&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
NATIONAL BEACH GUIDANCE AND REQUIRED
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR GRANTS, 2014 EDITION
EPA's Response to Comments Received on the April 2014 Draft
RUNOFF/STORMDRAIN WATER MAY CAUSE ILLNESS
AVOID CONTACT WITH RUNOFF AND AREA OF DISCHARGE
ESPECIALLY FOR 72 HOURS FOLLOWING RAiHFALL
C1PRIENTE DE AGUA/AGUA DEL DRENAJE T
TORMENTA PUEDE CAUSAR ENFERMEOAOl
EVITE CONTACTO CON AGUA DE OESAGUE V EL , 1EA
OONDE OESEWBOCA ESPECIALMENTE DLRANTI
SIGUIENTES 72 HORAS ?ESPUFS Of LA LLl'
•,W w
JULY 2014
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-01.1
Maryland Department
of the Environment
(MDE)
RWQC
Current criteria as protective as 2012 criteria as it is applied in Maryland
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
1-01.2
MDE
1.1.1
Sanitary surveys
Maryland has used sanitary surveys and required beach managers to use
sanitary surveys since 2000 and at most beaches since prior to adoption o:
the 1986 RWQC. Maryland supports the encouraged use of this effective
tool since it can be used to mitigate and eliminate pollution sources
impacting beach water quality.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.3
MDE
1.1.1
Modeling
Predictive models have not worked in Maryland - for several years, MDE
worked with NOAA to develop a predictive model, however it was
unsuccessful because our waters are too "clean". There are very few
excursions of the Single Sample Maximum or Geometric mean.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.4
MDE
1.1.1
Public
Notification
Maryland has already improved notifications. This summer, MDE is
launching a Beach Application for smart phone users.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.5
MDE
1.1.1
Methods
In Maryland there is no case to be made for rapid, real time data since out
beaches have few or no excursions. Extended advisories (more than a
couple days) are mostly due to staff resources and not being able to return
frequently for additional samples.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.6
MDE
1.1.1
Methods
Maryland has ALWAYS emphasized mitigating pollution sources
impacting beach water quality as the BEST tool for protecting public
health-additional and more rapid testing does not improve water quality
or protect public health.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.7
MDE
1.1.1
RWQC
EPA's "large scale epidemiological studies" have never linked illness
DIRECTLY to water contact, rather have relied on interview surveys of
beach goers; EPA's FIB relationship to illness was mostly tested and had
the best fit at beaches impacted by point sources or storm water outfalls
from combined sewers. Use of the BAV should not be applicable in
Maryland where significant resources have gone into preventing untreatec
sewage from reaching our beaches and waterways in the first place (i.e.;
24-hour holding, back-up power, system redundancy at sewage treatmenl
plants and sewage pumping stations).
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
Chapter 1 page 1 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-01.8
MDE
1.1.1
Data
BEACON provides repetitive and often incorrect data. Maryland has the
same information via www.marylandhealthybeaches.com; BEACON
assumes that an excursion equates to a pollution source, and does not
account for the extreme variability of FIB in the absence of a pollution
source. Is wildlife considered a "pollution source"? Currently Maryland
applies the same "weight" to beach monitoring results regardless of the
fecal source and also recognizes that excursions cannot always be linked
to a pollution source that can be "corrected". It is frustrating that
discussions surrounding the use of FIB tend to disregard assumptions and
short comings of enterococcus and E. coli as indicators.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants.
1-01.9
MDE
1.3
RWQC
Monitoring results for FIB is a presence absence test and does not provide
data related to the amount of feces present or "degree" of contamination
or the source of the contamination. In addition, there is an assumption
that FIB is distributed evenly. Does EPA have data to support this? The
numerical criteria are related to illness rate to swimmers in sewage
contaminated waters!
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
1-01.10
MDE
RWQC
This section suggests thatthe 2012 criteria were largely influenced by the
use of qPCR from only two beaches\beaches impacted by treated sewage.
No information was provided on the type of treatment related to
disinfected sewage or type of disinfection, other than secondary
treatment. More studies are needed to show how the level of sewage
treatment effects pathogen and virus removal. Use of qPCR measures
viable and non-viable FIB. These studies do not help to inform or make a
case for Maryland to adopt the 2012 criteria since Maryland's sewage
treatment facilities have at least secondary treatment, no beaches are
impacted by treatment plant outfalls, and any plants greater than .5 MOD
have enhanced treatment, which include sand filters and UV disinfection
greatly reducing the risk of viral survival in the effluent.
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
1-01.11
MDE
1.5.1
RWQC
This section states that the 2012 criteria offer similar protection as the
1986 criteria. In Maryland, our data show that the public health
protection is the same. Maryland's current criteria provide for the
protection of the recreational use. Furthermore, since the SSM is applied
at only two confidence levels, the current criteria offer the same
protection as the 2012 criteria.
