United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of Water
(4305)
EPA-823-R-98-004
May 1998
x>EPA National
-------
-------
National BEACH Conference
(October 15-16, 1997)
Report on Action Items
May 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
National BEACH Conference
(October 15-16, 1997)
Report on Action Items
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to present a list of potential "action items" related to beach health. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
(ASTHO) cosponsored the first national BEACH conference on October 15-16, 1997, in Annapolis,
Maryland. Numerous topics related to beach health were presented and discussed at the conference.
Participants were asked to identify needs for technical assistance, assign priorities for short- and long-term
actions, and, where possible, recommend protocols and procedures to encourage greater consistency
among jurisdictions in beach health issues. To assist this process, three concurrent "breakout" sessions
met the afternoon of the first day and the morning of the second. A copy of the agenda is included at the
end of this report, and a complete proceedings document will be published in early fall 1998.
After the conference, EPA compiled a draft list of action items identified by conference participants.
Participants were then asked to review the list, add any missing elements, and comment on which action
items should receive the highest priority. Approximately 120 draft lists were sent out, and 41 were
returned. This report will be an important source of information for EPA's long-term planning.
The action items described in the following sections are organized according to the three breakout sessions:
• Session 1: Standards, Methods, and Indicators
• Session 2: Monitoring
• Session 3: Risk Assessment and Communication
Within each section, each action is described. Then, a summary chart shows the number of responses for
each priority category. "Short-term" means approximately 1 to 2 years; "long-term" means 3 to 5 years or
longer. Finally, a list of selected individual comments is included for each action. Table 1 on page 19
summarizes all the responses.
-------
Session 1: Standards, Methods, and Indicators
Action 1a:
National water quality criteria for beach protection are needed in the near term. These should be
health-based, flexible, apply to bathing beaches. In general, people want flexibility in indicators
used for criteria and agreed that exceedance of criteria should lead to advisory. Concern was
expressed about enforcement of standards by regulators.
Action 1a Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
30
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
3
Long-term
3
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
1
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
Flexibility in choice of indicator bacteria should be limited to a combination of total coliform,
fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococcus—1 maximum and consider ratios.
There are national criteria. The key is getting states to adopt these.
My concern is that there is not enough enforcement/application of standards!
Yes, flexibility [is] needed to use different and even new criteria if science and monitoring data
support change.
We need to resolve the objections to application of WQ criteria ASAP. Many objections are
based on anecdotal information and could be resolved fairly quickly. If not, they should be high
priority for research/resolution.
Criteria and individual advisories should not be too directly coupled. Criteria should be the basis
for advisory rules.
Flexibility is needed to address large number of water bodies rarely or infrequently used for
swimming and subject to natural coliform populations.
This cannot wait 3 to 5 years.
This item is critical to the success of any proposed program.
Uniform national criteria are very important to local public health officials.
National standards that are health-based will make local enforcement easier.
Clarification of the definition of "bathing beach"—is this all outdoor recreational waters? (Some
may not have beaches, e.g., skiing activities.)
The highest priority—let's get it done. Flexibility should be limited.
How can we have "national" criteria and flexibility at the same time? It seems maximum
flexibility in terms of what criteria to use would render national criteria meaningless.
Action 1b: There was general agreement on need for two sets of criteria—one for single day samples in addition
to geometric mean for monthly samples. More evaluation needed. Consider relationship to beach
"re-opening" criteria.
Action 1b Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
26
Long-term
0
Medium
Short-term
6
Long-term
6
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
0
No Answer
1
-------
Individual comments:
We are not convinced that two sets of criteria are needed; more data than single-day samples
needed for decision-making.
Because of the extreme variability in bacteriological data, a 20- or 60-day median is also
important in assessing bathing water quality at a particular location.
Single sample maximums [are] important where resources are thin and recreational uses are
spread out over many water bodies.
Clearer guidance for single-day exceedance is required by EPA with explanation.
Re-opening criteria important, but one-day and geometric mean standards should be national
and in stone.
Single-day sample criteria are of higher priority.
Need to be careful about what is and is not a meaningful single-day sample (perhaps a
monitoring issue).
States need the option of assessing large numbers of water bodies with monthly or bimonthly
sampling.
Action 1c:
There was general consensus that State and local agencies want to continue using four existing
indicators (total coliform, fecal coliform, £ coli, and Enterococcus). Total coliform should not be
used alone, but in combination with other indicators. New quick inexpensive ones are needed.
There was no consensus that EPA indicator criteria or other indicators are superior. Other new or
alternative indicators are either (a) inappropriate or (b) not yet ready for widespread use.
Action 1c Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
20
Long-term
4
Medium
Short-term
4
Long-term
6
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
3
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
In Hawaii, data show that indicators named above multiply in soils and cannot be indexed to
pathogens.
There will be a long lag time between identifying new indicators that relate to health risk and
the development of easy methods for detection. Continue using the existing indicators and
practice risk management rather than risk assessment. Set standards that keep people out of
water contaminated with fecal waste.
Disagree with allowing existing indicators without use of enterococcus as well. Enterococcus
is one indicator that should be used, at a minimum.
Most agreed that based on published data, EPA standards are not useful in tropical islands
(Hawaii and Puerto Rico) and these islands can establish new regional standards.
The states should be allowed to establish the indicators. Total coliform has not proven to be a
valuable indicator in Illinois.
Let's get the program going with indicators we understand before we focus on new indicators.
Some newer indicators (or procedures) are appropriate and are ready for widespread use.
Time lag remains the greatest disadvantage of any of the above methods.
Continued research is needed to find the best indicator.
This is in response to the need for "new, quick, inexpensive..." We agree with the consensus
statements.
Long-term need for new indicators. Use what EPA has in the short term.
-------
Action 1d:
Continued research on indicators is warranted and may help in pinpointing sources.
Wet weather issues are important, but universal rainfall criteria should not apply. Flexibility needed
regarding how wet weather events affect advisory/public notification/closure.
Action 1d Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
8
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
10
Long-term
14
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
3
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
We find that differences occur between monitoring stations; there are significant differences
[in] rain impact between states and regions of the country.
Do not necessarily agree. People should be advised against swimming during/after wet
weather event if rain carries pollution to beach. Need to develop models to predict what
amount of rain leads to exceedance of standard in particular locale.
Rain known to increase pollution at beaches but not uniformly at all beaches. Most states
know which beaches are adversely affected. However, guidelines are desirable.
If wet weather criteria [do] not apply, we need specific info on why there is less public health
significance from rain levels.
Agree with need for flexibility—guidelines vs. rules.
We strongly concur with comments.
Short-term need—higher priority is the need for public notification when it rains. Wet
weather modeling will take more time.
I agree flexibility is needed here, based on local conditions.
Action 1e:
Criteria should apply to bathing beaches, but flexibility is needed in determining how bathing
beaches are identified and exposed populations are determined. Flexibility and further discussion
are needed re: whether there should be a visitor-based "trigger" or other exposure factor to
determine when a "beach" requires monitoring.
Action 1e Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
10
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
7
Long-term
11
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
9
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
A visitor-based "trigger" is impractical for Hawaii—year-round use of many beaches is
common.
Subjective call based on local conditions. Determin[ing] exposed population difficult at Lake
Powell due to transient nature of visitation.
States with history of monitoring know which beaches [are] used by most swimmers.
Emphasis should be placed on these beaches rather than monitoring beaches with fewer users.
Identifying and separating "bathing beaches" from other infrequently used water bodies
should be a priority.
This should be determined by the testing agency—not universally.
-------
Action 1f:
EPA recommendations rather than standards would be useful.
Visitor-based and proximity to potential source is the way to go.
Bathing beach sampling is a must where any swimming occurs.
General agreement that frequency of monitoring is important, e.g., at least five times/month. No
consensus on the most appropriate way to use monitoring data for beach advisory/closure decisions
(e.g., geometric mean vs. single sample instantaneous sample vs. two consecutive samples vs.
frequency of exceeding criteria). Guidance is needed from EPA concerning frequency of monitoring,
and how to handle individual high bacteria counts. Need for flexibility is critical.
Action If Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
29
Long-term
4
Medium
Short-term
1
Long-term
4
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
1
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
"Guidance" is needed, but because of the tremendous differences between states/regions local
control is more important.
Need is now!
Flexibility should not be a code word for "weak standards."
Monitoring frequency needs to be set in recornmendations.
This applies to "Guidance is needed from EPA..." not mandates.
Monitor daily sampling—minimum once per week. Closed waterway sampling daily with 2
consecutive days of good samples.
This is an important issue because of the assessment process and ongoing TMDL issue.
Action 1g:
Harmful algal bloams-Pfiesteria, red tides, other dinoflagellates that produce toxins are an ongoing
concern. More research needed on whether they represent a recreational hazard and how to assess
the public health concerns.
Action 1g Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
11
Long-term
7
Medium
Short-term
4
Long-term
12
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
5
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Hawaii's mid-ocean location, small size, and strong currents reduce probability of
phytoplankton blooms; benthic algal blooms are more of a concern.
Very important to few areas but not relevant to many areas.
Needed, but expertise is lacking and I see no short-term solution.
Public won't be satisfied that we are doing pur job until we can address their questions
regarding this issue.
This appears to be more of a geographically localized issue.
-------
Action 1h: Guidance and more research are needed on ways to identify sources of bacteria (non-human vs.
human) and the importance of non-human sources in risk assessment.
Action 1h Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
15
Long-term
6
Medium
Short-term
1
Long-term
13
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
5
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
Are TMDLs for duck poop really needed?
Determining sources of bacteria indicator is important because source determines risk level for
diseases.
In Louisiana, we suspect that large wildlife populations are responsible for some bacteria
criteria exceedances.
Could be a valuable tool both for recreational waters and shellfish waters.
Scientific data [that] can be easily explained is needed because there is no doubt that high
indicator organisms occur due to non-health-related sources (non-human). Very important
issue.
Non-human sources may be considered equal to or greater concern than human sources in the
short term.
Very important!
Some regions have softened their stance on criteria exceedances due to non-human
sources—need more information about risks associated with non-human sources.
Action 1i:
Everyone uses standard methods. A few use MPN technique and generally that is because shellfish
programs require this method. There is concern about the Enterococcus test (cost and turnaround
time). Presence/absence methods when used alone don't give enough information to be useful;
however, might be used to trigger more intensive sampling. More work on methods needed.
Action 1i Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
12
Long-term
4
Medium
Short-term
3
Long-term
17
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
3
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
If enterococcus is to be measured at all, the method needs to be improved—verification needs
to be simplified/a method that gives less ambiguous colonies is important.
MPN known to lack precision. P/A [presence/absence] not applicable for monitoring beach
water. Enterococci test now a one-day test.
Lab procedures to lower cost and shorten turnaround should be developed/tested particularly if
total and fecal coliform indicators are used; P/A tests good for screening.
Agree. MPN also for turbid or dirty samples. Do not agree there was consensus on P/A only
being of limited value. Majority felt it could be.
Important.
Let's get that 24-hour entero test out there for everyone. Model needs to require standard or
EPA methods. Please update as appropriate.
As soon as possible, which probably means long term.
-------
Action 1j: EPA/FDA call for use of different methods for shellfish monitoring and water quality criteria. This is
a problem for the monitoring agencies.
Action 1j Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
8
Long-term
5
Medium
Short-term
7
Long-term
7
Low
Short-term
3
Long-term
6
No Answer
4
Individual comments:
It makes sense that monitoring method for recreational water and shellfish-raising water be the
same.
A key element in resolving indicator issues.
Does cause problems and confusion. Would be best if all could speak the same language.
Program consistency is needed to make efficient use of our limited resources.
Shellfish monitoring [has] not kept pace with technology. Needs to be addressed.
EPA/FDA need to move to standard methods.
This is a minor problem.
Localized issue.
Seemed to be more of a problem in the Southeast.
A single agreed[-upon] test and indicator should be used as soon as possible.
Action 1 k: EPA needs to determine which quick tests (e.g., "Colilert") are compatible to standard methods.
Action Ik Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
25
Long-term
0
Medium
Short-term
6
Long-term
5
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
2
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
Quick tests are not found to be useful for marine waters.
Tests that are simple and quick may result in an increase in testing.
Colilert requires little training and makes holding time easier to deal with. If approved, would
ease transition to E. coli and enterococci standards.
A quick test method like Colilert would greatly aid in our ability to effectively monitor
beaches.
Quick tests are needed but many proposed quick tests are not satisfactory.
Expediency is essential in this program.
The EPA needs to decide so we can utilize easy, cheaper, quicker tests to protect our beaches
and the public.
Focus on quick tests. Research is needed to develop water quality indicators that give results
immediately or within a few hours. If we report the quality of yesterday's beach water
because we do not know today's quality, the public loses confidence in us.
EPA needs to sign off on them. Standardization and comparability of results is critical.
-------
Action 11: More research is needed to investigate the importance of total/fecal coliform ratios as predictor of
health effects.
Action 11 Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
3
Long-term
3
Medium
Short-term
5
Long-term
15
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
12
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Data show that ratios are not a viable approach to pathogen assessment in Hawaii's coastal
waters.
Literature I have read suggests fecal coliforms as poor indicator of swimming-related illnesses.
This ratio [is] not reliable in most environmental conditions.
Can be used as a trigger without more research. We know that when nearly all the TC are FC,
we are near the time and place of a source. Also, often TC and FC exceed criteria limits
individually.
Not good indicator of viral or parasitic infections.
Of scientific interest. Not sure if really applicable to health concerns.
It definitely works for So. California] runoff impacts. CSOs and SSOs may be different.
Action 1m: New quick, accurate, and inexpensive indicators are needed.
Action 1m Priority
Number of Responses
H
Short-term
20
gh
Long-term
10
Medium
Short-term
1
Long-term
8
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
1
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
Extensive R&D [is] needed to achieve this goal; results may only be applicable on a regional
basis.
Such a test required but not available in near future.
Great if it can be done!
Extensive sampling for beach monitoring can be very expensive.
To protect the public health, water quality results must be available in "real time" on the day
of use.
If existing indicators have no more flexibility available, then new indicators are required.
Other standards, methods, and indicators comments (Session 1):
• Increased attention to pollution source control is needed rather than too much focus on
indicators. Causes of water pollution need to be isolated and corrected.
• Our highest priority should be the identification of a "real-time" indicator. The incubation
period for current indicators represents a significant drawback in our efforts to protect the
public.
-------
It was not clear to me why the participants did not like the EPA bacteria criteria, but it was
clear that they were not satisfied with the lab methods for evaluating samples. Would
appreciate more information on why some people think new criteria are a short-term priority.
Hawaii and Puerto Rico have data to show that EPA standards for recreational waters are not
useful and other indicators are more useful. They should be allowed to establish regional
standards with approval by EPA.
Human health and epidemiological studies are crucial.
The need is great in Louisiana for appropriate criteria to be applied to those water bodies
infrequently used for swimming as opposed to beach waters.
Subjectivity must be reduced in sampling programs. Action, indicators, and standards should
be based on hard science.
We need to standardize test systems collection and analytical methods, closure criteria, and
enforcement. This should be done by regions or according to beach/water characteristics.
States should be given some strong economic incentives to adopt whatever national standards
are chosen. Adoption of standards should be key to receiving federal environmental funds.
States should enforce standards uniformly within their beaches.
EPA should consider two separate but parallel activities—one for freshwater beaches, one for
saltwater.
Session 2: Monitoring
Action 2a:
EPA should develop monitoring guidance offering flexibility to meet recreational beach program
needs. Topics may include: sampling location, depth, timing, etc.
Action 2a Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
27
Long-term
3
Medium
Short-term
5
Long-term
4
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
1
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
And frequency of sampling.
Guidance only—local control.
Sampling methods should be standardized.
Many of these basic questions are not covered by clear EPA guidelines.
Consistency is extremely important in this issue.
Key word is "flexibility."
Flexibility should be limited.
This would facilitate state agency efforts to have programs accepted by the public and
politicians.
Monitoring guidance should be a top priority—little has been done to demonstrate what an
adequate monitoring program should entail to properly ensure that water quality conditions are
being adequately represented and that health risks are being properly assessed.
The monitoring guidance needs to address the infrequently used water bodies as well as the
"beach" level water bodies.
-------
Action 2b: Need sanitary surveys and baseline data for local beach assessment and monitoring program.
Action 2b Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
18
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
7
Long-term
11
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
1
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
This approach gets at causes; sounds useful.
Essential information. Many states have done this for their important beaches.
Data probably exists in all states and there needs to be a federal stimulus to compile and
analyze it.
Both are necessary elements of a good program.
Action 2c: More guidance is needed concerning the monitoring and assessment of event-driven situations (e.g.,
rainfall events).
Action 2c Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
3
Long-term
1
Medium
Short-term
10
Long-term
15
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
3
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
Should pretty much assume that rain runoff is contaminated so issue advisories to the
swimming public. Again, local control is necessary—0.1" of rain in Southern California has a
different impact than 0.1" of rain in Louisiana.
Difficult to monitor episodic events.
Guidance required but needs to include fact that dilution occurs and less people use water.
Action 2d: Predictive models (existing and developmental) for determining beach water quality should be
"checked out," and EPA should validate those models.
Action 2d Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
5
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
3
Long-term
20
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
10
No Answer
0
Individual comments:
In general, predictive models have too low a success rate to be useful for making management
decisions, especially along open coastlines.
