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
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |