United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Time-Relevant Beach and
Recreational Water Quality
Monitoring and Reporting
E M P A C T
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
& Community Tracking
-------
Disclaimer: This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation of their use.
-------
EPA/625/R-02/017
October 2002
TIME-RELEVANT BEACH AND
RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY
MONITORING AND REPORTING
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
50% Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This handbook is the result of the efforts of many individuals. Linda Stein and Mary Willett
of Eastern Research Group, Inc., an EPA contractor, served as co-authors. Daniel Murray and
Carolyn Wieland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Research and
Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, provided
technical direction and contract management support, respectively. In addition, the efforts of
the following people were invaluable during the development of this handbook and are deeply
appreciated:
Shannon Briggs, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Mary Ellen Bruesch, City of Milwaukee Health Department
David Burnett, Rhode Island Department of Health
Mark Doolittle, Metropolitan District Commission (Massachusetts)
Don Killinger, Cuyahoga County Board of Health (Ohio)
Charles Kovatch, U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Matthew Liebman, U. S. EPA, Region 1
Jill Lis, Cuyahoga County Board of Health (Ohio)
Jack Pingree, Delaware Department of Natural Resources
David Turin, U.S. EPA, Region 1
Gary White, Macomb County Health Department (Michigan)
Ann Maire Fournier, Monmouth County Health Department (New Jersey)
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Overview 1-1
1.2 Regulations and Guidance for Beach and Recreational Water Quality 1-1
1.3 Introduction to the Case Study Projects 1-3
1.3.1 Real-Time Monitoring and Reporting of Water Quality for the
Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project 1-4
1.3.2 Cities of Milwaukee and Racine Health Departments
Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and
Public Outreach (Beachhealth) 1-4
1.3.3 Rhode Island Department of Health Narragansett Bay
Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project 1-4
CHAPTER 2 HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK 2-1
2.1 Road Map 2-1
2.2 Frequently Asked Questions 2-2
CHAPTER 3 GETTING STARTED: PROGRAM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 3-1
3.1 Overview of Health Concerns and Water Quality Monitoring 3-1
3.1.1 Water-Related Health Concerns 3-1
3.1.2 Water Quality Monitoring 3-1
3.1.3 Sources of Pathogen Contamination 3-2
3.1.4 Why Time-Relevant Water Quality Monitoring Is Needed 3-3
3.2 Factors To Consider in Designing a Time-Relevant Water
Quality Monitoring Program 3-3
3.3 Examples of Program Objectives and Program Design Considerations 3-7
3.3.1 Real-Time Monitoring and Reporting of Water Quality
for the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project 3-7
3.3.2 Cities of Milwaukee and Racine Health Departments
Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and
Public Outreach (Beachhealth) Project 3-8
3.3.3 Rhode Island Department of Health Narragansett Bay
Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project 3-9
in
-------
CHAPTER 4 TIME-RELEVANT BEACH/RECREATIONAL WATER
QUALITY MONITORING AND MODELING 4-1
4.1 Overview of Monitoring and Sample Collection 4-1
4.1.1 What Water Quality Parameters Should Be Monitored? 4-1
4.1.2 Where Should Monitoring Sites Be Located? 4-3
4.1.3 When Should Water Quality Monitoring Occur? 4-4
4.1.4 How Are Beach/Recreational Water Quality Samples Collected? 4-4
4.1.5 Who Should Conduct Water Quality Monitoring? 4-6
4.2 Quality Control Plans and Procedures 4-6
4.2.1 Data Verification Methods 4-7
4.2.2 Data Validation 4-8
4.3 Sample Analysis 4-8
4.3.1 Indicator Organism Analysis Methods 4-9
4.4 Predictive Models 4-11
4.5 Interpretation and Use of Monitoring and Modeling Results 4-12
CHAPTER 5 DATA MANAGEMENT 5-1
5.1 Design Considerations for a Data Management System 5-1
5.1.1 Designing or Modifying a Data Management System To
Meet Program Objectives 5-2
5.1.2 Spatially Related Data (Such as CIS) 5-3
5.1.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 5-3
5.2 Data Management Systems Used by the Case Study Projects 5-3
5.2.1 Selecting a Data Management System 5-3
5.2.2 Altering Existing Systems To Meet Program Objectives 5-4
5.2.3 System Use and Maintenance 5-4
5.2.4 System Security 5-6
5.3 Data Delivery via the Web 5-7
5.3.1 Web Content 5-7
5.3.2 Future Web Site Goals 5-8
-------
CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND RISK COMMUNICATION
FOR BEACH/RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Types of Information To Communicate to the Public 6-1
6.3 Key Public Notification Methods for Beach/Recreational Waters 6-2
6.3.1 Warning Flags 6-2
6.3.2 Beach Signs 6-3
6.3.3 Telephone Hotline 6-3
6.3.4 Project Web Site 6-3
6.3.5 News Media 6-4
6.4 Additional Public Notification and Outreach Methods 6-4
6.5 Developing an Outreach Plan for Public Notification 6-6
6.5.1 Step 1: Who Do You Want To Reach? 6-7
6.5.2 Step 2: What Questions Need To Be Answered? 6-8
6.5.3 Step 3: What Are the Most Effective Ways To Reach Your Audience? . . 6-8
6.5.4 Step 4: How Will Your Outreach Products Reach Your Audience? .... 6-9
6.5.5 Step 5: What Follow-Up Mechanisms Will You Establish? 6-10
6.5.6 Step 6: What Is the Schedule for Implementation? 6-10
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE BEACH SURVEY
EXAMPLES OF SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4-1 Schematic of the Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin, automated beach
monitoring system 4-5
5-1 Data flow for beach/recreational water quality results 5-1
5-2 Sample data form available to the public on the
Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth Web site 5-6
5-3 Colored flag icons used in the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor
Beaches Project to indicate water quality 5-8
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Time-Relevant Beach and Recreational Water Quality Monitoring
Case Study Projects 1-3
3-1 Water Quality Criteria Recommended by EPA for Bacteria 3-5
3-2 Water Quality Criteria Used by Three Case Study Projects 3-5
4-1 Parameters Monitored in Three Case Study Projects 4-2
4-2 EPA-Approved and Other Acceptable Standard Methods for the
Analysis of Bacterial Indicator Organisms in Ambient Waters 4-8
4-3 Analysis Methods Used by the Three Case Study Projects 4-9
4-4 Beach Closing and Reopening Procedures of the Three Case Study Projects 4-13
5-1 Changes Made to Existing Data Management Systems To Meet
Program Objectives 5-4
5-2 Web Content of the Three Case Study Projects 5-7
6-1 Public Notification and Outreach Initiatives Used by the Three
Case Study Projects 6-4
6-2 Examples of Outreach Products 6-9
6-3 Examples of Distribution Methods 6-10
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
Is it safe to swim at local beaches today? What are
the best ways to communicate current water quality
conditions to the public? This handbook provides
information on how to design and implement a time-
relevant water quality monitoring program for beaches
and other recreational waters. The handbook is
intended for people who are considering developing a
recreational water quality monitoring program for their
community or wish to enhance their existing program.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory
of EPA's Office of Research and Development initiated
the development of this handbook to help interested
communities learn more about the beach monitoring
projects associated with EPA's Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking
(EMPACT) Program, and to give communities the information they need to conduct their own projects.
Much of the information in this handbook is provided through case studies of three monitoring projects
that address the concerns of recreational swimmers, boaters, and other water users, primarily by:
• Monitoring recreational waters for indicators of waterborne pathogens (disease-causing organisms).
• Collecting and managing water quality data in efficient ways.
• Notifying the public in a timely fashion of water quality conditions.
The handbook follows the three case study projects through the design and implementation of their time-
relevant recreational water quality monitoring programs, the development of management and delivery
systems for water quality data, and the creation and implementation of public notification and risk com-
munication programs.
The three beach/recreational water case study projects highlighted in this document were conducted before
Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October
2000, and these projects may not necessarily reflect guidance associated with the BEACH Act. The EPA
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, or Beach Guidance Document
(U.S. EPA, 2002), lists the beach program monitoring and notification criteria, as established in the
BEACH Act, that a state must meet to obtain BEACH grants. To learn more about the BEACH Act,
BEACH grants, and the Beach Guidance Document, visit http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches/on the Internet.
1.2
OR BEACH AND
It is important for beach and recreational water quality managers to be familiar with the applicable statutes,
regulations, and programs discussed below; they contain specific requirements and useful design and
implementation guidance for developing and improving water quality monitoring and public notification
programs.
Introduction
1-1
-------
Beach and recreational water quality has been protected for over 30 years by the federal Clean Water Act
(CWA). Water quality criteria developed under Section 304 of the CWA include Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria—1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986; see http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/bacteria/), which specifies
levels of certain bacteria that should not be exceeded in marine and fresh recreational waters to protect
public health/recreation and aquatic life.
In 1997, EPA established the BEACH Program. Its goals were to improve public health and environmental
protection programs for beachgoers and provide the public with information about the quality of their
beach water. The BEACH Program has focused on strengthening beach standards and testing, providing
faster laboratory test methods, predicting pollution, investing in health and methods research, and inform-
ing the public about water quality and any associated health risks.
The 1999 EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters (U.S. EPA, 1999), developed as a strategy for
accomplishing the goals of the BEACH Program, identified EPA activities that would enable consistent
management of recreational water quality programs and improve the science that supports recreational
water monitoring programs. The signing into law of the BEACH Act, in October 2000, established certain
EPA BEACH Program activities as statutory requirements. The Act requires states and tribes that have
coastal recreational waters to adopt new or revised water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indi-
cators for which EPA has published water quality criteria, and requires that EPA promulgate new or revised
standards for states and tribes that fail to do so. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to develop and publish
new, improved criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators. In addition, the Act authorizes EPA to award
grants to states and tribes to develop and implement programs to:
• Monitor and assess, for pathogens and pathogen indicators, coastal recreational waters adjacent to
beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public for swimming, bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact activities.
• Notify the public when coastal recreational water quality standards are exceeded.
EPA BEACH Program activities have included conducting conferences with federal, state, and local
authorities to identify the needs of recreational water quality programs; helping states and tribes adopt
updated water quality criteria for E. coli and/or enterococcus bacteria into their water quality standards;
developing a new, faster laboratory test method for enterococcus bacteria (Method 1600); publishing a
review of potential predictive modeling tools; conducting research on new methods and indicators to assess
waterborne pathogens; establishing a grant program to provide support to states, territories, tribes, and local
governments for coastal recreational water quality monitoring and public notification programs; conducting
an ongoing National Health Protection Survey of Beaches to gather information on state and local monitor-
ing and beach advisory actions; and establishing a "Beach Watch" Web site to improve public access to
information about recreational water quality. Additional information on EPA's BEACH Program can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches.
1-2
Chapter 1
-------
EPA's Beach Guidance Document
As required under the BEACH Act, EPA has published National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002), also known as the Beach Guidance Document,
to help states develop and implement their beach monitoring and public notification programs.
The document lists grant performance criteria and gives guidance for states seeking to meet the
criteria, including:
• How to evaluate beaches for risk-based classification.
• Beach monitoring and assessment procedures for water sample collection, sample handling,
and laboratory analysis.
• Using predictive models to estimate bacteria levels.
• Developing procedures, such as beach advisories, closings, and openings, for public notification
of beach conditions.
This handbook is independent of the Beach Guidance Document and therefore does not necessarily
reflect guidance associated with the BEACH Act. Readers are encouraged to refer to the Beach
Guidance Document for more detailed information on the topics addressed in this handbook and
for specific information related to the BEACH Act and BEACH grants. The Beach Guidance Document
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches/technical.html.
1.3 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY PROJECTS
The projects on which this handbook's case studies are based are listed in Table 1-1 and summarized below.
Table 1-1. Time-Relevant Beach and Recreational Water
Quality Monitoring Case Study Projects
Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor
Beaches Project
Boston, Massachusetts
http://www.state.ma.us/mdc
http://www.crwa.org
http://www.mwra.state.ma.us
Cities of Milwaukee and Racine
Health Departments Community
Recreational Water Risk Assessment
and Public Outreach (Beachhealth)
Milwaukee and Racine, Wisconsin
http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pls/beachhealth
Rhode Island Department of Health
Narragansett Bay Bathing Beaches
Monitoring Project
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
http://www.healthri.org/environment/
beaches/index.html
Introduction
1-3
-------
1.3.1 REAL-TIME MONITORING AND REPORT!
QUALITY FOR ' HE CHARLES RIVER BASI
HARBOR BEACHES PROJE
F WATER
TON
Several groups—the Metropolitan District Commission, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the
Boston Harbor Association, the Charles River Watershed Association, and others—have worked as partners
for a number of years to improve the water quality of the Charles River and Boston Harbor in
Massachusetts. In 1998, EPA's EMPACT Program funded a project to enhance real-time monitoring and
reporting of water quality for the Charles River and Boston Harbor. Through this project, the partner
groups expanded their existing efforts to provide the public with timely information about water quality
conditions in the Charles River and at Boston Harbor beaches.
1.3.2 CITIES OF MILWAUKEE AND RACINE HEALTH
I
(BEACHHEAI
In 1998, EPA's EMPACT Program funded the Community Recreational Water Risk Assessment and Public
Outreach project to enhance the public beach monitoring and associated health risk advisory efforts that the
City of Milwaukee Health Department and the City of Racine Health Department had been conducting
for several years. Through the "Beachhealth" project, people in Wisconsin can learn about daily water qual-
ity conditions at beaches in the Milwaukee and Racine areas throughout the swimming season.
1.3.3 RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
NARRAGANSETT BAY BATHING BEACHES MONITORING
PROJECT
In 1999, EPA's EMPACT Program helped to fund the Rhode Island Department of Health's Bathing
Beaches Monitoring Project. This project provides time-relevant water quality and safety information for
seven licensed bathing facilities in the Upper Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Through effective manage-
ment of these beaches, the Rhode Island Department of Health sought to develop a pilot project to
minimize public health risks associated with swimming at all Rhode Island beaches. The Project sampled a
number of other sites to determine whether water quality would support licensing additional beaches in the
area in the future.
1-4
Chapter 1
-------
HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK
This handbook provides information on how to design and implement a time-relevant water quality
monitoring program for beaches and other recreational waters. The information in the handbook is
intended for multiple audiences, including managers of public and private beaches, technicians and
operators of water-quality monitoring equipment and data management systems, public affairs staff, and
other professionals tasked with implementing a timely beach/recreational water quality monitoring pro-
gram. Section 2.1 provides a "road map" that directs you to chapters that may be of greatest interest for
your particular program. Section 2.2 answers frequently asked questions regarding time-relevant beach and
recreational water quality monitoring.
2.1 ROAD MAP
Design a program
that addresses
water quality
monitoring, data
management, and
public notification,
based on specific
program goals
(Chapters).
Implement a water
quality monitoring
program to collect
and analyze time-
relevant beach and
recreational water
quality data
(Chapter 4).
Develop and
implement a data
management
system to manage
and deliver time-
relevant water
quality data
(Chapters).
Create and imple-
ment a public
notification and
risk communica-
tion program to
inform the public
of potential health
risks (Chapter 6).
Each chapter of this handbook provides general information about the particular topics being introduced,
followed by case study examples from three EMPACT time-relevant beach/recreational water quality moni-
toring projects. The examples include successful approaches that you might want to consider in developing
your own programs, as well as references to additional sources of information such as Web sites and guid-
ance documents.
