Richard O' Rourke
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Department
4200 Salzedo Street, Rm 112
Coral Gables,FL33146-0316
E-mail: richor@co.miami-dade.fl.us

Sandy Oestreich
Agency on Bay Management/Estuary
Program
305 173rd Ave
St. Petersburg, FL 33708
E-mail: 76762@compuserve.com

KateOrellana
Florida Department of Evironmental
Protection
3 804 Coconut Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619
E-mail: katherine.orellana@dep.state.fl.us

Mark A. Pabst
Pinellas County Health Department
4175 E. Bay Drive, SuiteSOO
Clearwater,FL 33764
E-mail: mark_pabst@doh.state.fl.us
254

-------
                                                                                              List of Attendees
Latisha Parker
USEPA-Office of Science and Technology
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: parker.latisha@epamail.epa.gov

Joan Perry
Holmes Beach Civic Association
507 74th Street
Holmes Beach, FL 34217
E-mail: perrybeach@worldnet.att.net

Patrick Phillips
Missouri Department of Health
Department of Epidemiology
920WildwoodDrive
Jefferson City, MO 65109
E-mail: phillp@mail.health.state.mo.us

Jonathan Phinney
Cente of Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales StNW#600
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: jphinney@dccmc.org

Dennis W. Pyburn, Jr.
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
Boott Mills  South
100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA01852-1124
E-mail: dpyburn@neiwpcc.org

Nia Rhodes
Brown University
Box 0839, Brown University
Providence, RI02912
E-mail: Nia_Rhodes@brown.edu

L.James Ridge
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC29201
E-mail: ridgelj@columb32.dhec.state.sc.us

Kevin Riskowitz
City of St. Petersburg
1635 3rd Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
E-mail:

William Robertson
Health Canada-Environmental Health
1205C Jeanne ManceBldg. 1912A
Ottawa, Canada KIAOK9
E-mail: will.robertson@hc-sc.gc.ca

David Rockwell
USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: rockwell.david@epa.gov
Joan Rose
University of Florida
Department of Marine Sciences
140 7th Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
E-mail: jrose@marine.usf.edu

Molly Rose McLaughlin
University of South Florida Department
of Marine Science
140 7th Ave South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
E-mail: mclaughlin@seas.marine.usf.edu

David Rosenblatt
New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, DWM/ACB
POBox418
401 E. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625-0418
E-mail: drosenbl@dep.state.nj.us

Nancy Roy
Environmental Protection Commission of
Hillsborough County
1900 9th Avenue
Tampa, FL 33605
E-mail: Roy@EPCJanus.EPCHC.ORG

Cindy Rupert
Tampa Tribune
4243 Henderson Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33601
E-mail:

Christopher Rutherford
Florida Dept. of Health- Hillls County
1105 E.Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33602
E-mail:

Micheal Rybolowik
Florida Health Department, Miami-Dade
1725NW167St.
Miami, FL 33056
E-mail:

Stephen Schaub
USEPA - Office of Science and Technol-
ogy
401 M St. SW (4304)
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: schaub.stephen@epamail.epa.gov

Keith Sepulvado
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality
7290Bluebonnet
3rd Floor P& A
BatonRouge, LA 70810
E-mail: keith_s@deq.state.la.us
Harvey Shear, Ph.D.
Department of the Environment
4905 Dufferin Street
Toronto, Canada M3H5T4
E-mail: harvey.shear@ec.gc.ca

SebaB.Sheavly
Center for Marine Conservation
1432 N. GreatNeckRoad#103
VirginiaBeach, VA 23462
E-mail: ssheavly@vacmc.org

Mary Sheppard
Sarasota Sierra Club
3120 38th Ave. E.
Baradenton, FL 34208
E-mail: msheppardl@juno.com

LisaShimatzki
Clearwater Marine Aquarium
249 Windward Passage
Clearwater, FL 33767
E-mail: mla@cmaquarium.org

Robin A. Silva-Wilkinson
Great Lakes Environmental Center
739 Hastings Street
Traverse City, MI 49690
E-mail: rswglec@mich.com

RajenraSinha
Wayne County Department of Public
Health
Environmental Health Division
5454 S.Venoy Road
Wayne, MI 48184
E-mail:

Thomas D. Smith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL32232-0019
E-mail: thomas.d.smtih@saj02.usace.army.mil

Helena Solo-Gabriele
University of Miami
P.O. Box 248294
Coral Gables, FL 33124-0630
E-mail: hmsolo@miami.edu

WadeSparkman
Nassau Department of Health
1015 South 14th Street
PO Box 15100
FernandinaBeach,FL32035
E-mail: wade_sparkman@doh.state.fl.us

MarkE. Springer
Hernando County Health Department
300 South Main St.
P.O. Box 277
Brooksville.FL 34601
E-mail:
                                                                                                           255

-------
                                                                        East Coast Regional Beach Conference
PaulStanek
Florida Department of Health, Pinellas
County
4175 E. Bay Dr., Suite 300
Clearwater, FL 364624
E-mail: paul_stanek@doh.state.fl.us

LillianM. Stark
Florida Department of Health, Bureau of
Laboratories
3952 West Dr. M.L. King Jr. Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33614-8404
E-mail: Lillian_stark@doh.state.fl.us

CaraStieler
ETI, Environmental Professionals
4902 Eisenhower Blvd
Suite 150
Tampa, FL 33634
E-mail: cstieler@etipros.com

Kevin Summers
USEPA/ORD/NHEERL/GED
ISabine Island Dr.
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
E-mail: summers.kevin@epa.gov

Richard W. Svenson
New York State Department of Health
FlaniganSquare
547 River Street, rm. 515
Troy.NY 12180
E-mail: RWS04@health.state.ny.us

Dr. J Shannon Swann
Dept of the Interior-Lake Mead NBA
601 Nevada Highway
BoulderCity.NV 89005
E-mail: shannonj._swann@nps.gov

JackN.Teague
Florida Department of Health - Monroe
County Health Department
P.O. Box 6193
Key West, FL 33041-6193
E-mail: jack_teague@doh.state.fl.us

JackTowle
Volusia County Environmental Health
Lab
1250 Indian Lake Road
Daytona Beach, FL32124
E-mail: jack_towle@doh.state.fl.us

DeanTuomari
Wayne County Department of Environ-
ment
3600 Commerce Court
Wayne, MI 48184
E-mail: dtuomari@co.wayne.mi.us
David Turin
USEPARegion 1
One Congress Street (CRI)
Boston, MA 02114
E-mail: turin.david@epa.gov

Ronald S.Ulinsky
New Jersey State Department of Health
3635 Quakerbridge Rd
PO BOX 369
Trenton, NJ 08625
E-mail: rsu@doh.state.nj.us

GeorgeVaughn
CDC/NCEH/NPS
AFC
1924Building
100 Alabama Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
E-mail: george_vaughn@nps.gov

Bob Vincent
Charlotte County Health Department
18500 Murdock Circle
Port Charlotte, FL 33948
E-mail: robert_vincent@doh.state.fl.us

Joseph Vogel
Erie County Department of Health
606 West 2nd Street
Erie, PA 16507
E-mail:

Edward Wardyga
Rhode Island Department of Health
Cannon Building, 3 Capitol Hill
Providence, RI02908
E-mail: roni@doh.state.ri.us

Helen Warren
St. Petersburg Audubon Society
7227 4th Avenue, North
St. Petersburg, FL 33710
E-mail: helenkwarren@mindspring.com

JeffWaters
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
P.O. Box 6965
Metrairie, LA 70009-6965
E-mail: lpbfprog@communique.net

KimWeaver
Coastal Carolina University
P.O. Box 261954
Conway, SC 29528-1954
E-mail: weaver@coastal.edu
Howard Wensley
MA Dept. of Public Health
305 South St.
Jamaica Plain, MA 0213 0
E-mail: howard.wensley-dph@state.ma.us

Gary R. White
Macomb County Health Department
43525 Elizabeth Road
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
E-mail:

Richard Whitman
Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station,
USGS
1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd
Porter, IN 46304
E-mail: richard_whitman@nps.gov

Jennifer Wigal
USEPAOST
401 M Street SW (MC 4305)
Washington, DC 20815
E-mail: wigal.jennifer@epa.gov

Leslee Williams
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
2600BlairstoneRD
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
E-mail: leslee.williams@dep.state.fl.us

DavidWingfield
Florida Department of Health
3952 W. Dr. M.L. King, Jr. Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33614
E-mail: david_wingfield@doh.state.fl.us

Holly Wirick
USEPARegionS
77 W.Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: wirick.holiday@epa.gov

Victoria Withington
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave.,SCA 110
Tampa, FL 33620
E-mail: vwagner@chuma.cas.usf.edu

James Woodley
USEPA-Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds
401M Street, SW(4504F)
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: woodley.james.epamail.epa.gov
256

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------