Contamination events appear to be event-driven at Lake Powell. Difficult to model episodic
events.
Models cannot be validated for daily and monthly variations.
I don't have much faith in this due to my knowledge of our local conditions.
10
-------
Important tool in event-driven situations—models should be validated using long-term
monitoring data.
Action 2e: State and local agencies must have the capability to develop, test, and use their own models, since
these may be well suited to local conditions. This will require the availability of data.
Action 2e Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
6
Long-term
4
Medium
Short-term
2
Long-term
17
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
8
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
Models are useful, but cannot be expected to substitute for modeling.
"Model" in a very broad sense (e.g., O.X inches of precipitation in y hours if it works at the
site).
Also concerned about geographic comparability of program results.
Action 2f: EPA guidance describing what constitutes an adequate regional or local monitoring program would
be helpful.
Action 2f Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
16
Long-term
1
Medium
Short-term
8
Long-term
6
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
6
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
[State and local agencies] can develop their own model, but need to compare it to some
baseline that could be set nationwide.
There seems to be tremendous inconsistency across the nation.
EPA should consider and spend more efforts on regional and local monitoring programs.
Enough guidance already. Need implementation!
As mentioned previously, this should include consideration of infrequently used water bodies
as well as beach waters.
The public should have the right to expect a level of protection and safety regardless of
geographic location.
Action 2g: Recommend monitoring frequency to both close and re-open beaches.
Action 2g Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
25
Long-term
0
Medium
Short-term
5
Long-term
7
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
2
No Answer
0
11
-------
Individual comments:
Frequency should be determined on the basis of fluid residence times at different beaches.
No current recommendations exist on how to re-open beaches.
Guidance would be useful. How many samples per square mile or length of beach.
Other monitoring comments (Session 2):
• In the past, there has been a great deal of monitoring data collected, then archived without
application to management decisions. There needs to be a consensus on what data are needed,
and how findings will be translated into management actions.
• Viable but non-culturable state of coliform bacteria often raised. EPA should take a stand on
the relevance of this issue.
• Monitoring programs must be considerate of logistical problems associated with sampling
large numbers of water bodies.
• EPA needs to lead the monitoring discussion by recommending number, frequency, and type
of sampling criteria which can be applied to most (if not all) recreational water situations.
• le, 2f, and 2g should be tied together to be EPA recommendations to the states.
• Will there be a laboratory certification program?
Session 3: Risk Assessment and Risk Communication
Action 3a:. Risk assessment approach needs to be consistent as possible, allowing for local differences that
justify alternative assumptions.
Action 3a Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
16
Long-term
4
Medium
Short-term
1
Long-term
12
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
2
No Answer
3
Individual comments:
Risk assessments are good first approximation and should be tested by monitoring data.
Important for meaningful data.
Good!
Depends on how model program is created—I hope EPA will be doing most of the RAs [risk
assessments], not local entities.
12
-------
Action 3b: EPA should help State and local agencies by developing and/or providing examples of criteria for
closing/re-opening beaches and communicating advisory information.
Action 3b Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
23
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
9
Long-term
3
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
1
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Yes. Public and utilities want these guidelines but need explanation.
This helps with consistency.
Action 3c: Risk assessment methodology should consider sensitive subgroups such as children, elderly, and
immune-compromised.
Action 3c Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
15
Long-term
6
Medium
Short-term
2
Long-term
10
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
2
No Answer
3
Individual comments:
Priority would be high; prospect, given data availability, is dim.
Without question! Public health protection should begin with groups most sensitive.
This should be a first priority.
Nothing new here—all EPA required to do now.
Action 3d: More research is needed to develop beach health standards. More research is needed to understand
the human health risks associated with different criteria (numbers)-pathogen occurrence, and dose
response or health risk.
Action 3d Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
11
Long-term
14
Medium
Short-term
2
Long-term
9
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
4
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
Need. But answer is not close.
We need standards now! That's not to say that more research wouldn't be helpful if completed
correctly and by need.
Human health risks also need to be addressed for those infrequently used water bodies as well
as beach waters.
13
-------
Action 3e: Need research and guidance regarding the risks associated with human versus non-human
microorganisms.
Action 3d Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
11
Long-term
6
Medium
Short-term
4
Long-term
15
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
4
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
We have a lot of cattle and wildlife input. Are these a health threat?
[That] human waste has higher risk is known.
This issue may be very important in waters surrounded by large waterfowl and wildlife
populations.
Action 3f: Determine importance of bather contributions to pathogen loading and resulting exposures in
recreational waters, especially lakes.
Action 3f Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
6
Long-term
3
Medium
Short-term
4
Long-term
19
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
6
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Yes, bather contribution is real potential but this source is routinely ignored by EPA.
Important on a site-specific basis for enclosed waters—not for coastal waters and inland
waters with good circulation.
Not a source that's easily monitored or controlled. More necessary for controlling outbreak of
disease.
Factors to be taken into consideration (e.g., bathers stirring up bottom and toddlers).
Action 3g: EPA should discuss with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) the need to collect more surveillance
data on illness associated with beach closures.
Action 3g Priority
Number of Responses
H
Short-term
12
9h
Long-term
7
Medium
Short-term
3
Long-term
13
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
4
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Only if epidemiology study [is] done.
EPA should fund CDC to do studies.
This will be difficult but it needs to be done.
Urge CDC to establish an "active" monitoring system; the present "passive system" is
essentially worthless.
I think CDC's role in this and other points is critical!
14
-------
Action 3h: EPA should conduct more epidemiological studies using innovative study designs to assess the
health risks associated with micrbbial problems.
Action 3h Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
9
Long-term
14
Medium
Short-term
0
Long-term
13
Low
Short-term
0
Long-term
4
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
Microbial risk assessments may be more cost-effective and provide more cause/effect
information than do epidemiology surveys.
Epi studies are good, but wait until pathogen detection techniques are reliable and easy. Until
then, practice risk management.
Action 3i:
Yes. Epidemiology study given direct measurement of diseases.
Maybe EPA funding states to do this would be better.
This should be coordinated with CDC and state epidemiologists.
Studies should begin in very near future and probably fall in the 3- to 5-year range before
conclusions can be made.
Work is needed to enable better identification of pathogens present in bathing beach waters.
Differentiate between temperate and tropical waters and broaden beyond gastrointestinal (Gl)
illnesses.
Action 3i Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
7
Long-term
7
Medium
Short-term
1
Long-term
19
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
4
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Also to determine source of contamination.
Differences in environmental sources, indicator in temperate vs. tropical countries now
known. EPA needs to recognize this. Non-gastrointestinal diseases are not addressed by
EPA.
Action 3j:
EPA should develop a matrix of "risk parameters" for managers to use within their organization to
help decide about beach closure or reopening. Discuss how to handle uncertainty as number of
samples and statistical confidence levels vary.
Action 3j Priority
Number of Responses
H
Short-term
16
gh
Long-term
4
Medium
Short-term
3
Long-term
11
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
3
No Answer
1
15
-------
Individual comments:
This type of guidance would be very helpful when trying to justify our actions to outside
organizations.
Separate guidelines for diarrheal waterborne disease and non-diarrheal waterborne disease.
Action 3k: EPA should develop a simplified scale for use in public advisory decisions. The scale should be easy
to understand, communicate to the public, and incorporate the range of risk parameters used in
decisions. Risk should be described in terms easily understood by the public, e.g., days out sick, out
of work, out of school, etc.
Action 3k Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
15
Long-term
2
Medium
Short-term
9
Long-term
9
Low
Short-term
1
Long-term
1
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
Many potential problems if one oversimplifies different diseases with one system.
The idea of a "Beach Report Card" is good.
Action 31. Guidance is needed on how to select appropriate communication media to use (e.g., posting,
newspaper, telephone hot lines, Internet, etc.).
Action 31 Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
13
Long-term
1
Medium
Short-term
g
Long-term
5
Low
Short-term
3
Long-term
6
No Answer
2
Individual comments:
Depends on community and how to reach swimmers.
Most local officials know how to deal with the media available to them.
Would vary greatly.
Action 3m: Groups want a boilerplate/template language and examples for various risk communication
materials such as signs, press releases including Q & A format, handouts, etc. Seek input on
communication materials, from public, politicians, health professionals, beach businesses, etc.
Action 3m Priority
Number of Responses
High
Short-term
16
Long-term
0
Medium
Short-term
7
Long-term
6
Low
Short-term
3
Long-term
6
No Answer
1
Individual comments:
Not easy, but helpful for all states.
Examples, not required wording.
Yes—the more standardized the signs, etc. the easier people will be able to recognize them.
16
-------
Other risk assessment/communication comments (Session 3):
• Until there are reliable and easy methods for a wide spectrum of pathogenic bacteria, viruses,
and protozoa, then stick with the traditional indicator system. Then when indicators identify a
problem location, protect the recreating public by informing them of the situation and/or close
off the area until the situation is mitigated. With the current state of the art in pathogen
detection, keeping people out of fecally contaminated water will prevent them from coming
down with fecal illnesses. The strongest signals of fecal contamination include the total and
fecal coliforms.
• I think we need to look to EPA/CDC for some technical information, i.e., appropriate
; indicators, sampling methodologies, etc. It ultimately should be the local agencies'
responsibility to communicate this information to the public.
• One concern I have is the number of beaches that are not monitored. It may be important to
let the users of these beaches know that the waters they are swimming in may be
contaminated. Ignorance is not bliss—no data does not translate to safe water.
• I suggest the implementation of a national beach rating system. Only beaches that conduct
monitoring in accordance with EPA-established guidelines will get certification from EPA.
EPA can then establish criteria for obtaining specific numerical ratings (i.e., AA, A, B, C).
Obviously, beaches that frequently exceed standards will receive a lower rating. This provides
an incentive for the locals to take responsibility for a) obtaining EPA certification, and b)
taking the necessary steps to improve water quality.
• A public outreach program encouraging swimmers to use "EPA certified" beaches would
hopefully get the ball rolling.
• Beaches generate a tremendous amount of money each year. Perhaps the businesses
benefitting from beach use should share in the responsibility of caring for the beach.
• I was shocked to discover how little monitoring is actually conducted. I don't think it is the
responsibility of the states or EPA to foot the bill for the monitoring/public information efforts
that are needed.
• If EPA can establish the above states national program, the responsibility is then back to the
locals to take the appropriate steps.
• I feel the most relevant issue is determining whether a health risk even exists (i.e., with fecal
coliform as indicator). If not, we need anew standard.
• Need more epidemiological studies to increase confidence in risk assessments.
• States should have flexibility, but with flexibility comes responsibilities. If change is
requested, it should be backed up by scientific explanation and convincing monitoring data.
• 3k, 31, and 3m and are important for implementation of a realistic program.
General comments:
• One of [my specific comments] is my concern that EPA's Recreational Waters Program as it
has been presented to the states is very rigid and applies almost exclusively to heavily used
swimming (beach) areas. On the surface this seems logical, but the fact is the majority of
[our] surface waters are not heavily used for swimming. Many are in remote, undeveloped or
poorly accessible locations including wildlife refuges, are completely on private property, or
are dangerous to swim in due to excessive depths, dredging, and/or navigation. Yet under the
present guidance all these waters must be treated as high-use beach areas and assessed with
the very stringent beach criteria. I feel that the statewide application of these stringent
"beach" criteria has resulted in an inordinate number of our water bodies being
17
-------
inappropriately assessed as not meeting the primary contact use and thus require listing on the
303(d) list of impaired water bodies. EPA must help the states develop and apply more
appropriate criteria and concentrations for these lesser, infrequently used water bodies and
require use of the stringent beach criteria only on the heavily used water bodies that need
them. A final comment concerns the need to appreciate the financial and logistical limitations
of states to conduct extensive criteria monitoring. With over 10,000 water bodies, [we] cannot
sample but a representative portion of its more important water bodies and even then can do so
only on a monthly or bimonthly basis. Therefore, criteria must be developed that can be
assessed by these sampling regimens. Only on the truly heavily used "beach" water bodies
can states afford to sample at a greater frequency such as the presently suggested "5 samples
over a 30-day period."
18
-------
Table 1. Summary of Comments Received
Action
la
1b
1c
Id
1e
If
ig
1h
1i
1j
Ik
11
1m
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
3h
3i
3j
3k
31
3m
Priority
High/Short
30
26
20
8
10
29
11
15
12
8
25
3
20
27
18
9
5
6
16
25
16
23
15
11
11
6
12
9
7
16
15
13
16
High/Long
2
0
4
2
2
4
7
6
4
5
0
3
10
3
2
1
2
4
1
0
4
2
6
14
6
3
7
14
7
4
2
1
0
Med/Short
3
6
4
10
7
1
4
1
3
7
6
5
1
5
7
10
3
2
8
5
1
9
2
2
4
4
3
0
1
3
9
9
7
MedfLang
3
6
6
14
11
4
12
13
17
7
5
15
8
4
11
15
20
17
6
7
12
3
10
9
15
19
13
13
19
11
9
5
6
Low/Short
0
0
0
0
0
: °
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
Low/Long
1
0
3
3
9
1
5
5
3
6
2
12
1
1
1
3
10
8
6
2
2
1
2
4
4
6
4
4
4
3
1
6
6
No Answer
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
19
-------
-------
ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS
1275 K Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20005-4006
(202)371-9090 FAX (202) 371-9797
AGENDA
Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health (BEACH) Conference Program
Conference Goal: Develop a multi-year action plan to improve beach health protection for swimmers and other recreational
users through monitoring, assessment, and communication.
Conference Objectives:
1. Describe current issues and activities related to beach health.
2. Provide a forum for learning about beach health initiatives across the country.
3. Identify unaddressed beach health needs.
4. Assign priorities to short term and long term actions.
5. Where possible, recommend protocols and procedures to encourage greater consistency among jurisdictions in beach
monitoring and notification.
Arrive at Hotel
5:00-7:00 p.m. | Pre-registration
7:00-12:00 p.m. | Registration
Tuesdav, October !4.:i997
\Vcdnesduv. October ! 5. 1997
Plenary Session
8:00-9:00 a.m.
8:00-8:30
8:30-9:00
9:00-10:15
9:00-9:20
9:20-9:40
9:40-10:00
10:00-10:15
10:15-10:30
10:30-11:45
10:45-11:05
11:05-11:25
11:25-11:45
Welcome and Objectives:
Lobby
••
Lobby
Ballroom B/C
Welcome- Robert Perciascepe, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water,
US Environmental Protection Agency
Objectives of the Conference-Linda Sewall, North Carolina
Overview of Beach Health (Panel)
History of Recreational Water Quality Indicators-Al Dufour, Environmental
Protection Agency
Sources and Control of Pollution-Kevin Weiss, Wet Weather Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
Survey of Current Activity-Sarah Chasis, Natural Resources Defense Council
Questions and Answers
Break
Case Studies:
Case Study 1: Coastal Assessment, the California Strategy for
Santa Monica Bay
• Robert Haile, University of Southern California
• Mark Gold, Heal the Bay
Case Study 2: Problems of Multi-jurisdictions
• Steve Gradus, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Case Study 3: Beach Monitoring Efforts in New Jersey
• David Rosenblatt, New Jersey
Ballroom B/C
Ballroom B/C
-------
11:45-1:15 p.m.
1:15-1:30
1:30-4:30
3:00-3:15
5:00 p.m.
8:00-9:30 p.m.
7:00-8:00 a.m.
8:00-11:00 a.m.
Lunch
Speaker: Martin Wasserman, Secretary, Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Introduction to Work Groups-Betsy Southerland, Environmental Protection
Agency
Individual Breakout Sessions:
Session I: Standards, Indicators, and Methods
Discussion Leaders:
• Al Dufour, Environmental Protection Agency
• Mark Gold, Heal the Bay
Session 2: Monitoring Strategies
Discussion Leaders:
• David Rosenblatt, New Jersey
• Steve Schaub, Environmental Protection Agency
Session 3: Health Risk Assessment and Communication
Discussion Leaders:
• Robert Haile, University of Southern California
• William Burke, East Carolina University School of Medicine
• Jay Fleischer, State University of New York at Brooklyn
Break
Dinner (On Your Own) List of Area Restaurants Available at Registration
Session Leaders, Conference Leaders, and Recorders-Work Period
l'hursda\. October 16. ICW
9:30-9:45 a.m.
11:00-11:45
11:00-11:15
11:15-11:30
11:30-11:45
12:00-1:30 p.m.
1:30-2:30
1:30 p.m.
Morning Coffee and Tea
Second Set of Breakout Sessions (Repeat of yesterday's sessions.
Select your second option.)
Session 1: Standards, Indicators, and Methods
Session 2: Monitoring Strategies
Session 3: Health Risk Assessment and Communication
Break
Case Studies:
Case Study 4: Massachusetts Survey
• Elaine Kruger, Massachusetts
Case Study 5: Lake Pontchartrain Activities
• Henry Bradford, Louisiana
• Steve Gorin, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Case Study 6: San Diego Experience
• Chris Gonaver, San Diego, California
Working Lunch and Wrap Up-Plenary Session, Review of the Breakout
Sessions-Identify Key Priorities
Pfiesteria Update- Optional (TEA)
Adjourn
Thomas Point
Room
Thomas Point
Room
Ballroom B
Ballroom C
Thomas Point
Room
Thomas Point
East Room
Atrium
Ballroom A
Ballroom B
Ballroom C
Ballroom A/B
Ballroom A/B
Ballroom A/B
------- |