Specifically, the handbook provides the following information:
• Chapter 3 discusses program design, beginning with an overview of health concerns and conventional
beach and recreational water quality monitoring. It then describes time-relevant water quality moni-
toring and some key factors to consider when designing a time-relevant monitoring program. Lastly, it
discusses the stated goals and objectives of each of the three case study projects.
• Chapter 4 discusses water quality sampling and analysis, including information on sample collection,
sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control, predictive models, and interpretation and use
of monitoring results.
• Chapter 5 focuses on data management and data delivery, beginning with a discussion of the design
considerations involved in developing or modifying a system to manage time-relevant data. For each
of the case study programs, the chapter discusses the design, use, and maintenance of data manage-
ment systems and the mechanisms used to deliver data to the public via the Internet.
HOW TD USE THIS HANDBOOK
2-1
-------
• Chapter (f describes methods for effectively notifying the public of potential health risks associated
with contamination of beach and other recreational waters. The chapter discusses the methods used
by the three case study projects for public notification and presents the steps needed to create and
implement a comprehensive outreach plan for public notification.
• Appendix A contains a survey form used by the Rhode Island beach program, and Appendix B includes
examples of sample collection procedures.
2.2 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Whether you are just beginning to consider time-relevant beach and recreational water quality monitoring for
your community or want to expand an existing program, the following answers to frequently asked questions
may be helpful.
Q: How is a time-relevant water quality monitoring program different from a conventional beach monitoring
program?
A: A time-relevant water quality monitoring program seeks to reduce the time needed to analyze water
quality samples as well as the time it takes to notify recreational water users of any health risks associated
with current water quality conditions. Alternative analysis methods, predictive modeling, and innovative
and quick methods of distributing sample results to the public are some of the ways in which time-rele-
vant programs achieve their goals. In contrast, conventional water quality monitoring programs are often
driven by the (relatively long) time it takes to obtain results using traditional methods of sample analysis
and may not emphasize new and quicker ways to get information to the public.
Q: What are the benefits of designing and implementing a time-relevant recreational water quality monitoring
program?
A: Exposure to recreational waters contaminated with bacteria, viruses, or other disease-causing organisms
can result in a variety of illnesses (e.g., gastrointestinal problems) in people using these waters. Time-
relevant water quality monitoring and reporting can help reduce the period of time in which people are
potentially exposed to high levels of these waterborne organisms. In addition, since bacteria exceedances
are often transient events, time-relevant monitoring allows water quality managers to reopen or unpost
these waters sooner.
Q: Can my existing data management system be used for a time-relevant water quality monitoring program?
A: Yes, most existing data management systems can be used for time-relevant monitoring projects. A system
can be used if it includes the basic components needed to manage and communicate the data, including
a data storage and retrieval system, a data delivery system, and procedures for quality assurance, quality
control, and data security. An information systems specialist can help you to determine what your exist-
ing system can do and how to modify it, if necessary, to meet real-time project requirements.
Q: What are some good ways to tell the public about recreational water quality and associated health risks?
A: Some quick, effective methods are: placing flags at beaches and other key locations that indicate whether
the water quality on a particular day is acceptable for swimming, boating, etc.; training beach lifeguards
to inform beachgoers of daily water quality conditions; developing water quality forecasts that are used
by local media (e.g., television, newspapers) to report daily or weekend recreational water quality condi-
tions; setting up a water quality information telephone "hotline"; and posting water quality results (e.g.,
daily or near-daily) on a well-publicized Web site. See Chapter 6 for more discussion of these and other
methods. It is often useful to include several of these methods in your program to reach a larger number
of people.
2-2 CHAPTER 2
-------
BETTING STARTED: PROGRAM DESIGN
C D N S I D E RATI DNS
The first step in designing a time-relevant water quality monitoring and public notification program
for beaches or other recreational waters is to clearly identify the goals of your program. The ultimate
goals are to protect public health from potential health risks associated with use of these waters, and
to notify members of the public who use these waters of any potential risks. This chapter first presents an
overview of health concerns and of beach and recreational water quality monitoring (Section 3.1), then
discusses factors to consider when designing a program (Section 3.2). Section 3.3 describes three case
study projects, focusing on examples of design factors that these projects considered important.1
3.1 OVERVIEW OF HEALTH CONCERNS AND WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
3.1.1 WATER-RELATED HEALTH DDNDERNS
People can be exposed to disease-causing organisms (such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) in beach and
recreational waters mainly through accidental ingestion of contaminated water or through skin contact.
These organisms, called pathogens, usually come from the feces of humans and other warm-blooded
animals. If taken into the body, pathogens can cause various illnesses and, on rare occasions, even death.
Waterborne illnesses include diseases resulting from bacterial infection (such as cholera, salmonellosis,
and gastroenteritis), viral infection (such as infectious hepatitis, gastroenteritis, and intestinal diseases),
and protozoan infections (such as amoebic dysentery and giardiasis).
3.1.2 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Conventional beach and recreational water quality monitoring often relies on the use of "indicator organ-
isms" to measure the likelihood of the presence or absence of pathogens. The most commonly monitored
recreational water indicator organisms are fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci:
• Fecal coliform. These bacteria are a subgroup of coliform bacteria that usually live in the intestinal
tracts of warm-blooded animals, including humans. Fecal coliform was originally recommended in
1968 by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (the predecessor to EPA) as an effective
water quality indicator organism for beach and recreational waters. It is thought to be a better indica-
tor than total coliform of human (or other warm-blooded species) pathogens. Studies conducted in
the 1970s and 1980s indicated that the presence of this organism showed less correlation to illnesses
associated with swimming than does the presence of some other indicator organisms, including E. coli
and enterococci.
• Escherichia coli (E. coli). E. coli is an accurate indicator of fecal contamination because it constitutes
greater than 90 percent of the fecal coliform bacteria found in human and animal waste. These bacte-
ria can become pathogenic when they contact tissues outside the intestinal tract, particularly the
urinary and biliary tracts, lungs, peritoneum, and meninges. EPA currently recommends E. coli
(or enterococci) as an indicator organism for fresh waters (U.S. EPA, 1986).
• Enterococci. Enterococci are a type of fecal streptococcus bacteria that live in the intestinal tract of
humans and some animals. The risk to swimmers of contracting gastrointestinal illness appears to be
predicted better by enterococci than by fecal coliform; EPA currently recommends enterococci as an
indicator organism for both fresh and marine waters (U.S. EPA, 1986).
1 This handbook reflects lessons learned primarily through three EMPACT projects initiated prior to the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000
and the publication of National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002). Some of the practices described
in these projects may not be consistent with current regulatory requirements and guidance. For updated regulatory and guidance information,
see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.
BETTING STARTED 3-1
-------
What Are Bacteria, Viruses, and Protozoa?
Bacteria are one of the most common single-celled microorganisms. Many types of bacteria are found in
recreational waters. Some types of bacteria can be beneficial, while other types, including fecal coliform,
salmonella, staphylococcus, and E. coli, can cause diseases. Fecal waste from warm-blooded animals
(including humans) is a key source of bacteria found in water bodies. Bacteria in recreational waters can often
be successfully eliminated or reduced to levels associated with relatively low health risks through chemical
disinfection treatments, such as chlorination or ozonation of wastewater before it enters the surface water in
the beach area.
Viruses are submicroscopic infectious agents that require host cells in which to live. Many of the viruses
affecting water quality and human health originate in the gastrointestinal tracts of infected animals (including
humans) and are then released to the environment in fecal wastes. Examples of some of the more common
waterborne, disease-causing viruses include hepatitis A, rotaviruses, Norwalk-type viruses, adenoviruses, and
enteroviruses. Viruses are more resistant than bacteria to conventional water treatment such as chlorination.
Treatments such as ultraviolet light and ozonation are more effective than chlorination in treating viruses.
Protozoa are single-celled organisms that live primarily in the aquatic environment. Some disease-causing
protozoa exist in the environment as cysts that hatch, grow, and multiply after ingestion, causing illness.
Two disease-causing, waterborne protozoa of major concern are Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium.
Like viruses, protozoa are more resistant to conventional treatment such as chlorination.
Ingesting water containing bacteria, viruses, or protozoa is the most common route of human exposure to these
microorganisms. A key factor in the successful treatment of these microbes is allowing adequate contact time
with the disinfecting agent. Certain physical and chemical conditions (e.g., high suspended solids) can reduce
treatment effectiveness if not addressed.
For more information on bacteria, viruses, and protozoa, visit http://www.epa.gov/microbes/.
3.1.3 SOURCES DF PATHOGEN CD NTAM I NATI D N
Pathogens generally enter beach/recreational waters through rainfall runoff, which
picks up pathogens as it moves through the environment (e.g., from failing septic
systems, leaking sewers, wastes from wildlife such as birds or domestic animals),
or through point source discharges (i.e., sewage from a pipe or other specific
source). Heavy rainfall ("wet weather") events can elevate pathogen levels
in beach/recreational waters because rainfall can flush pathogens into
a water body from other areas of the watershed. Also, combined sewer
overflow (CSO) pipes may discharge into a recreational water body
during rainfall events, releasing excess discharges of storm water and
sanitary wastewater into the environment with little or no treatment.
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), which are occasional unintentional
discharges of raw sewage, are another potential source of pathogens in recreational water bodies. In areas
with separate storm-water and sanitary-sewer systems, both storm-water discharges and SSOs can carry
high bacteria levels. Contamination from CSOs and SSOs is potentially a greater risk to swimmers than
dry-weather discharges from other point sources because the raw human sewage in CSOs and SSOs often
contain elevated bacteria levels. Other point sources of potential water contamination include discharge
pipes from businesses that adjoin water bodies. Nonpoint-source discharges from poorly maintained
or failing septic systems or other sources of groundwater contamination can also contribute to bacterial
contamination of beach water.
3-2
CHAPTER 3
-------
More About CSOs and SSOs as Contamination Sources
Not all sewer systems are created equal. While modern systems generally handle rainwater and sanitary
wastewaters from homes and businesses in different pipes, some older systems have "combined" sewers that
carry both rainwater and sewage flows. During normal conditions, the combined flows are delivered to treat-
ment plants. During heavy rainfall, however, flows sometimes double and even triple. These combined systems
are designed so that excess flows (called combined sewer overflows or CSOs) are released from outfalls along
the system into water bodies with little or no prior treatment. This overflow system prevents sewer backups into
homes and onto area streets and also prevents overloading of the treatment plant, but it does so at consider-
able cost to local water quality. For more information on CSOs, visit http://www.epa.gov/npdes/cso/.
A sanitary sewer system is meant to collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into it to a publicly
owned treatment works. Occasionally, though, raw sewage is unintentionally discharged from municipal sani-
tary sewers before it reaches the treatment works. These discharges, called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs),
occur in almost every system. SSOs have a variety of causes, including but not limited to infiltration and inflow
of ground water and water from other sources, severe weather, improper system operation and maintenance,
and vandalism. These discharges contaminate our waters, causing serious water quality problems. For more
information on SSOs, visit http://www.epa.gov/npdes/sso/.
3. 1 .4 WHY TIME-RELEVANT WATER QUALITY MONITORING
IS NEEDED
When elevated waterborne pathogen levels are found in an area, the public should be notified quickly about
the potential health risks in that area. One problem with conventional beach and recreational water quality
monitoring is the time lag between collecting water samples and providing the public with results. This lag is
due to the time it takes (from 24 to 72 hours) to analyze indicator organism levels. During this time,
pathogen levels, weather, and water conditions may change, and related health risks may also change. Thus,
authorities responsible for informing and protecting the public often must decide on beach and recreational
water postings, closings, and re-openings using indicator organism data that reflect conditions as they were 1
to 3 days earlier. This delay could be particularly problematic after certain events, such as a significant rain-
storm or a sewage spill. To address this time lag problem, time-relevant water quality monitoring strives
to shorten analysis times, use quicker predictive methods, and communicate beach/recreational water quality infor-
mation to the public on a timely (e.g., near-daily) basis so the public can make more informed decisions regarding
recreational water use.
3.2 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DESIGNING A
TIME-RELEVANT WATER DUALITY MONITORING
PROGRAM
Program goals and objectives are key factors to identify when designing a time-relevant beach and recre-
ational water quality monitoring program. Regulatory requirements that protect water quality and public
health (e.g., state water quality standards, public health codes) must also be incorporated into the water
quality monitoring program. In addition, available resources and community involvement are important
considerations for program design. These factors are discussed below.
• Program objectives. Your program objectives should support your goals of public health protection and
public notification of health risks. Thus objectives should identify how to effectively and quickly (1)
monitor beaches and other recreational waters to determine whether water quality is sufficient to
protect public health and (2) communicate health risks to those people who use or are otherwise
impacted by area beach and recreational waters (e.g., swimmers, boaters, fishermen, water skiers).
BETTING STARTED
3-3
-------
Program elements that support these objectives can include monitoring more frequently or at
additional locations, using analytical methods that provide results sooner, using a predictive model
to supplement monitoring and reduce time lags, and improving the public notification process. These
program elements are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6. Your program will be unique; you may decide to
incorporate any or all of these or other elements.
Water quality standards. To comply with CWA requirements, states must establish water quality stan-
dards, which must be approved by EPA. These standards are at the core of each state's water quality
management program. While standards may differ considerably from state to state, they must contain
several key elements to be consistent with EPA regulations. The first of these key elements is the iden-
tification of designated uses for all waters. These use designations should be consistent with CWA
goals—that, wherever possible, waters provide for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water. These use goals are usually referred to by the
expression "fishable/swimmable." Examples of designated uses most relevant to beach and recreational
waters include primary contact recreation (i.e., swimming and other recreational activities that can
result in ingestion of or immersion in the water) and secondary contact recreation (e.g., boating and
fishing, in which minimal body contact with or ingestion of the water is expected). Another poten-
tially important designated use relevant to public health is shellfish harvesting, which would result in
direct human consumption of the shellfish. Some states designate uses through a class system (Class A,
B, or C), while other states specify the use (e.g., primary contact recreation, drinking water).
A second key element of water quality standards is the adoption of water quality criteria that must be
met to support the designated uses. EPA publishes water quality criteria that guide the states in setting
their own criteria, as required by the CWA (Section 304). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria—1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986) recommended the use of E. coli and enterococci as indicator
organisms for bacteria for the designated use of swimming. In that document, EPA recommended that
water quality criteria be based on geometric mean (i.e., drawn from a statistically sufficient number of
samples) densities of bacteria and on maximum single-sample bacteria densities, neither of which are
to be exceeded in marine and fresh recreational waters. The criteria that EPA recommended for
bacteria are shown in Table 3-1. Check with your state environmental or public health agency to find
out what water quality criteria your state has adopted. A state's water quality criteria are used as the
basis to close (or post) and reopen a beach. As discussed below, while many states still use fecal or total
coliform as the basis for their water quality criteria, the BEACH Act requires that coastal states adopt
criteria consistent with the EPA 1986 guidance by 2004. For example, Rhode Island's state standard
currently is 50 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters (50 CPU/100 ml) of fecal coliform, as shown
in Table 3-2; however, Rhode Island anticipates switching to enterococci. The water quality criteria
used by the three projects highlighted in this handbook are discussed in Chapter 4, Table 4-4.
3-4
CHAPTER 3
-------
TABLE 3- 1
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA RECOMMENDED BY EPA
3 ACTERIA
Steady-State Geometric
Mean Indicator Density1
Most Commonly Used Single-Sample
Maximum Allowable Density1
Designated Beach Area (Upper 75% CL2)
Fresh Water (in CFU/1 00 ml)3
Enterococci
E. coli
33
126
Marine Water (in CFU/100ml)4
Enterococci
35
61
235
104
1 For an explanation of "geometric mean" and "single-sample maximum allowable density," see the box entitled "EPA Water Quality Criteria Reflect
Health Risks and Recreational Water Uses." For single samples, the "Designated Beach Area" criteria listed above are usually used. Other single-
sample densities (included in EPAs list of recommended criteria but not shown here) may be selected if a reason exists to do so (e.g., a reduced risk
due to an area being less frequently used for swimming). See Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986 on EPAs Beaches Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/bacteria/) for other single-sample density values for other levels of water use.
^ CL = confidence level. A confidence level (or interval) is an estimate of the probability that an interval around the mean value contains the true
mean value. A 95% CL is larger than a 75% CL because there is a higher likelihood that this interval will capture the true mean.
3 Freshwater densities are based on a risk of eight illnesses per thousand swimmers. CPU = colony-forming units; ml = milliliters.
* Marine water densities are based on a risk of 19 illnesses per thousand swimmers. CPU = colony-forming units; ml = milliliters.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1986.
TABLE 3-2. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA USED BY THREE CASE
STUDY PROJECTS1
Boston, Massachusetts
Charles River (Boston area,
fresh water):
1,000 CFU/100 ml FC (secondary
contact waters, e.g., boating) - geo-
metric mean; also 2,000 CFU/100 ml
FC (<10% of single samples)2
200 CFU/100 ml FC (Class B waters
for swimming/fishing) - geometric
mean; also 400 CFU/100 ml FC
(<10% of single samples)
Boston Harbor (marine water):
35 CFU/100 ml
enterococci - geometric mean
104 CFU/100 ml enterococci - single
samples
Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin
235 CFU/100 ml
£ coli- single samples
(general recreational water use)
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Salt water:
50 MPN/100 ml FC-geometric
mean; also 500 MPN/100 ml FC
(<10% of single samples)
(swimming/boating)2
Fresh water:
200 MPN/100 ml FC (swimming) •
geometric mean
All of the programs listed anticipate switching to E. coli or enterococci by 2004 or sooner.
CPU = colony-forming units; ml = milliliters; FC = fecal coliform; MPN = most probable number.
BETTING STARTED
3-5
-------
In addition to the federal and state requirements and guidance discussed above, additional state and local
requirements may apply. For example, in Massachusetts, beaches are managed and monitored based on the
state public health code (revised in 2000 to make it consistent with EPA requirements), which includes state
water quality criteria. Local protocols may also be established to meet state codes and regulations. Beach
management and monitoring in Rhode Island is based on state codes and regulations as well as beach open-
ing and closure procedures established by the Rhode Island Department of Health and the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management. In Wisconsin, the state issues a model beach ordinance, which
municipalities may, but are not required to, use. The City of Milwaukee developed its own beach ordinance
based on the state's model ordinance.
EPA Water Quality Criteria Reflect Health Risks and Recreational Water Uses
The EPA water quality criteria listed in Table 3-1 reflect specific health risks and water uses, as
described below (U.S. EPA, 1986).
Geometric mean. The geometric mean values summarized in Table 3-1 are based on specific levels of
risk of acute gastrointestinal illness: no more than 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for fresh water and
no more than 19 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for marine water (U.S. EPA, 1986). EPA has determined
that, when these water quality criteria are implemented in a conservative manner, they are protective
for prevention of gastrointestinal illness resulting from primary contact recreation. EPA recommends
that at least five samples over a 30-day period be taken to calculate the geometric mean.
Single-sample maximum. Noncompliance can also be indicated by unacceptably high single-sample
measurements. Single-sample maximum values can help determine whether to close or post a beach
when a single-sample measurement shows a value that exceeds the single-sample maximum. The
maximum for single samples is set higher than the geometric mean to prevent unnecessary closures
based on a single sample. Use of a single-sample maximum is also important because it is assumed
that environmental conditions that can affect bacteria levels in water (such as rainfall, wind, currents,
tides, and temperature) will vary temporally and spatially. Like the geometric mean, these single-
sample maximums, summarized in Table 3-1, are based on specific levels of risk of acute gastroin-
testinal illness: again, no more than 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for fresh waters and no more
than 19 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers for marine waters.
' Availability of resources. Funding and staffing constraints can limit the design of a water quality monitor-
ing program. These resource limitations can impact when, where, and how often you monitor water
quality and can also impact your public notification process. If resources are a limiting factor, consider
having program partners administer your monitoring, data management, or notification program.
Other agencies or organizations involved in recreational water quality issues (e.g., watershed associations,
community groups, other state and local agencies) may be interested in contributing funds and/or staff to
support a time-relevant water quality monitoring program. See the latter part of this chapter and
Chapters 5 and 6 for more information on program partners.
' Community input. The design of a successful time-relevant water quality monitoring program should
include public input regarding what people want and need to know about beach and recreational water
quality and related health risks, as well as how they prefer to receive this information (e.g., the Internet,
beach flags, newspaper notices). Also, community members are often a valuable source of information
about an area (e.g., possible sources of contamination).
3-6
CHAPTER 3
-------
3.3 EXAMPLES OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND
PROGRAM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
This section presents an overview of the objectives for each of the three projects discussed in this handbook,
along with a discussion of some of the design factors (as discussed in Section 3.2) considered by each of the
projects. More detailed information on these projects is provided in later chapters. It should be noted that all
three of these projects were developed prior to the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000 and the Beach
Guidance Document (U.S. EPA, 2002); program managers should review these sources for current require-
ments and recommendations.
3.3.1 REAL-TIME MONITORING AND REPORTING OF WATER
DUAL E CHARLES RIVER BASIN/BOSTON
HARBOR BEACHES PROJECT
Boston Harbor is adjacent to Boston, Massachusetts, and influenced by a prominent, densely settled, urban
recreational watershed. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project is a key initiative supporting
the EPA-New England goal of making the Charles River fishable and swimmable by Earth Day 2005. The
overall project objectives are:
• To help reduce public health risks associated with pathogen contamination in the Charles River Basin
and at Boston Harbor area beaches.
• To enhance existing monitoring efforts by the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA),
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), and Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) in
the Charles River Basin and at Boston Harbor area beaches.
• To enable the public to make more informed decisions related to river and beach use and public health.
• To evaluate two different analytical methods for enterococci, one of which provides results more quickly,
within 24 hours.
Two key design factors for the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project were the use of project
partners to enhance the resources available to the project and the importance of community input and out-
reach, as discussed below.
Project partners. The project was designed to expand the efforts of several
partner organizations that have been working for a number of years to
improve the water quality of Boston-area beaches and the Charles River.
The project enhanced these partners' ability to provide the public with time-
relevant information about water quality conditions. The project design
maximized the use of program partners for both monitoring and public noti-
fication efforts. Wherever possible, The Boston Harbor Association (TBHA)
collaborated with the CRWA to conduct public outreach aimed at enabling a
diverse, multi-cultural public to make more informed decisions related to the
use of both the Boston Harbor beaches and the Charles River. Additional
partners included the MWRA, the MDC, members of the Wollaston Beach
Task Force, and members of the Boston Harbor Water Quality Task Force.
Outreach to the community and public input. The Charles River
Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project uses several different types of public
outreach to collect feedback on the water quality notification system and to
build community awareness of recreational water quality issues. One example
of this process is a public meeting, hosted by TBHA, that included a discussion by the program partners on
water quality conditions during the beach season and efforts to provide the public with "real-time" informa-
tion. Another example is another TBHA-hosted public workshop, during which comments were solicited
from workshop participants.
BETTING STARTED
3-7
-------
The public outreach components of this program are many and varied and have included:
• Availability of daily water quality conditions from the MDC Web site.
• A telephone hotline that provides updated water quality conditions for Boston Harbor beaches on a
daily basis throughout the beach season.
• Media coverage that includes daily or weekly reports highlighting the water quality conditions at
Boston Harbor beaches.
• Special training sessions to educate lifeguards and other staff about implementing the notification
program and informing the public about water quality conditions.
• Participation in annual beach water quality monitoring symposia organized with Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, and local boards of health.
• Posters, water bottles, and brochures that explain and highlight the beach flagging program.
• "Back to the Beaches" events to promote use of the beaches by neighbors and visitors to Boston
Harbor. During these events, staff from TBHA and the MDC provide the public with in-depth infor-
mation on water quality issues, the notification system, and access to online information on water
quality conditions.
• Notification and other communications with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and
local boards of health.
See Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion of the public notification and risk communication efforts
undertaken by all three of the case study projects.
3.3.2 CITIES DF MILWAUKEE AND RACINE HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL
WATER RISK ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
(BEACHHEALTH) PROJECT
For approximately the past 30 years, the City of Milwaukee Health Department (MHD) has monitored
Milwaukee public beaches for contamination that could negatively affect public health. MHD has partnered
with the City of Racine Health Department, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes Water Institute, and other organizations to study the beaches in
Milwaukee and Racine, Wisconsin. The objectives of the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project are:
• To improve documentation and dissemination of environmental data related to health risks associated
with the recreational use of public beaches.
• To improve the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data collected at and around public
beaches in both Milwaukee and Racine Counties for development of a public health risk model.
• To standardize and improve coordination and collaboration of environmental data collected between
local public health agencies (LPHAs), community stakeholders, and other organizations.
• To build community awareness of surface-water pollution prevention.
Three key design factors for the Milwaukee/Racine project included consideration of beach classification
issues, the use of project partners to enhance the resources available to the project, and community input
and outreach, as discussed below.
3-s CHAPTER 3
-------
Beach classification. The project's design included consideration of which beaches were most at risk for
public exposure to pathogens and increased data collection at those sites. For example, two automated
environmental monitoring stations were added to provide physical and chemical data (including water
temperature, turbidity, fluorescence, conductivity, oxidation/reduction potential, wind speed and direction,
and air temperature) to support health risk determinations. One station is located at Milwaukee's South
Shore Beach, and the other is at North Beach in Racine. These two beaches have historically been prone to
elevated bacteria levels; according to historical monitoring data, both can have elevated pathogen levels after
wet weather events. Also, LPHAs collect water samples at five Milwaukee and Racine beaches during the
summer swimming season. The beaches are tested daily, Monday through Friday. The LPHAs also conduct
daily testing on weekends during the beach season at beaches posted as unsafe due to potentially poor water
quality. Other near-shore data are collected by the City of Milwaukee from the watershed twice weekly at
three recreational sites. In addition, volunteer environmental monitoring is conducted at designated sites.
Project partners. To improve coordination and collaboration in the collection of environmental data by
LPHAs, community stakeholders, and other organizations, MHD partnered with community environmental
education organizations to form a near-shore volunteer monitoring program. Nearly 50 volunteers were
involved in the onsite water quality testing of 13 sites for nine scheduled monitoring events, as well as rainfall
events during the summers of 1999 and 2000. In addition, MHD formalized agreements with other agencies
to share near-shore data and enter the data into a Web site (http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pls/beachhealth/).
Community input and outreach. The Milwaukee/Racine project has used several types of public outreach
to collect feedback on new advisory postings at Milwaukee and Racine beaches and to build community
awareness of surface-water pollution prevention. For example, beachgoers at Milwaukee's South Shore Beach
completed surveys, and the beach was posted with large advisory signs providing daily water quality data
during the course of the project. Other public outreach components of this project included:
• Development of a Web site for the project, in both English and Spanish, that includes a technical user's
page with all of the Milwaukee and Racine county and volunteer monitoring data. These data can be
queried and downloaded.
• A beach water quality telephone hotline, which includes recorded advisories, updated daily, for three
Milwaukee beaches.
• Outreach materials such as two brochures on beach pollution. These were handed out at community
events, including the 1999 Wisconsin Beach Sweep and at an EMPACT booth at the Environmental
Expo, held in Milwaukee as part of the International Joint Commission's biennial meeting.
3.3.3 RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT DF HEALTH
NARRABANSETT BAY BATHING BEACHES MONITORING
PROJECT
Rhode Island's project is designed to address bacteriological water quality and swimmer safety issues at
beaches in the Providence metropolitan area. Its four main objectives are:
• To develop a comprehensive beach management program through frequent water quality monitoring at
swimming beaches and other potential recreational sites in the upper Narragansett Bay.
• To communicate monitoring information to the public in a time-relevant, easily accessible, and
effective format so the public can make informed decisions regarding environmental health risks and
their daily activities.
• To investigate faster methods and alternative indicators for evaluating water quality.
• To collect specific wet weather data for use in developing a predictive beach closure model based on
rainfall/sewage discharge volume.
BETTING STARTED 3-9
-------
One of the key design factors for the Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project was consideration of known,
historical sources of contamination, as discussed below.
Historical sources of contamination. Sewage releases have caused use restrictions in large areas of the upper
Narragansett Bay. In the northernmost reaches of the Bay, where many sewage outfalls are located, one area is
permanently closed to shellfishing due to consistently high bacteria levels, while two other areas are deemed
"conditional"—they are automatically closed to shellfish harvesting after certain amounts of rainfall (0.5
inches in one area, 1 inch in the other). While there are no state-licensed beach facilities within the
permanently closed area, there are several beach areas that are used by the public as swimming areas.
In addition, there are several licensed beaches that fall within the conditional areas, and primary contact
activities, such as swimming, diving, and water skiing, occur in these conditional areas. This occurrence of
primary contact activities in areas with use restrictions is a public health concern and demonstrates the need
to consider historical sources of contamination and spatial and temporal factors in a beach management
program.
To address this public health issue, the Rhode Island Beaches Monitoring Project chose sampling sites that
provided spatial coverage of the upper bay, including sites that were not licensed beaches; sampling at these
unlicensed areas could help to determine whether water quality in these areas would support efforts to pursue
beach licenses. The results of the project sampling were used to confirm that the unlicensed sampling sites in
upper Narragansett Bay are not suitable for becoming licensed public beach facilities at this time. Many of
these sites display consistently poor water quality, exceeding the state standard more than 50 percent of the
time. (Standards and criteria used by the three case study projects are listed in Table 3-2 and Table 4-4).
The water quality sampling conducted at licensed facilities in the northernmost regions of the bay found
fluctuating water quality. While these areas frequently displayed acceptable water quality and are suitable for
primary use, the fluctuation demonstrates the need for frequent sampling at these sites.
Information on historical water contamination at sites can contribute to the design and proper management
of a water quality monitoring program by helping to determine where and how frequently monitoring is
needed. More frequent monitoring may be needed at certain areas, even at some licensed beaches, based on
prior history.
3-1 D
CHAPTER 3
-------
TIME-RELEVANT BEACH/RECREATIONAL
NITDRING AND
MODELING
Once you have identified the important program design factors to consider and have incorporated
them into your beach and recreational water quality program (as discussed in Chapter 3), the next
step usually involves developing a monitoring protocol that meets the goals of your particular
program. The general steps needed to develop and implement a time-relevant beach/recreational water
quality monitoring program include:
• Establish a monitoring plan that addresses what, where, when, and how water quality monitoring will
occur (Section 4.1).
• Develop plans that specify quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures to be followed
during sample collection and analysis and data interpretation (Section 4.2).
• Conduct analyses of water quality samples (Section 4.3).
• Determine whether it is feasible to develop predictive modeling to provide quicker estimates of water
quality (Section 4.4).
• Interpret the monitoring and modeling results, including information on water quality exceedances
and beach closing and reopening procedures (Section 4.5).
• Notify the public of the monitoring and modeling results and any associated public health risks
(see Chapter 6).
Also, beach program managers should check with state and local authorities to identify the regulatory
requirements that apply to your program. See Chapter 3, Section 3.2, for potentially applicable federal,
state, and local requirements.2
OVERVIEW OF MONITORING AND SAMPLE
COLLECTION
This section discusses what should be monitored and where, when and how monitoring should be
conducted, and who should conduct it. Each of these considerations should be addressed ahead of time
in a monitoring plan, which can be revised if needed. This section also provides examples of monitoring
considerations addressed by three case study projects.
4. 1 . 1 WHAT WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS SHOULD BE
MDNITDRED?
Decisions about what to monitor should be based on the uses of your beach and recreational waters, the
applicable regulatory standards, and the questions and concerns raised by recreational water users. For
example, are people primarily interested in whether it is safe to swim at a particular beach? Are they also
interested in whether it is safe to boat, fish, or dig clams in the area? The parameters to be monitored and
their levels of acceptable health risk should be chosen to answer such questions. As described in Chapter 3,
water bodies need to meet criteria set by state water quality standards, which apply to existing and desig-
nated uses for specific waters, such as primary contact recreation (e.g, swimming) and secondary contact
recreation (e.g., boating). See Chapter 3 for a discussion of designated uses and state water quality criteria.
^ This handbook reflects lessons learned primarily through three EMPACT projects initiated prior to the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000 and
the publication ofNational Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002). Some of the practices described in
these projects may not be consistent with current regulatory requirements and guidance. For updated regulatory and guidance information, see
Section 1.2.
TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING
4-1
-------
In addition, the BEACH Act requires all coastal and Great Lakes states to adopt EPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for the pathogen indicator organisms E. coli or enterococci for beach and recreational water
quality monitoring. About one-third of all states monitor for E. coli or enterococci indicator organisms as a
measure of bacteria densities in fresh and marine waters. Other states continue to use other pathogen
indicator organisms, such as total coliforms or fecal coliforms.
Beach and recreational water quality monitoring may include a number of measurements in addition to
those for bacteria indicator organisms—for example, parameters such as rainfall, water and air temperature,
water turbidity, and wind speed and direction. These parameters can be used as supplemental water quality
information to help evaluate chemical, aesthetic, and transport effects that can affect water quality. For
example, wind speed and direction can help identify the direction of water currents that spread a sewage
outfall discharge through a water body. Lake circulation patterns can also be influenced by wind and
rainfall. These parameters may also be used as inputs for predictive models that supplement monitoring,
as discussed in Section 4.4. Table 4-1 summarizes the indicator organisms and supporting measurements
currently evaluated by each of three case study projects. Appendix A includes a survey form used by Rhode
Island to record information on some of these parameters, as well as others. (Note that the Rhode Island
project also observes whether storm-water pipes or other flows across beach areas are present.)
Water quality samples can also be analyzed for nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. These parameters
may provide information regarding certain contamination sources (e.g., farm runoff or animal feeding
operation discharges). Elevated nutrient concentrations may cause increased algae or aquatic weed
growth, which can reduce recreational water use, especially if the algae or weed growth is severe.
TABLE 4- 1
PARAM ETERS
PROJECTS
MONITORED IN THREE CASE STUDY
Indicator Organisms
Charles River
Basin/Boston Harbor
Beaches Project
Fecal coliform
Enterococci
Milwaukee/Racine
Beachhealth Project
£ coli
Rhode Island Beach
Monitoring Project
Fecal coliform
Enterococci
Other Environmental
Measurements
Rainfall
Temperature
Conductivity/salinity
Weather conditions
Rainfall
Water and air temperature
Turbidity
Fluorescence
Conductivity
Oxidation/reduction potential
Wind speed/direction
Chlorophyll
Nitrate
Phosphate
Rainfall
Water temperature
Turbidity
Weather conditions
Prevailing wind
4-2
CHAPTER 4
-------
4.1.2 WHERE SHOULD MONITORING SITES BE LOCATED?
Generally, areas with the greatest risk of public exposure to pathogens need more frequent water quality
monitoring and public notification. Therefore, consider monitoring the primary contact beaches and
recreational areas that have high use or high-density use. Also, consider monitoring along beaches close to
storm-water and sewer outfalls, since these locations may be prone to high bacteria levels; although people
may not swim in these areas, monitoring them can help identify sources of pathogens.
Coastal states that receive BEACH Act funds are required to evaluate and classify their waters based on
public health risk and frequency of use. Monitoring locations and frequency of monitoring in those states
should be consistent with these beach classifications.
Some municipalities monitor all beaches in their area (regardless of proximity to pollutant sources,
for example), while others select monitoring locations based on some or all of the following factors:
• Designated and existing use of the water body, including whether the water body supports primary
contact recreation, secondary contract recreation, shellfishing, drinking water, or other designated
uses. Under the CWA, each state, territory, or tribe is required to designate a use or uses for each
water body within its jurisdiction. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of designated uses.)
• Frequency and density of use. Monitoring sites should also be selected based on the frequency and den-
sity of use of a beach/recreational water body. Samples should be collected where many people
typically swim or otherwise use the water often, since these areas often pose the highest potential risk of
public exposure to pathogens.
• Potential pollution sources and storm-water discharges. The condition of the watershed feeding
a recreational water body, including the number and location of point and nonpoint pollution
sources and storm-water discharges, is an important factor in where pathogen contamination may
occur. Common sources of pathogen pollution include wastewater treatment (e.g., publicly owned
treatment works) outfall pipes, CSOs, SSOs, storm-water pipes, and malfunctioning septic systems.
Recreational waters near such sources should be considered as potential monitoring sites.
To minimize unwarranted variation among sampling results, collect water samples from the same location
within a site (e.g., in front of a lifeguard station or another clearly defined area) each time sampling occurs.
Choosing Monitoring Sites
The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project in Massachusetts monitors water quality at 13 locations
along four historically contaminated beaches daily and other beaches weekly. Some of the sampling sites are at
lifeguard stations where people typically swim. These beaches were also selected because they are located in
or near heavily populated and/or industrial areas that are directly impacted by sewer system overflows and
contaminated storm drains. Combined sewer overflows have been a major source of pollution to the beaches
and the harbor in general. Research by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority indicates that beach
water quality is highly variable in response to rainfall, even among different locations along the same beach.
TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING
4-3
-------
4.1.3 WHEN SHOULD WATER QUALITY MONITORING OCCUR?
When designing your water quality monitoring program, consider the time of day samples are collected, the
frequency of monitoring, and wet weather events. Take into account the analysis time required for indicator
organism monitoring: if it takes 24 hours to get results, note that sampling early in the day allows for public
notification earlier the next day. To keep your data consistent, try to collect water samples at the same sites
at the same time of day each time the water is monitored—on sunny days, early morning samples can have
more bacteria than afternoon samples. The frequency of sampling is often determined by how heavily a beach
is used. Beaches used often by a lot of people and beaches located near major sources of potential contamina-
tion need to be monitored more frequently. Seasonal beach use can also impact the frequency of monitoring:
beaches that are unused in the winter will not pose an exposure threat to the public when not in use.
It is important to monitor after exceedances of water quality criteria (which in some cases may be after
rainfall events) to ensure that bacteria concentrations have returned to acceptable levels. Such monitoring
can help you determine when beaches that have been closed because of high bacteria levels may be reopened.
Deciding When To Monitor
Rhode Island's Beaches Monitoring Project conducts beach monitoring from mid-May through mid-September to
coincide with the summer beach season. Samples are collected weekly at each of 23 sites. If a beach is closed
because of an exceedance, it is resampled daily until bacteria densities fall back below the threshold. Rainfall
event samples are collected in place of weekly sampling when it rains prior to a scheduled sampling date. Most
samples are collected between 8:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. and delivered to the laboratory for analysis within 4
hours of collection.
In deciding when to monitor, consider when the monitoring results will be received, since this may have impor-
tant public notification implications. For example, consider organizing your monitoring program so that enough
time is allocated for sample results to be received and any associated health risks communicated to the public
before the weekend, when beach and recreational waters are typically used the most.
4.1.4 HOW ARE BEACH/RECREATIONAL
WATER QUALITY SAMPLES
COLLECTED?
It is important to develop, in advance, specific written procedures for the
collection, preservation, and storage of water samples and to adhere to those
procedures. The reference text Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
andWastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998) provides general guidelines for water
sampling. The text covers such matters as obtaining representative samples
and avoiding sample contamination, both of which are critical to the
accuracy of your results. Many states have developed their own protocols.
A typical sample collection protocol for recreational waters might incorpo-
rate the following guidelines, among others:
• Collect samples in areas of greatest use by swimmers (or other relevant
recreational water users), where the water is about 3 feet deep, at about
knee-depth or 1 foot below the water surface.
• The sample analysis method to be used3 will specify appropriate
sample containers, identify whether any preservation is required (such
as storing samples on ice until analysis) and indicate acceptable holding times
3 See Section 4.3.
4-4
CHAPTER 4
-------
• Remove the sample container cap carefully, ensuring that you do not touch the inside of the cap or the
lip of the sampling container, and face into the current or waves to avoid sample container contamination.
• Minimize sediment or debris in the sample (which may require waiting for sediment to setde after wading
out to the sample collection location). If sediment or debris is present throughout the sample, note this fact
on the sample collection form.
Appendix B includes examples of sample collection procedures used by two of the case study projects.
You should also develop standard procedures for the collection of environmental monitoring data, such as
rainfall, water temperature, wind speed, and any other supporting environmental parameters you monitor, such
as those listed in Table 4-1. (As discussed in Section 4.1.1, these parameters can influence the water quality of a
receiving water body.)
Environmental data can be collected manually or automatically. Manual collection of environmental parameters
usually occurs at the time of water quality sampling and involves meters, monitors, and test kits. The MWRA in
Boston installed three stationary rainfall gauges that automatically monitor rainfall every 15 minutes. The
Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project uses two automated environmental monitoring stations that provide
physical and chemical data to MHD using a call-in system. The system monitors water temperature, turbidity,
fluorescence, conductivity, oxidation/reduction potential, wind speed and direction, and air temperature on a
continual basis. These data are relayed to on-shore computers via radio at predetermined intervals and on
demand. Figure 4-1 shows a schematic of the Milwaukee/Racine automated monitoring system.
Note that other water quality monitoring programs (e.g., volunteer monitoring programs) may already be
collecting environmental data.
Meteorological
Sensors
radio
150 ft
600 ft-
Buoy
antenna
radio (SDI)
data logger/modem
Power anc
Telephon_e
Pi
%
|8§
/
Figure 4-1. Schematic of the Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin, automated beach monitoring system.
TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING
4-5
-------
4.1 .5 WHO SHOULD CONDUCT WATER QUALITY MONITORING?
The quality of data produced by a monitoring program depends on the quality of the work undertaken by
field and laboratory staff. Professional health agency personnel, volunteers, and/or contractors have been
successfully used for the collection of water quality samples and environmental monitoring data. Whether
drawn from professional staffer a pool of volunteers, the personnel responsible for sample collection and
environmental measurements at beaches and recreational water areas must be adequately trained for those
activities.
Consider the following factors as you determine the best type of personnel to use:
• The objectives and requirements of the agency legally responsible for the monitoring.
• The availability of staff and funding for monitoring. The use of volunteer personnel can allow your
agency to increase the amount of monitoring performed, although you will need resources for training
volunteers if you use them.
• Program partners, such as other public agencies, community-based environmental groups, or research
and educational entities (such as colleges and universities). These can sometimes be a source of
monitoring or public outreach personnel.
Monitoring Personnel
In the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project, both professional staff from local public health agencies and
volunteer personnel conduct water quality monitoring. The agencies' environmental health specialists and
environmental hygienists are responsible for collecting samples on which health advisories are based.
Additional near-shore data are collected by other agencies and community-based environmental groups made
up of volunteer personnel. The City of Milwaukee Health Department coordinates the volunteer environmental
monitoring events. Training for the volunteers is provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Center, the University of Wisconsin-Extension, and the Riverside Urban Environmental Center.
DUALITY CONTROL PLANS AND PROCEDURES
To ensure data quality, create good QC documentation for all beach and recreational water quality monitor-
ing and analysis programs. Develop a quality assurance project plan (QAPP), which should include data
quality objectives (DQOs) and standard operating procedures (SOPs).
A QAPP is a formal document that specifies in detail what sampling and analysis procedures are to be used,
how and when sampling will be done, what QA and QC activities are necessary to ensure that the data
collected meet specified standards, and how the data will be analyzed and reported. DQOs are qualitative
and quantitative statements that clarify monitoring program objectives, define the appropriate types of data,
and specify tolerable error levels. DQOs are used as bases for establishing the quality and quantity of data
needed to support decisions.
SOPs describe in detail the method for a given operation, analysis, or action. They are used for technical
activities that need to be performed the same way every time (i.e., standardized). Among such activities
are field sampling, laboratory analysis, and database management. It is often helpful to present an SOP in
sequential steps that reflect the stages of the actual work to be done; it is also helpful to include specific
facilities, equipment, materials and methods, QA and QC procedures, and other factors required to
perform the operation, analysis, or action. An SOP's format and content requirements are flexible
because its content and level of detail will depend on the nature of the procedure being performed.
4-6
CHAPTER 4
-------
QAPPs should also include data verification and validation procedures (described below). These procedures
will help you ensure that QA/QC objectives and requirements have been met, enable you to verify that the
results of your sampling are accurate, and aid in data interpretation.
To learn more about QA/QC procedures and how to develop a QAPP, see EPA Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans, available at http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf.
What Is an Accredited (Certified) Laboratory, and Why Use One?
An accredited laboratory is one that meets certain requirements set by an accrediting agency, including having
qualified personnel, appropriate instrumentation, and standard operating procedures, and has demonstrated
proficiency in the analysis of samples, for example for particular bacterial indicators.
Some states have established accreditation processes for environmental analyses and require the use of
accredited laboratories. This is often true for drinking water analysis. The use of an accredited laboratory is
recommended for recreational water analyses as well, especially when beach advisory or closure decisions are
to be based on the analytical results. Check with your state regarding its requirements and recommendations for
the use of accredited laboratories.
4.2.1 DATA VERI FID ATI DN METHODS
Data verification provides the confirmation that specified requirements have been fulfilled. For water
quality sampling and analysis, this is done by evaluating whether data have been collected in accordance
with the specifications of the QAPP and whether the DQOs specified in your QC plan have been met. Data
verification also includes a review of the sampling data obtained and QC sample data (e.g., sample
duplicates). Examples of data verification procedures for bacterial indicator samples include:
• Additional tests on samples to identify false positives or false negatives. A false positive rate is
calculated as the percent of colonies that were falsely identified as being made up of indicator microor-
ganisms. A false negative rate is calculated as the percent of colonies that were made up of indicator
microorganisms but were not identified as such. EPA-approved methods specify acceptable false posi-
tive and false negative rates for the relevant media.
• Review of sample records, chain of custody records, and sample tracking records to verify that all
samples collected were analyzed and that the data set results will be complete.
• Data entry checks to detect any potential data entry errors.
• Other types of check, such as graphing data to visually inspect for any potential errors and using
statistical methods to detect invalid data.
• Review of data reductions, transformations, and calculations by rechecking computations and
reviewing the assumptions used.
Verifying that a data collection effort conforms with the QAPP requires confirming that the data pass
specified QC tests, calculations were performed correctly, all samples were treated consistently, and the data
are complete and comply with all plans, DQOs, and SOPs. Data verification should always be followed by
data validation, as described below.
TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING
4-7
-------
4.2.2 DATA VALIDATION
Data validation provides the confirmation that the requirements for an intended use have been fulfilled.
Once data have been verified as meeting QAPP requirements, they are then validated to determine their
technical usability with respect to the planned objectives. This process should produce a validation report
that assesses the usability of the data (and whether any of the data are suspect or need to be qualified), sum-
marizes data results, and summarizes QC and QA results. The report should discuss any discrepancies
between a program's DQOs and the data collected.
4.3 SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Several methods are available to detect the presence of
bacterial indicator organisms as part of an assessment
of beach and recreational water quality. This section
briefly discusses EPA-approved and other standard
methods and describes the methods used by the three
case study projects, including new analysis methods
that are under investigation.
Many government agencies, universities, and other
organizations develop analytical methods. EPA evalu-
ates these methods and approves those methods that
meet its requirements for monitoring organic, inor-
ganic, or microbiological contaminants. The purpose
of developing and using EPA-approved and other
acceptable standard methods is to ensure consistency and quality of analytical results. Furthermore, only
certain methods may be used for compliance monitoring (e.g., of wastewater or drinking water); require-
ments for recreational water monitoring may not be as strict, but some states may have requirements or
preferences for the use of certain methods for recreational water quality monitoring in some situations.
Check with your state to identify any such requirements.
EPA-approved and other standard methods for the analysis of bacterial indicator organisms are listed in
Table 4-2. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/.
4-2. EP/ PROVED AMI ABLE STANDARD
METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF BACTERIAL INDICATOR
ORGANISMS IN AMBIENT WATERS
Bacterial Indicator
£ coli
EPA-Approved and Other
Acceptable Standard Methods1
EPA Method 1103.1
(same as Standard Method 9213D (m-TEC)
Type of Analysis2
MF
Modified EPA Method 1103.1
(modified m-TEC method)
MF
Enterococci
EPA Method 1106.1
(same as Standard Method 9230C)
MF
EPA Method 1600
MF
1 Standard Methods are from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998). In 2002, EPA intends to publish
a revised rule for EPA-approved methods in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 136). The proposed rule, published on August 30,
2001, in 66FR45811, included the Enterolert™ and multiple tube fermentation methods discussed later in this chapter. Also, while some states
still use fecal coliform or total coliform as indicator organisms, EPAs Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986) recom-
mends using K coli or enterococci instead and the BEACH Act requires that all coastal and Great Lakes states switch to K coli or enterococci by
2004. Therefore, approved methods for fecal or total coliform are not listed here.
^ MF = Membrane filtration, described below.
4-s CHAPTER 4
-------
4.3.1 INDICATOR ORGANISM ANALYSIS METHODS
Indicator organism analysis methods generally fall into one of the following two categories:
• Membrane filtration (MF) tests, in which samples are passed through membrane filters that are then
transferred to petri plates containing selective growth and substrate media (i.e., primary isolation agar
or an absorbent pad saturated with selective broth). Bacteria density estimates are based on a direct
count of bacteria colonies.
• Most probable number (MPN) tests, in which multiple tubes are allowed to ferment for a set period of
time. Certain probability formulas are applied to the number of tubes or wells that produce a positive
reaction, resulting in an estimate of the average density (i.e., concentration) of target organisms in the
sample. (This procedure is used in several standard methods for analyzing fecal and total coliform. It is
also used in some methods for measuring E. coli, e.g., Colilert™, and enterococci, e.g., Enterolert™.)
The time required for some of the most commonly available and used sample analysis techniques ranges
from 24 to 72 hours. This relatively long analysis time is a disadvantage: it can lead to a situation in which
the public is exposed to high bacteria levels for the 1 to 3 days it takes to obtain sample results. This prob-
lem, which is particularly pronounced for the methods with the longest analysis times, can hinder timely
decisions on advisories or closures of recreational water areas and delay public notification. Methods that
require 24 hours of analysis time are an improvement over methods requiring even more time, but even a
24-hour turn-around time is not ideal; researchers are working on identifying even quicker, valid methods of
sample analysis for recreational water quality.
The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor, Milwaukee/Racine, and Rhode Island projects all use one or more
of the methods listed in Table 4-2. Some of the projects involved evaluations of alternative methods that
require 24 hours or less for sample analysis; the projects sought to determine whether use of these methods
could reduce sample analysis time and provide more time-relevant information to the public.
Table 4-3 lists the bacterial indicator organism analysis methods used by each of the three case study proj-
ects, including required analysis times. The following subsections discuss the alternative methods evaluated.
TABLE 4-3. ANALYSIS METHODS
PROJECTS
USED BY THE THREE CASE STUDY
Project
Charles River Basin/
Boston Harbor Beaches Project
Milwaukee/Racine Community
Recreational Water Risk
Assessment and Public Outreach
(Beachhealth)
Rhode Island Beach
Monitoring Project
Bacterial Indicator
Fecal coliform
Enterococci
£ coli
Fecal coliform
£ coli
Enterococci
Test Method
Standard Method 9222D
EPA Method 11 06.1
EPA Method 1600
EPA Method 11 03.1
(Standard Method 921 3D [m-TEC])
Pilot study method
(not recommended by
Milwaukee/Racine program)
Standard Method 9221 B
and E (with EC broth)
Standard Method 9221 E(A-1)
EPA Method 11 03.1
(Standard Method 921 3D [m-TEC])
EPA Method 1600
Enterolert™
Analysis Time
24 hours
48 hours
24 hours
24 hours
6 hours
48-72 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
24 hours
TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING
4-9
-------
4.3.1.1 CHARLES RIVER BASIN/BOSTON HARBOR BEACHES PROJECT
As part of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project, the MDC compared EPA's enterococci
methods (Method 1106.1 and Method 1600). Method 1106.1 requires an incubation time of 48 hours,
while the incubation time for Method 1600 (released by EPA in 1997) is 24 hours. Thus using Method
1600 can result in faster, more timely public notification of recreational water quality information.
To compare the accuracy of both methods, MDC collected split samples on a weekly basis at 38 sites
(representing 20 beaches) during the June-through-August beach season. The split samples were compared
statistically; both methods were found to give similar results, and both demonstrated comparable accuracy
and precision. Method 1106.1 resulted in a false positive rate of 4 percent, compared to a 2 percent rate for
Method 1600. False negative rates were 8 percent for Method 1106.1 and 7 percent for Method 1600. The
precision rate for Method 1106.1 was 38.7 average relative percent difference (RPD), while Method 1600
had a similar precision rate of 45.2 average RPD. MDC concluded that Method 1600 may result in a
slight, but probably insignificant, increase in beach postings. Method 1600 has the advantage of enabling
the MDC to sample area beaches one day closer to the weekend, which is when the greatest beach use
occurs. Because of the advantages and relative accuracy of Method 1600, MDC has switched from Method
1106.1 to Method 1600.
4.3.1.2 MILWAUKEE/RACINE BEACHHEALTH PROJECT
For the Beachhealth project, a 6-hour method was compared to traditional analysis methods. The data
collected from the 6-hour alternative method were found to be inconsistent, and the test often took much
longer than was predicted, requiring a 7.5-hour incubation instead of the expected 6 hours. This test
method also took longer than expected for the filtering of turbid samples. The Milwaukee/Racine
Beachhealth Project concluded that this 6-hour method was not a satisfactory solution to reducing the
time needed for sample analysis.
4.3.7.3 RHODE ISLAND BEACH MONITORING PROJECT
The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project evaluated and compared several analytical methods to
determine whether the state could switch to a faster method. The project compared two methods for fecal
coliform analysis, including the Standard 48-hour MPN Method (922IB and E, with EC broth) it had
been using and a 24-hour method (922IE [A-l]). Seeking to find faster methods that might also meet
BEACH Act requirements, the Project also tested two analytical methods for enterococci: the 24-hour EPA
Method 1600 and another 24-hour method, called Enterolert™. In addition, Rhode Island tested an E. coli
method (EPA Method 1103.1, which is the same as Standard Method 9213D [m-TEC]). In some cases the
results varied among the different methods tested, but, for the majority of samples, all of the methods used
would result in the same action taken. Rhode Island concluded that:
• Standard Method 922IE (A-l), with its 24-hour reporting time, is quicker but requires the most
man-hours. This method underestimates bacteria counts at higher densities, but as long as Rhode
Island continues to use a (very protective) 50 CPU/100 ml (fecal coliform) water quality standard,
this underestimation does not change the acceptability of the method's results for this state. Since
concluding this project, Rhode Island has switched to using Standard Method 922IE (A-l) in
monitoring recreational waters.
• In anticipation of a switch to using enterococci as an indicator organism, Rhode Island concluded that
the Enterolert™ method was its preferred method for beach water quality analyses. EPA is currently
considering this alternative method for inclusion as an EPA-approved method. EPA Method 1600 was
problematic in Rhode Island's comparative tests because it resulted in filter clogging and poor verifica-
tion of positive colonies.
CHAPTER 4
-------
4.4 PREDICTIVE MODELS
The primary goal of a beach/recreational water quality monitoring program is to minimize the public health risk
associated with infectious diseases caused by exposure to harmful microorganisms. As discussed in Section 4.3,
laboratory methods commonly used to analyze potentially harmful microorganisms can take from 24 to 72
hours. To address the public health risks associated with this delay, health agencies need additional tools that can
provide a rapid, reliable indication of water quality conditions. The use of validated predictive models to supple-
ment monitoring can meet this need, providing quick, conservative estimates of bacterial indicator organism levels.
Developing a predictive model requires a large amount of data. These data are correlated with other relevant
factors—such as rainfall, tides, and number of bathers—that can affect bacteria levels or the probability that a
water quality standard will be exceeded. An equation (algorithm or calculation) is developed that defines the rela-
tionships between the different variables (e.g., bacteria density, rainfall, etc.). The model is then verified by
plugging actual monitoring results into its equation to see if the model reflects actual conditions. If it does not, it
is adjusted until a fully calibrated and verified model is developed.
Predictive models for beach/recreational water quality often correlate elevated levels of bacterial indicator organ-
isms with environmental factors that can influence bacteria levels, such as rainfall or the number of bathers using
a beach. While elevated bacteria counts often correlate with rainfall events, defining a relationship can be diffi-
cult. Rhode Island, for example, was not comfortable enough with the relationship between bacteria levels and
3-day cumulative rainfall to adopt a rainfall-based predictive model. Other factors, such as fecal contamination
from large concentrations of waterfowl, decaying beach vegetation, and water conditions, may also impact bacte-
ria levels; these factors can be used in a model. Any validated predictive model needs to address program-specific
conditions and elements.
The Milwaukee Health Department uses a rainfall-based model in conjunction with monitoring of E. coli levels
at South Shore Beach in decisions regarding beach advisories. Water quality at South Shore Beach may be influ-
enced by several environmental factors affecting the Milwaukee River watershed, which contains hundreds of
storm-water outfalls and several CSOs. The watershed drains to Lake Michigan just north of South Shore Beach,
where a southward current is generally present. South Shore Beach water quality may also be affected by effluent
from a sewage treatment plant, sewage treatment bypass, and other sources, including waterfowl, domestic pets,
and litter from bathers. The Racine Health Department does not use a rainfall-based model at this time; one of
the objectives of the Beachhealth project was to collect data to explore the possibility of using a rainfall model for
Racine.
One of the monitoring objectives of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project was to develop a
predictive model relating rainfall and CSO operations to bacterial indicators at four Boston Harbor beaches. The
four beaches were sampled seven times per week and analyzed for fecal coliform and enterococcus. Rainfall
gauges were also installed close to these beaches.
A simple rainfall model for each individual Boston Harbor beach was developed. Data analysis showed that
that previous day's rainfall predicted water quality better than the previous 24-hour enterococcus measurement.
A combined rainfall and bacteria protocol was implemented for beach postings.
For the Charles River, the Charles River Watershed Associaton developed a conservative in-house model/
protocol, based on historical data to predict whether bacteria levels would exceed the boating standard for
fecal coliform of 1,000 CPU/100 ml. CRWA then modified the protocol for the four sites monitored under
the EMPACT project, and modified it again for the 2000 monitoring season. The model determined the
appropriate water quality notification level based on antecedent rainfall data and CSO activation.
CRWA analyzed the success and accuracy of the model by determining whether a strong or weak relationship
existed between fecal coliform and total rainfall over a certain period of days and by assessing whether the pre-
dicted water quality was the same as that indicated by sample analysis. Overall, the model was found to predict
water quality conditions fairly accurately, and CRWA determined that the correct water quality notification flag
TIME-RELEVANT MONITORING AND MODELING 4-1 1
-------
was used 84 percent of the time. The comparison also showed that the predictive model tended to err on the
conservative side, declaring that water quality posed a potential health risk when the sampling results showed
that it did not.
For more information on predictive models, including different types of models, see EPA's Beach Guidance
Document (U.S. EPA, 2002) at http:llwww.epa.govlostlbeachesltechnical.html.
4.5 INTERPRETATION AND USE OF MONITORING
AND MODELING RESULTS
Water quality sampling results and predictive modeling results need to be interpreted by designated, qualified
public health officials, environmental pollution managers, or beach managers; these people are in a position to
determine whether a health risk exists and what appropriate action, if any, should be taken. Possible actions
range from a posting, warning, or advisory to closing the beach and prohibiting people from using the recre-
ational water there until further testing or model predictions indicate that bacterial indicator levels no longer
exceed water quality criteria.
EPA recommends closing or posting a beach when there is an exceedance of water quality standards or when a
predictive model indicates a likelihood of an exceedance. However a state chooses to respond to exceedances, it
is important that authorities responsible for interpretation of water quality monitoring results develop policies and pro-
cedures that are clear and specific (i.e. specify what actions are to be taken). For example, a policy could state that if
a single monitoring result exceeds the single-sample criterion value listed in the state's recreational water quality
standard, an advisory will be issued and an additional sample will be taken from that location within 24 hours.
If the second sample still exceeds water quality criteria, a beach closing will be issued.
Likewise, clear procedures should be established for the lifting of an advisory or closing and the reopening of a
beach. For example, one aspect of a reopening policy could state that a closed beach is to be resampled within a
specified time period. The decision to either issue or remove an advisory or closing should be based on statisti-
cally valid data and an assessment of risks to potential swimmers and other water users. The beach closing and
reopening procedures used by the three case study projects are summarized in Table 4-4.
The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project's procedures for beach closures, for example, specify that decision-
makers must consider (1) whether a direct sewage discharge has been identified in the immediate bathing area
and (2) whether any relevant regulations have been violated, as well as other factors, in determining whether to
take action that could result in closure. After a single high bacteria count is found, the procedures specify, deci-
sion-makers must review the beach profile (e.g., history) of the site. If the site is located near a CSO or if there
are recent reports of a discharge from a nearby wastewater treatment plant, the beach is closed immediately and
resampled. Other area beaches are also resampled. If a second sample exceeds the criteria, the beach is closed
using the following procedures:
• Notify appropriate municipal and state officials.
• Post advisory or closure notices (e.g., change the flag posted at the beach) as needed.
• Issue a press release and update the Web site and hodine with current conditions.
On beaches with more than one sampling location, the beach is closed immediately if measurements from the
majority of the sampling stations exceed the criteria.
Beaches are resampled daily until testing shows that bacteria levels have dropped below the criteria. Rhode
Island's reopening procedures involve:
• Notifying town and state officials of the reopening, including flag changes needed.
• Updating the Web site and hotline with new test results and an indication of the reopening.
• Resuming normal sampling procedures.
Chapter 6 of this document discusses techniques for the posting and public notification of water quality results.
4-12 CHAPTER 4
-------
— Table 4-4. Beach Closing and Reopening Procedures of the Three Case Study Projects
Water Quality Criteria Used
(If criteria are exceeded, action is
taken, e.g., an advisory/posting or
a closing)
Beach Advisory/Closing
Procedures
Beach Reopening Procedures
Charles River, Massachusetts
Fresh water, secondary contact
waters (e.g., boating), geometric
mean: FC < 1,000 CFU/100 ml; also
FC < 2,000 CFU/100 ml (<10% single
samples) 1
Class B waters for swimming/fishing,
geometric mean: FC < 200 CFU/100
ml; also FC < 400 CFU/100 ml
(<_10% single samples)
(Criteria are based on state water
quality standards. Note that
Massachusetts is considering chang-
ing from fecal coliform to E. co//or
enterococci.)
Posting of water quality flags
(blue = suitable boating condi-
tions; red = potential health risks
associated with elevated bacteria
counts) are based on estimates of
the previous day's fecal coliform
concentrations, 24-hour rainfall
levels, and/or combined sewer
overflow. To be conservative,
boathouses are posted with red
flags if a single sample exceeds
the geometric mean of 1 ,000
CFU/100 ml FC.
River areas reopen based on
either monitoring results indicat-
ing that criteria are no longer
exceeded, or on 4th or 5th day
(depending on the amount of
rainfall) after a significant rainfall
event.
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Marine water, single samples:
enterococci < 104 CFU/100 ml
Marine water, geometric mean of
most recent five samples within
the same bathing season: entero-
cocci < 35 CFU/100 ml
(Criteria are based on state water
quality criteria and state public
health code.)
Whenever water contamination
exceeds criteria, or after any sig-
nificant rainstorm (particularly at
beaches with a history of viola-
tions of water quality
requirements), a swimming advi-
sory sign is posted at the
entrance to each parking lot and
beach. Flags are changed from
"blue" (indicating good swimming
conditions) to "red" (indicating
potential health risks associated
with elevated bacteria counts).
The beach is resampled on the same
day of exceedance; if it still exceeds
criteria, or if a significant rainfall has
occurred, it remains closed for the
next 6 days. It is then reopened if
monitoring results indicate that its
water meets criteria.
Milwaukee/Racine, Wisconsin
Fresh water, single samples:
E. coli < 235 CFU/100 ml (general
recreational water use)
Milwaukee Health Department
uses £ coli and rainfall data for
the past 24 to 90 hours in a
model, and Racine Health
Department uses £ coli data for
issuing advisories. The state
issues advisories to counties,
which decide whether to close a
beach. (Counties almost always
follow state advisories).
A "good" rating = yesterday's
£ coli < 235 CFU/100 ml; a
"poor" rating = yesterday's E. coli
> 235 CFU/100 ml if there was a
recent rainfall or > 500 CFU/100
ml if not; other environmental
conditions are also considered
(e.g., high wave action may
clear bacteria from an area).
The beach reopens if the previous
day's Eco// level < 235 CFU/100
ml, or if the level has dropped with
no recent rainfall and a further drop
is expected to result in a level < 235
CFU/100 ml, based on historical
experience.
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Salt water, swimming/boating,
geometric mean: FC < 50
MPN/IOOml1
Saltwater, swimming/boating: FC
< 500 MPN/100 ml (<10% of sin-
gle samples)
Saltwater: To be conservative, if a
single sample exceeds the geo-
metric mean, the beach is
retested or closed.
Fresh water (swimming), geomet-
ric mean: FC < 200 MPN/100 ml
Beaches are closed based on
fecal coliform exceedances and
known or potential sources of
contamination. Each beach or
sampling site is unique and
possesses its own history, which
may play a role (based on prior
releases) in deciding whether or
not a specific beach should be
closed. If a release near a beach
occurs from a prior source of
contamination (e.g., wastewater
treatment plant, combined sewer
overflow), the Department of
Health closes the site preemp-
tively, without waiting for analysis
results.
If noncompliance with the state
standard still occurs after resam-
pling, the bathing area is closed.
It is tested every day and does
not reopen untiltest results fall
below criteria.
Rhode Island's program uses a
flagging system similar to
Boston's.
The beach is reopened if five
consecutive samples collected at
least 24 hours apart are at or
below the fecal coliform standard.
Upon reopening, at least three
samples are collected each week
for 3 months.
CPU = colony-forming units; ml = mililiters; FC=fecal coliform; MPN= most probable number.
-------
DATA MANAGEMENT
Managing data efficiently can contribute to quicker dissemination of water quality results and
reduce potential public exposure to contaminated waters. The key elements of data management
for beach and recreational water quality programs are shown in Figure 5-1. Data management
can be broadly defined as the handling of sample data results (e.g., recording and analyzing laboratory
results) as well as the delivery of the results to the public (e.g., through Web sites, telephone hotlines, on-
site warning flags). This chapter presents some design considerations for data management systems,
provides examples of the data management approaches used by three beach and recreational water quality
monitoring projects, and focuses on one aspect of data delivery to the public—Web site development.
Additional methods for public notification and risk communication, as well as more information on using
Web sites for these purposes, are discussed in Chapter 6.
Collect
samples
(see
Chapter 4)
Send
samples to
qualified
laboratory
(see
Chapter 4)
Receive
results
from lab
via
computer
or hard-
copy,
perform
QA/QC
Enter and
store data
in database
(electroni-
cally or
manually if
hardcopy)
Analyze
data (e.g.,
compare to
state water
quality
standards,
other
require-
ments)-see
Chapter 4
Notify the
public of
results and
any health
risks (see
also
Chapter 6)
Figure 5-1. Data flow for beach/recreational water quality results. Highlighted steps are covered in this chapter.
As Figure 5-1 shows, water quality samples are collected (as described in Chapter 4), then taken or sent
(e.g., via courier), using proper QC procedures, to a qualified laboratory. The laboratory determines the
densities of indicator organisms of pathogenic bacteria present. The laboratory then communicates the results
to water quality authorities via hardcopy reports, fax, or electronic transfer of results from the laboratory data-
base system. Methods for sending these results as soon as they become available should be included as SOPs
in your program. Your program staff then enters these laboratory data into your database (via electronic data
transfer, or manually for hardcopy data) for analysis, comparing them to state water quality criteria (see
Chapter 3) and any other requirements that might trigger certain actions. The results are then delivered to the
public, e.g., via the Internet (see Section 5.3) and other communication methods (see Chapter 6).
5.1
NS FOR A DATA
This section describes some of the important considerations for designing a data management system, the use
of spatially related data (such as geographic information systems, or GIS), considerations for enhancing an
existing system for a time-relevant beach/recreational water quality monitoring program, and QC and data
security considerations.
DATA MANAGEMENT
5-1
-------
The best design for a data management system depends on the needs and objectives of your program.
An information systems expert can help you identify the best system design based on your answers to the
following questions:
• What are the program's data needs?
• How are the data results received (manually or electronically)?
• What hardware and software infrastructure is currently available?
• What personnel are available to maintain the data management system?
When designing a data management system, consider the following factors:
• Data storage and retrieval system. You will need a central repository, such as an electronic database,
within which to organize and store laboratory results. For bacterial indicator organisms, laboratory data
results are often entered into a central database from hardcopy result reports, although electronic transfer
may be an option. The central database can be as simple as a collection of spreadsheets or as complex as a
full-scale relational database.
• Data delivery system. A data delivery system is a method of distributing data to your audience.Examples
of data delivery systems include Web sites, newspaper and television forecasts, and signs. Software and
Web sites are increasingly used for data delivery. An effective electronic data delivery system includes a
method to convert database files into an easily understood format for the Web and open-access formats
that allow the public to make secondary use of data. Database files can be converted for use on the Web
using a variety of software, both off-the-shelf and customized.
• QA, QC, and data security procedures. These include processes used to ensure accurate transfer of data
from the laboratory to the central database; provide timely maintenance, backup, and archiving of the
central database; and protect the database and Web site from unauthorized access.
For guidance on QA/QC and security planning, see EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf.
Important questions to ask your information systems expert are:
• How will the data management system preserve data quality, assurance, and integrity?
• How will data be maintained (back-ups or archives)?
• How will the data be delivered to the public via the Web? What are the system's software and
personnel needs?
• How will Web content be updated and maintained?
An existing data management system can be used for a time-relevant water quality monitoring program if it
meets the following fundamental objectives:
• To collect and manage microbiological data, as well as handle predictive model data if such a model
is used.
• To communicate the data results as quickly as possible to the public.
If your existing data management system cannot accomplish these tasks, you can probably modify it with
the assistance of an information systems specialist.
5-2
Chapter 5
-------
5.1.2 SPATIALLY RELATED DATA (SUCH AS CIS)
A spatially related data system relates data to a physical location that then can be shown visually—for
example, in the form of maps. A popular medium for spatially related data is the Geographic Information
System (GIS), which can display, analyze, and model spatially related information. GIS technology allows
users to quickly overlay several data layers (such as water resources and land uses) and view them at once;
a GIS can be designed so that its users can view and compare different future scenarios and their possible
impacts. Often a GIS is set up so that users can retrieve information, generate maps (including customized
maps), and query data simply by clicking on a map feature. Some GIS maps are useful only for particular
geographic locations. GIS has been used by state agencies for watershed protection, Total Maximum Daily
Loads development, and implementation of other water quality programs.
To generate and display spatially related data, data management systems must include specific location infor-
mation such as latitude and longitude or street addresses. Detailed data usually need to be input
into the system by skilled staff; this process can be labor-intensive and fairly expensive. Once developed, GIS
maps are relatively easy to use and understand by local officials and the public. State environmental agencies
and private organizations are increasingly developing GIS maps that include a variety of environmental fea-
tures relevant to water quality; these maps may be readily available at no cost for display and use, including
through the Internet.
Software applications available for spatially related data range from simple and free software applications
to customizable data management systems designed specifically for integrating GIS data with the Internet.
For communicating beach water quality data to the public, only simple applications are usually needed.
5.1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
All water quality monitoring projects should have QA/QC plans that include SOPs for data entry, QA/QC
protocols to check and validate the data, and protocols for system tests/audits to verify that the system is
producing expected results. See Section 4.2 for more information on QA/QC plans.
5.2 DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USED BY THE CASE
5.2.1 SELECTING A DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The three case study projects discussed in this handbook developed their data management systems after
considering the following factors:
• Data needs: factors such as the number of water quality monitoring stations, sampling frequency,
and data retrieval and storage needs.
• Technical and human resources: the software, hardware, and human expertise available to maintain and
operate the data management system.
• The existing database structure: the need to ensure that existing (historical) data as well as new
data can be incorporated in the system to provide a complete historical context for the monitoring project.
• The ease of use and flexibility of the system: factors, for example, that impact the software/hardware,
training costs, and longevity of the system.
All three case study projects use off-the-shelf technologies to store monitoring data and update Web
content. The software selected was based on ease-of-use considerations and experience with particular soft-
ware already used for data storage. Using these software platforms, project staff constructed (or modified)
databases to accommodate any new data to be collected and to communicate these data to the public in
meaningful ways. They based the design of their databases and Web sites on the factors mentioned above.
Information technology specialists helped project staff design and implement the systems.
DATA MANAGEMENT 5-3
-------
5
.
TFPI
I OKI
ISTING SYSTEMS TO MEET PROJECT
All three case study projects enhanced their existing data management systems to meet project objectives.
Table 5-1 describes how the projects altered their systems to meet new project objectives.
Table 5-1. Changes Made to Existing Data Management
Systems To Meet Project Objectives
Project
Web Site Management
Changes Made to Existing Data
Charles River Basin/Boston
Harbor Beaches Project
Some project partners host their own
Web sites, while others use an outside
Internet service provider/vendor.
• Added a Web site with daily, monthly, and
historical data.
Rhode Island Beach
Monitoring Project
The Rhode Island Department of
Health hosts its own server.
• Created a Web site with beach closure
information and access to daily, monthly,
and historical data.
Milwaukee/Racine Community
Recreational Water Risk
Assessment and Public
Outreach (Beachhealth)
The U.S. Geological Survey hosts
the Web site.
• Automated monitoring equipment and
Web-based data entry forms.
• Added a Web site with beach closure
information and access to daily and
historical data.
In some cases (e.g., for the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor and Rhode Island projects), an increase
in the frequency of monitoring contributed to the need to alter or expand data management systems.
Table 5-1 shows the changes these projects made. The decision to host your own Web site or use an
Internet service provider will depend on your program's priorities and available resources. For example,
you may be able to convey data more quickly if you host your own server, but achieving this quicker
delivery may incur additional costs, including more labor for Web site maintenance, quality control, etc.
In addition, keep in mind that there are ways other than Web sites to communicate your data, such as
telephone hotlines, signs, and the media, as discussed in Chapter 6.
5.2.3 SYSTEM USE AND MAINTENANCE
Data entry, validation, and maintenance are critical to providing accurate data to the public. In the context
of a data management system, this involves entering data into a central database, performing QA/QC pro-
cedures, updating Web content, and performing regular backup and archival operations. All programs must
strike a balance between providing timely data and ensuring data quality. Addressing this challenge is an
important part of the QA/QC plan.
The project partners involved in the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project use a variety of
different software and data entry and validation procedures:
• The MWRA laboratory enters sampling data into a Laboratory Information Management System for
validation and QA/QC. After QA/QC, the MWRA uploads data to a database on a server on the
MWRA's internal network, then formats the data for the Web.
• The MDC and CRWA receive data from the laboratory via fax, transcribe the data to a spreadsheet
file, check the data for accuracy, and then update their Web sites with beach and boating postings.
The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project follows procedures similar to those of the CRWA. The Rhode
Island staff manually enter data into a spreadsheet, check the data for accuracy, and upload the data to their
Web site.
5-4
Chapter 5
-------
The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project uses a combination of automated and manual data entry pro-
cedures. Meteorological and lake condition data are retrieved via automated telephone modem transfer and
uploaded directly to a database. Water quality information is entered directly into the database using cus-
tomized Web-based input forms. Data validation occurs before the forms are submitted to the database.
After submittal, these data are immediately available to the public via the Beachhealth Web site. Figure 5-2
shows a data query form that the public can use on the Beachhealth Web site to obtain beach water quality
information, based on which parameters they select.
Maintenance procedures are typically based on those already in place for the project's computer network. In all
three case study projects, the network and data management database are routinely backed up and archived.
Data Management Partners
Beach/recreational water quality monitoring project staff and associated partners can learn from one
another in developing a data management system, and can also share data management system
responsibilities. For example, the Charles River Watershed Association's Web site design for the
Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project was used as a starting point for the Rhode Island
Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project Web site. The Rhode Island project's data management system is
managed by the Rhode Island Department of Health, whereas the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor
project's three program partners maintain separate data management systems but share their data.
For example, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority stores data for 17 beaches in a database,
assists in analysis, and provides daily bacteria and rainfall data on its Web site for five of the beaches
that have a history of being contaminated; the Metropolitan District Commission uses the monitoring
results from the 17 beaches for a telephone hotline, to issue flags at the beaches, and to place flag
icons on its Web site that advise the public on recreational water use.
DATA MANAGEMENT
5-5
-------
"3 http://Jnfotrek.er.usgs.gDV/pls/portal30/beachhealth_portal.bf_query_rpt.show_parms - Microsoft Internet Explorer
I File F_dit View Favorites Jools Help
BEE
Back
Stop Refresh Home
® in 0
Search Favorites History
Print
Edit
Discuss Dell Home
Links
. Address jj?l http://infotfek.er.usgs.gov/pls/portal30/beachhealth_portal.bf_query_rpt.show_parrr
Beach Water Quality Query Page
Run Report
Save Reset
Reset to Defaults
Query Options
Date
Time
Site
Field Person Name
Water Temperature
Wave Height
Amount of Algea
Amount of Waterfowl
Lab Person Name
Turbidity (NTTT)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L)
Nitrite + nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L)
E. Coli Remark (traditional)
E. Coli Measurement (traditional, CFU/lOOmL)
E. Coli Remark (fast)
E. Coli Measurement (fast, MPN/lOOmL) f
Fecal Coliform Remark
Fecal Coliform Measurement (CFU/lOOmL)
pH (standrad units)
I 3
m
~m
3
\ 3
m
I 3
r
I 3
3
5-2. Sample data form available to the public on the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth Web site.
5.2.4 SYSTEM SECURITY
At its most basic, ensuring the security of a data management system involves restricting access to the data-
base and the software and processes used to update Web content. All three case study projects use password
protection to limit access to their Web development software: to update Web content, a user must enter a
valid user ID and password to access the appropriate files. The projects also use additional security steps,
such as placing their databases behind firewalls with no connection to the Internet.
5-6
Chapter 5
-------
The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project database is linked to the Web but has additional safeguards—for
example, the general public may not modify the database (other than filling out a site feedback form), and
the code that describes how the Web interface program is designed is hidden (in a package of procedures
inside the software). The latter measure prevents unauthorized users from accessing database tables or pass-
words or otherwise disturbing database integrity.
5.3 DATA DELIVERY VIA THE WEB
5.3.1 WEB CONTENT
All three case study projects use their Web sites to provide time-relevant water quality information to the
public. Table 5-2 describes the main content of each of the Web sites.
Table 5-2. Web Content, of the Three Case Study Projects1
Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project
•CRWA
http://www. crwa. org
•MDC
http://www.state.ma.us/mdc
•MWRA
http://www.mwra.state.ma.us
• Color-coded maps of Charles River water quality for
each month in the current year.
• Tables of historical Charles River water quality data.
• Latest available boating flag notice and sampling data
for eight Charles River locations.
• Results from 1998,1999, and 2000 daily sampling.
• Latest available water quality notices and water
temperature for 17 Boston-area beaches.
• Latest available water quality and rainfall data for five
Boston-area beaches.
Rhode Island Bathing Beaches Monitoring Project
http://www.healthri.org/environment/beaches/index.html
• Latest available beach closure information.
• Tables of beach water quality data for over 100 beaches
from 1995 to present.
• Additional beach- and bather-related information.
Milwaukee/Racine Community Recreational Water Risk
Assessment and Public Outreach (Beachhealth)
http://infotrek. er. usgs.gov/pls/beachhealth
• Latest available beach water quality conditions for
11 Milwaukee/Racine-area
beaches/recreational waters.
• Real-time meteorological and lake conditions.
• Dynamic query access to beach, river, and harbor water
quality data for the 1999-2001 swimming season.
• Dynamic query access to meteorological data for the
1999-2001 swimming season.
These Web sites may be inactive when it is not beach season.
The Web sites of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor project and the Rhode Island Beach Monitoring
Project display icons of the different-colored flags the projects use at beaches, as well as explanations of the
flags (see Figure 5-3). These projects' Web sites also provide access (via static tables or online query) to his-
torical data for secondary analysis. Clicking on the beach name links the user to the historical water quality
data profile. Summary tables for the 1999 and 2000 data are also available for all sampling sites. In addition,
the Rhode Island Web site provides a list of current beach closures. The Milwaukee/Racine Web site pro-
vides links to static monthly sampling data and to a dynamic query interface through which a user can
generate customized reports.
DATA MANAGEMENT
5-7
-------
Colored flags posted at these boating centers indicate water quality conditions for boaters in the
Charles River Basin.
Watch for Water Quality Flags
Blue flags signal suitable boating conditions. Red flags signal potential health risks associated with
elevated bacteria counts.
Click on the flags at each site for recent water quality data.
HARVARD
CAMBRIDGE
BOSTON
HARBOR
WATERTOWN
BACK BAY
BRIGHTON
BOSTON
Figure 5-3. Colored flag icons used in the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project to indicate
water quality. Source: Charles River Watershed Association (http://www.crwa.org).
5.3.2 FUTURE WEB SITE GOALS
Developing a data management system is often an iterative process, in which a program begins with a rela-
tively simple system and then enhances the system as program goals and technologies evolve. Taking this
approach allows the program to get started in a reasonable time frame and to further improve service to the
public over time. All three case study projects plan future enhancements to their Web sites, including:
• Two of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project partners (the MWRA and MDC) plan
to provide a tool for predicting water quality (see Chapter 4) based on rain gauge data. This, they
believe, will help them better educate the public about water quality issues and provide data on a more
real-time basis.
• The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project intends to survey its Web audience to determine how to
enhance its Web site, with the aim of giving the public a better context for understanding water qual-
ity information. Project staff expect to add more static maps and, possibly, customized dynamic CIS
mapping capabilities.
• The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project plans to include additional beaches on the Web site as
funding becomes available to test the beaches and post the data. Recent enhancements to data input
forms will facilitate smooth integration of additional water quality data.
For more information about the future goals of these projects, please visit their Web sites (listed in Table 5-2).
5-8
Chapter 5
-------
IBLIC NDTIFICAT ISK
COMMUNICATION FOR BEACH/
RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY
6.1 INTRODUCTION
One key purpose of a water quality monitoring program is to notify swimmers, boaters, water skiers, fisher-
men, and other recreational water users of any potential health risks associated with the water at a particular
place and time. Once water samples are collected and analyzed and results are compiled (as discussed in
Chapters 4 and 5), a system must be in place to quickly communicate the results to the public so that peo-
ple can make informed decisions about whether to use a particular beach or other recreational water area on
a specific day.4
A number of municipalities and organizations have developed effective public notification programs for
recreational water quality. This chapter presents the general types of information that need to be communi-
cated to the public (Section 6.2), key methods used in selected public notification programs for beaches and
other recreational waters (Section 6.3; use of the Internet is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5), addi-
tional types of public notification and outreach methods (Section 6.4), and step-by-step information on
how to develop an outreach plan for public notification (Section 6.5).
Z TYPES OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNICATE TO
THE PUBLIC
Agencies and organizations that monitor recreational waters typically need to present one or more kinds of
information to the members of the public who use those waters, including:
• Public health information. Providing information about the potential public health risks of using
beaches and other recreational water areas is a key goal of any recreational water quality monitoring
agency or organization. Public health information should include an indication of the level of risks
associated with using (e.g., swimming, boating, or fishing in) the waters and a description of associated
potential health effects.
• Monitoring information. It is important that water quality monitoring programs clearly convey the
significance of their monitoring results to the public. This means presenting a clear and simple indica-
tion of current water quality and providing additional details for persons interested in more
information.
• Pollution prevention information. Monitoring agencies and organizations can provide information on
pollution prevention while providing public health information and water quality monitoring results.
Pollution prevention information often includes information on how pollutants enter the water and
what individuals and businesses can do to prevent or reduce this pollution.
• Self-promotional information. Members of the public cannot benefit from an information service if
they do not know it exists. Therefore, a water quality monitoring organization must advertise its serv-
ices to the public so that they will think to consult the organization when they have questions about
water quality.
This handbook reflects lessons learned primarily through three EMPACT projects initiated prior to the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000 and
the publication of National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (U.S. EPA, 2002). Some of the practices described in
these projects may not be consistent with current regulatory requirements and guidance. For updated regulatory and guidance information, see
Section 1.2.
PUBLIC NDTIFICATIDN FDR WATER QUALITY 6-1
-------
6.3 KEY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION METHODS FOR
BEACH/RECREATIONAL WATERS
There are many ways to inform the public about recreational water quality. A number of beach and other
recreational water monitoring programs, including the three case study projects presented in this handbook
(the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor, the upper Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, and
Milwaukee/Racine projects) have found certain methods to be particularly successful for public notification
purposes, including warning flags, signs, hotlines, Web sites, and the media, as described below.
6.3.1 WARNING FLAGS
The use of warning flags involves the posting at strategic locations of different-colored flags reflecting differ-
ent levels of health risk. For example, both the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project and the
Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project use flags to give the public a highly visible indication of recre-
ational water quality. Boat houses along the lower Charles River in Boston and surrounding communities
are marked with red flags when fecal coliform levels exceed 1,000 CPU/100 ml. Beaches along the Boston
Harbor are marked with red flags when enterococci levels exceed 104 CPU/100 ml. At other times, when
water quality meets boating or swimming standards set by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, the river and harbor are marked with blue flags to indicate suitable conditions for these recre-
ational pursuits.
Health Risk Communication: Effective Methods
Health risk communication. An educational brochure gives river users the following risk
communication message about "red flag" days:
"While it is always a good idea to wash after being on the river, it is particularly important on
red flag days. Some boaters choose to stay off the river on red flag days because elevated
bacterial levels pose a health risk."
Watch for Water Quality Flags, Charles River Watershed Association
Effective methods. Boston's Metropolitan District Commission drew the following conclusions about
which public notification tools were the most valuable:
"...it seems that the best medium for informing the public has been the flagging and web site.
For example, prior to the flagging project many people visiting Wollaston Beach believed that
the Beach was permanently closed for swimming [due] to pollution. Now beach goers look for
the flags to see if it is safe to swim. Although there are more red flag days than we would like,
at least the public is informed about the conditions. As evidence of the public's cognizance of
the postings, we haven't had a reported illness as related to the water conditions in several
years of which we know."
2000 Final EMPACT Report, Metropolitan District Commission
6-2
CHAPTER 6
-------
0»Firttwn 4f
ING ADV1SIJHY
N4TMCK1N
6.3.2 BEACH SIGNS
All three of the case study projects found beach signs to be
useful for notifying the public of potential health concerns at
specific beaches. The Milwaukee/Racine project designed
special advisory signs with changeable panels that made it
possible to update the current date and list water quality as
good or poor. ("Good" means that the previous day's E. coli
levels were lower than 235 CPU/ 100 ml. "Poor" means that
the previous day's E. coli levels were higher than 235
CPU/ 100 ml if a recent rainfall occurred, or were higher
than 500 CPU/ 100 ml if no recent rainfall occurred.)
During the summer beach season, the signs are posted at
eye level on the backs of lifeguard stands. The Charles River
Basin/Boston Harbor and Rhode Island projects use signs
to explain their colored flags: the signs explain that red flags indicate poor water quality and blue flags indi-
cate good water quality. If your program is considering using water quality/health risk signs, think about
providing them in more than one language — Spanish as well as English, for example. Other languages may
be valuable as well, especially if your site is near communities where those languages are spoken.
6.3.3 TELEPHONE HOTLINE
All three case study projects also use telephone hot-
lines that allow persons without Internet access to
obtain timely information about local beaches (e.g.,
about beach closures). Some beach information hot-
lines are operational only during the beach season.
The Milwaukee/Racine project advertises its bilingual
rr 1- u/c • u\ u 1- r • • t J
(English/Spanish) hotline on television and postcards
(see right). The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor
and Rhode Island projects advertise their hotlines in
brochures, Web sites, and newspapers.
- mfcnnBiion
telephone. Ml <4U|»0-24$0
6.3.4 PROJECT WEB SITE
Increasingly, beach and recreational water quality monitoring programs are maintaining Web sites as part of
their overall public notification and outreach strategies. All three case study projects provide timely informa-
tion on water quality conditions at monitored locations on their Web sites (as discussed in Chapter 5,
Section 5.3). This kind of online information allows people who are interested in swimming, boating, or
other water activities to find out if a particular area is closed or poses a potential health risk before actually
going there. In addition to water quality results, some beach Web sites include:
• Technical information about how water quality evaluations are conducted.
• Educational information about how the public can prevent future pollution of recreational waters.
• Links to related Internet resources.
• An option for the user to provide feedback to the Web site developers.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FDR WATER QUALITY
6-3
-------
6.3.5 NEWS MEDIA
The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor project and the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project both have
extensive experience working with local news media to promote their programs and distribute time-relevant
recreational water quality information. For example, the CRWA, one of the partners in the Charles River
Basin/Boston Harbor project, was able to get a local television station to broadcast information about the
Charles River's water quality on its noon weather forecast and a local newspaper to report this information
once a week. The Milwaukee/Racine project educated the public about its services in the news coverage it
obtained on local television stations. This project also garnered attention from the news media by sending
out frequent press releases and sending daily faxes to media representatives. The Rhode Island Department
of Health has developed a standard operating procedure for distributing press releases on beach
closings/openings; press releases can be faxed out minutes after the decision is made to close or reopen a
beach area.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND
OUTREACH METHODS
In addition to using warning flags, signs, telephone hotlines, Web sites, and the media for public notifica-
tion (as discussed in Section 6.3), the Boston Harbor/Charles River, Milwaukee/Racine, and Rhode Island
projects all have used a variety of other mechanisms. Table 6-1 summarizes these additional public notifica-
tion and outreach methods (those methods used by all three projects are emphasized with shading). The
public notification and outreach initiatives listed in Table 6-1 are discussed below, except for those already
discussed as key methods in Section 6.3.
TABLE 6- 1
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND OUTREACH INITIATIVES
USED BY THE THREE CASE STUDY PROJECTS
Charles River Basin/ Milwaukee/Racine Rhode Island Beach
Boston Harbor Project Beachhealth Project Monitoring Project
Advertising and promotional items
Annual water quality "Report Card"
Beach signs
Printed fact sheets/brochures
School curriculum materials/teacher training
Kiosks/information booths
News media
Project Web site
Special public events
Telephone hotline
Visits to local industries/dischargers
Volunteer program
Warning flags
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
6-4
CHAPTER 6
-------
Advertising and promotional items. The case study projects use a variety of techniques borrowed from com-
mercial advertising, including the distribution of promotional "novelty" items, to increase people's awareness
of the program. The Rhode Island Beach Monitoring Project hands out business cards with the address of its
Web site to beachgoers on weekends. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor project distributes water bot-
tles that display the different-colored flags used to identify whether beaches meet boating and swimming
standards. The Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project advertised its program on the backs of buses, using
bright colors and engaging visuals including cartoon images of children of different ethnic backgrounds
playing on the beach with a cityscape in the background; the headline read, "Check out beach water quali-
ties," with a hotline phone number and a Web address prominently displayed. The University of
Wisconsin-Extension's Infosource, a resource that assists nonprofit organizations with public outreach,
places similar ads at no cost to the Beachhealth program.
Annual "Water Quality Report Card"
Each year on Earth Day, the Charles River Watershed Association (a partner in the Charles River
Basin/Boston Harbor Beaches Project) publishes a "report card" that serves as a focal point for media
interest. The "grades" (A, B, C, D, and F) are based on the percentage of days on which the lower
Charles River was fishable and swimmable during the preceding year and a comparison of bacteria
levels to swimming and boating standards. Three letter grades are assigned: one for wet weather, one
for dry weather, and one for overall conditions. The grades help provide an indication of the progress
being made in river and harbor water quality conditions toward the goal of having these waters be
fishable and swimmable by the year 2005.
Fact sheets and brochures. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Project and the Milwaukee/Racine
Beachhealth project have developed educational brochures and fact sheets as part of their public education
efforts. Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth, for example, publishes two brochures to educate the public about
pollution prevention efforts. One brochure, It's All Connected, describes the migration pathways of surface
water, drinking water, and wastewater. It also discusses sources of pollution and how target areas are affected.
The other brochure, Simple Solution to Water Pollution: Making Your Home a Pollution Free Zone, describes
how to improve water quality in urban environments. Both of these brochures have been posted on the pro-
ject's Web site and distributed at festivals and expositions.
School activities and teacher training. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor project has worked
with the Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/urbaneco/) to develop
a high-school curriculum based on the work that the CRWA is conducting in the lower Charles River. The
curriculum, intended for high schools near this geographic area, teaches basic watershed science and biology
and involves tracking the recovery of the Charles River using specially designed field studies that monitor
plant and animal activity. The Marine Programs project at the University of Rhode Island plans to sponsor
an institute for 20 teachers (http://omp.gso. uri. edu). Any teacher from the communities of Rhode Island and
Massachusetts that
surround Narragansett Bay will be eligible to apply. The teacher institute will focus on a wide range of
environmental, historical, cultural, and economic factors affecting local health and the urban coastal envi-
ronment. Institute products will include materials for incorporation into the project Web site, activity kits
for hands-on use in the classroom, and related resource materials. The Milwaukee/Racine project has also
conducted teacher training.
PUBLIC NDTIFICATIDN FDR WATER QUALITY
6-5
-------
Kiosks and information booths. The MDC, one of the Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Project partners,
set up several kiosks on the beaches of Boston Harbor. Each kiosk contains information about water quality
monitoring in seven languages: English, Haitian, Spanish, Portugese, Italian, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The
Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project also used information booths—project staff set them up at several
Milwaukee festivals, where they handed out brochures and fact sheets.
Special public events. The Charles River Basin/Boston Harbor Project, in collaboration with a local radio
station, sponsored a series of "Back to the Beach" parties in 1998, 1999, and 2000. The events were
intended to promote use of local beaches by neighbors and visitors to Boston Harbor. At each event, infor-
mation on water quality conditions, the flagging system, and online resources was provided to the public.
Volunteer programs. In 1999, the Milwaukee/Racine Beachhealth project collaborated with community
environmental educational organizations to create a near-shore volunteer monitoring program. Nearly 50
high-school volunteers tested water quality at 13 different sites throughout the summer. Students gained
experience with scientific methods and learned about different kinds of field test kits, different sources of
Lake Michigan's pollution, and how rain can alter water quality. This program is being continued on a
limited basis.
DEVELC JTREACH PLAN FDR IBLIC
NOTIFICATION
Outreach to the public is a key component of public notification, as discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3
above. It is important to define your outreach goals before you develop any outreach activities. It is useful to
develop clear, simple, action-oriented statements about what you hope to accomplish through outreach.
Once you have established your goals, every other element of the outreach plan should relate to those goals.
Answering the following questions can be helpful:
• Who do you want to reach? (Step 1)
• What questions need to be answered? (Step 2)
• What are the most effective ways to reach your audience? (Step 3)
These and additional questions are addressed in more detail below. Developing an outreach plan that
addresses these questions helps to ensure that the message of your public notification program is the right
one and that it reaches its intended audience.
Lifeguards and Risk Communication
In addition to the more typical outreach activities described in this section, the training of lifeguards in
risk communication can be an important part of your outreach program. Lifeguards have a unique and
important role in communicating with swimmers and other users of recreational waters and can help
provide water quality and health risk information quickly to beachgoers.
An outreach plan provides a blueprint for action and does not have to be lengthy or complicated.
An outreach plan is most effective when a variety of stakeholders and people with relevant expertise are
involved in its development, such as:
• A communications specialist or someone who has experience in developing and implementing an
outreach plan.
• Technical experts in the subject matter (both scientific and policy).
6-6
CHAPTER 6
-------
• People who represent the target audience (i.e., the people or groups you want to reach).
• Key individuals who will be involved in implementing the outreach plan, such as beach managers and
local health departments.
As you develop your outreach plan, consider inviting other organizations to work cooperatively with you to
develop, plan, and implement the outreach effort. Potential partners may include shoreline owner associa-
tions, local businesses, environmental organizations, schools, boating or fishing associations, local planning
and zoning authorities, and other local or state agencies. Partners can participate in the planning, develop-
ment, or review of outreach materials, as well as distribution. Partnerships can be valuable mechanisms for
leveraging resources as well as enhancing the quality, credibility, and success of outreach efforts.
Developing an outreach plan is a creative and iterative process involving a number of interrelated steps,
as described below. As you move through each of these steps, you might want to revisit and refine the
decisions you made in earlier steps until you have an integrated, comprehensive, and achievable plan.
6.5. 1 STEP 1 : WHD DD YDU WANT TD REACH?
6.5. 1. 1 IDENTIFYING YOUR AUDIENCE(S)
After you identify your goals and put together a development team for your outreach plan, as described
above, the next step is to clearly identify the target audience or audiences for your outreach efforts. Outreach
goals often define the target audiences. You might want to refine and add to your goals after you have specif-
ically considered which audiences you want to reach.
Your primary audience for public notification and outreach will be users of your beaches and other recre-
ational waters, including swimmers, boaters, water skiers, fishermen, and others. You must reach these
people to achieve your goals of public health protection and notification. Your secondary audience might
include local decision-makers, landowners, businesses, schools, and other members of the general public who
may use the beaches and other recreational waters. Some audiences, such as educators and certain organiza-
tions (e.g., fishing and boating clubs), may be willing to help disseminate information to other audiences
you have identified, such as the general public.
Consider whether you should divide "the public" into two or more audience categories. For example, will
you be providing different information to certain groups, such as citizens and businesses? Does a significant
portion of the public you are trying to reach have a different cultural or language background from other
members? If so, it may be most effective to consider these groups as separate audiences.
6.5. 1.2 PROFILING YOUR AUDIENCE(S)
Outreach will be most effective if you tailor the content, type, and distribution of outreach products to your
target audiences. This tailoring can be accomplished by developing profiles of your audiences' situations,
interests, and concerns. Such profiles will help you identify the most effective ways of reaching the audience.
For each target audience, consider:
• What is their current level of knowledge about recreational water quality?
• What do you want them to know about recreational water quality, and what actions would you like
them to take?
• What information is likely to be of greatest interest to them?
• How much time are they likely to give to receiving and assimilating the information?
• How do they generally receive information?
• What professional, recreational, and domestic activities do they typically engage in that might provide
avenues for distributing outreach products? Are there any organizations or centers that represent or
serve them and might be avenues for disseminating your outreach products?
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FDR WATER QUALITY 6-7
-------
Profiling an audience essentially involves putting yourself in your audience's shoes. Ways to do this include
consulting with individuals and organizations that represent or are members of the audience, consulting
with colleagues who have successfully developed other outreach products for the audience, and using your
imagination.
6.5.2 STEP 2: WHAT QUESTIONS NEED TD BE ANSWERED?
The second step in outreach planning is to think about what you want to communicate by identifying
the questions that your target audience wants answered. One possible way to identify such questions is to
distribute a beach/recreational water user survey, if resources are available. For example, a key question that
users probably want answered is:
"Is it safe to swim here today?"
Think about the key points, or "messages," you want to communicate. Messages are the "bottom-line"
information you want your audience to walk away with, even if they forget the details. Outreach products
often have multiple related messages. You may have different messages for different audiences.
6.5.3 STEP 3: WHAT ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS TD
REACH YDUR AUDIENCE?
The next step in developing an outreach plan is to consider what types of outreach product will best reach
each target audience. There are many types of useful outreach products: print, audiovisual, electronic, and
novelty items, as well as events, as shown in Table 6-2.
The audience profile information you have already assembled will help you select appropriate outreach
products. A communications professional can provide valuable guidance in choosing the most appropriate
products to meet your goals within your resource and time constraints. Questions to consider when
selecting outreach products include:
• When does your audience need the information to make a timely decision on whether to use a
particular beach or other recreational water area?
• What and how much information does your audience really need to know? (The simplest, most
straightforward product generally is most effective.)
• Is the product likely to appeal to the target audience? Is the audience likely to take the time to read,
view, attend, or purchase the product?
• How easy and cost-effective will the product be to distribute or, in the case of an event, organize?
• What time frame is needed to develop and distribute the product?
• How much will it cost to develop the product? Do you have access to the resources needed for
development?
• What related products are already available? Can you build on existing products?
• How newsworthy is the information? Information with inherent news value may be rapidly and
widely disseminated by the media.
s-s CHAPTER 6
-------
TABLE 6-2. EXAMPLES OF OUTREACH PRODUCTS
Print Items
Daily newspaper notices
Press releases
Audiovisual Items
Exhibits and kiosks (with risk information
changed daily or near-daily as needed)
Cable television programs (if airing is timely)
Radio public service announcements
(if made on a daily or near-daily basis)
Electronic Items
(Assuming that your
audience has access to
and uses these products
daily or near-daily)
E-mail messages
Subscriber list servers
Web pages
Events
Print
(Timely) press conferences
For Your Secondary Audience (less "time-relevant" methods)
Brochures
Editorials
Educational curricula
Fact sheets
Newsletters
Newspaper and magazine articles
Posters
Press releases
Question-and-answer sheets
Utility bill inserts or stuffers
Audiovisual
Cable television programs
Videos
Events
Briefings
Community days
Fairs and festivals
Media interviews
One-on-one meetings
Press conferences
Public meetings
Speeches
Novelty Items
Banners
Bumper stickers
Buttons
Coloring books
Floating key chains for boaters
Frisbee™ discs
Magnets
Mouse pads
6.5.4 STEP 4: HDW WILL YDUR OUTREACH PRODUCTS REACH
YOUR AUDIENCE?
Effective distribution is essential to the success of an outreach strategy. There are many avenues for
distribution, including those listed in Table 6-3.
Consider how each product will be distributed and determine who will be responsible for distribution. For
some products, your organization might manage distribution. For others, you might rely on intermediaries
(such as the media or educators) or organizational partners that are willing to participate in the outreach
effort. Consult an experienced communications professional to obtain information about the resources
and time required for the various distribution options. Some points to consider in selecting distribution
channels include:
• How does the audience typically receive information?
• What distribution mechanisms has your organization used in the past for this audience? Were these
mechanisms effective?
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FDR WATER QUALITY
6-9
-------
• Can you identify any partner organizations that might be willing to assist in the distribution?
• Can the media play a role in distribution?
• Will the mechanism you are considering really reach the intended audience? For example, the Internet
can be an effective distribution mechanism, but certain groups may have limited access to it.
• Are sufficient resources available to fund and implement distribution via the mechanisms of interest?
TABLE 6-3. EXAMPLES OF DISTRIBUTION METHODS
For Your Primary Audience (e.g., beach/recreational
water users)
Phone (including hotline)/fax
E-mail (assuming that your audience has access)
Web site (if timely updates are possible and your
audience has access)
TV/radio (if information can be aired timely)
Print media (for daily beach conditions, and for less
timely information, e.g., pollution prevention education)
For Your Secondary Audience
Mailing lists (yours and those of partner organizations)
Journals or newsletters of partner organizations
TV and radio (for less time-dependent messages)
Print media
Hotline that distributes products upon request
Meetings, events, or locations (e.g., libraries, schools,
marinas, public beaches, tackle shops, and sailing clubs)
where products are made available
6.5.5 STEP 5: WHAT FDLLDW-UP MECHANISMS WILL YDU
ESTABLISH?
Successful outreach may generate requests for further information or concern about issues of which you
have made the audience aware. Consider whether and how you will handle this interest. The following
questions can help you develop this part of your strategy:
• What types of reaction or concern are audience members likely to have in response to the outreach
information?
• Who will handle requests for additional information?
• Do you want to indicate on the outreach product where people can obtain further information
(e.g., provide a contact name, number, or address)?
6.5.6 STEP 6: WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FDR IMPLEMENTATION?
Once you have decided on your goals, messages, audiences, products, and distribution channels, you will
need to develop an implementation schedule. For each product, consider how much time will be needed
for development and distribution. Be sure to factor in enough time for product review. Wherever possible,
build in time for testing and evaluation by members or representatives of the target audience in focus
groups or individual sessions so that you can get feedback on whether you have effectively targeted your
material for your audience.
6-1 D
CHAPTER 6
-------
REFERENCES
Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and A.D. Eaton, eds. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. 20th edition. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, and Water Environment Federation.
Rhode Island Department of Health. 2001. Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) EMPACT
Program beach monitoring procedures and protocols for sampling and data management: Revision number
1, May 13, 2000. In: Bacterial water quality monitoring at upper Narragansett Bay bathing beaches, an
EMPACT project, final report, appendix 4. May 2001.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria—1986. EPA/440/5-84/002. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1998. EPA guidance for quality assurance project plans. EPA/600/R-98/018. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1999. EPA action plan for beaches and recreational waters. EPA/600/R-98/079. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2002. National beach guidance and required performance criteria for grants. EPA/823/B-02/004.
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA Region 1 and Metropolitan District Commission. 1998. Boston Harbor Monitoring: Testing
Enterococcus Method 1600. Revision No. 2, July 23.
-------
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE BEACH SURVEY
Name of Beach:
Bathing Beach Survey
Date: Time of Day:
Weather Conditions:
Sunny & Clear
Cloudy/Overcast _
Rainy
Foggy
Water Temp:
Windy_
Tidal Flow:
Slow Moderate
Activity on Beach:
Approximate # of people
Sunbathing Fish
Conditions of the Beach:
Overall Appearance:
Low tide
Adults
ing Boating
Children
Walking
Swimming
Other activity
Debris on shore:
Debris in water:
Vegetation in water: 12345
<25% 25% 50% 75% 100% cover
Vegetation in shore: 12345
<25% 25% 50% 75% 100% cover in 1 meter quadrat
Width of wrack on shore (in meters)
Visible Sewage or Sewage Odor
Storrnwater pipes or other flows across beach
Conditions of Water:
Clear: Cloudy & Murky:
Oily Film:
Sources of Pollution:
Water fowl Approximate #—Seagulls
Approximate # of boats:
Wind and Weather Conditions:
Ducks
Geese
Swans _
Additional Comments:
Source: Rhode Island Department of Health; EPA Region 1
-------
APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES OF SELECTED SAMPLE
COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Example 1:
Field Sampling Procedures
The sampler will stand in the water and collect a sample from a minimum of 3 feet of water, adjacent to,
but not impacted by, moderate swimmer activity and in an undisturbed area of water. The sample will be
taken at least one foot above the bottom. The sampler will stand away from and "downstream from" the
bottle.
• Fill pre-labeled, sterile, screw-capped 250 ml Nalgene bottles to 90% capacity.
• Place samples in iced cooler (4°C).
• Maximum holding time: 6 hours (for fecal coliform, enterococci).
• Delivery to the [certified] laboratory within one hour of completion.
Source: U.S. EPA Region 1 and Metropolitan District Commission, 1998
Example 2:
Procedure for Collection of Bathing Beach Water Samples for Bacteriological Analysis
Arrangements with Laboratory: Testing must be performed by laboratories that are licensed by the RIDOH
for bacteriological testing of water. Because samples must be collected in sterile bottles and because the labo-
ratory may have special requirements for submissions of samples, be sure to contact the laboratory that will
be analyzing the samples prior to collection. The samples must be kept in an iced cooler and must be tested
... following the procedures in the Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater...
Source: Rhode Island Department of Health, 2001
-------
------- |