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
Chapter 1 page 2 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-01.12
MDE
1.5.1
BAY
The BAV is an extension of a statistical value and is ASSUMED to
provide additional protection, not based on scientific studies, but based
on statistics. Since the BAV is an optional, precautionary, conservative,
do-not-exceed value, and is not component of the recommended criteria,
it should not be a grant requirement. This cannot be explained to the
public since there is no scientific evidence to show that the public is not
as protected using the current criteria
The 2012 RWQC document discusses EPA's water quality criteria
recommendations for all recreational waters. The beach guidance,
however, contains requirements that are applicable only to coastal
recreation waters in states and tribes receiving beach grants as well as
recommendations applicable to all waters. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to: adopt new or revised recreational
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
In order to provide flexibility to states and tribes, EPA decided not to
require immediate use of a specific beach threshold. While EPA expects
that states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
EPA may attach conditions to grants so long as those conditions
reasonably further the purpose of the authorizing statute. See Shanty
Town Associates Ltd. Partnership v. EPA, 843 F.2d 782 (4th Cir. 1988).
EPA's requirement that BEACH grant recipients submit a schedule for
the adoption of new or revised water quality standards furthers the
purpose of CWA Section 303(i)(l)(B), which directs States with coastal
recreation waters to adopt and submit to EPA new or revised water
quality standards for those waters for all pathogens and pathogen
indicators to which EPA's 2012 RWQC are applicable. See 33 U.S.C.
1313(i)(l)(B). EPA's requirement that grant recipients use a beach
notification value is directly based on the BEACH Act's purpose of
providing for "the prompt notification of the public ... of any exceeding
or likely exceeding applicable water quality standards for coastal
recreation waters." See 33 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(l)(B), (b)(l).
Chapter 1 page 3 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-01.13
MDE
1.5.1
BAY
Since Maryland already does sanitary surveys annually at all beaches and
any sources observed are mitigated immediately, use of the BAV could
not possibly provide additional public health protection since, in
Maryland, we maximize our current resources to eliminate pollution. Use
of BAV in Maryland would only fuel public frustration over an
exceedance where no human or animal source of pollution exists. The
Chesapeake Bay is a shallow and wind driven system. Sediments re-
suspended by wind and waves can cause elevated bacteria levels not
associated with potential or actual pathogens (Page 9 lines!6-24).
Maryland's use of the current criteria is already precautionary,
conservative, and provides a do-not-exceed value that the public
understands.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.14
MDE
1.5.1
BAV
The only basis for the requirement to use the BAV is consistency which is
already achieved using the current criteria or choosing STV in the 2012
criteria. No data was provided to show if and by how much additional
protection use of the BAV provides, nor was the BAV a consideration in
the draft criteria document, but was added to the final criteria document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.15
MDE
1.5.1
BAV
Having a consistent trigger implies that the United States has consistent
water conditions. This is not true—some states struggle with waters
impacted by human waste while others need criteria suitable for storm
water/non-point source impacted waters. Instead of lowering the
threshold across the nation using a criteria that isn't appropriate for
waters not impacted with human waste, EPA should 1) place more
emphasis on sanitary surveys in order to prevent contamination and
exposure to the public, and 2) develop a criteria that is appropriate for
non-point source impacted waters.
(1) EPA recognizes the importance of sanitary surveys in identifying
sources impacting beaches and has placed particular emphasis on this tool
in the 2012 RWQC document (see section 6.1.1) and in the Beach
Guidance (see Section 3.4.1).
(2) In the 2012 RWQC, EPA provides states with the flexibility to
develop alternative or site-specific criteria to reflect local environmental
conditions and human exposure patterns (see Section 6.2 in EPA-820-F-
12-058, Recreational Water Quality Criteria).
Since no Maryland beaches are contaminated by sewage, untreated or
otherwise, use of qPCR and rapid notification does not provide additional
public health protection to swimmers in Maryland.
1-01.16
MDE
1.5.1
Methods
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-01.17
MDE
1.5.2
BAV
A requirement that states accepting the Beach Grant money MUST use
the BAV negates any opportunities to use alternative fecal indicators or
methods, including development of site specific thresholds utilizing
QMRA for making beach management decisions.
Use of the BAV does not preclude the use of other tools discussed in the
criteria document. States still have the flexibility to develop alternative or
site-specific criteria for waters in their states. See section 6.2 in the 2012
Recreational Water Quality Criteria document for additional information
and guidance.
Chapter 1 page 4 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-02
North Carolina
Department of the
Environment and
Natural Resources
(DENR)
1.2
BAY
The EPA is aware that viruses make up the majority of the recreational
waterborne illnesses sqt ;s doubtful that using a bacterial indicator with
the more stringent BAV criteria will increase protection of public health.
It will just lead to more swimming advisories and unnecessary public
notification.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.1
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
(DNREC)
1.1.1
Sanitary surveys
Delaware implemented beach sanitary surveys into the beach monitoring
program prior to 1986 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) and
the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH)
Act. Delaware has used the beach sanitary survey as an effective tool to
mitigate and eliminate pollution sources impacting water quality since the
early 1980's.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.2
DNREC
1.1.1
Public
Notification
Delaware has maintained state monitoring and notification data and
provides the information to the public in real time. We have always
moved toward improved technologies to better our notifications to the
public.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.3
DNREC
1.1.1
Modeling
Predictive models have been unsuccessful at our beaches because our
waters are too "clean".
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.4
DNREC
1.1.1
Monitoring
Delaware beach monitoring program has emphasized mitigating pollution
sources impacting beach water quality as the best tool we have for
protecting public health.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.5
DNREC
1.1.1
Monitoring
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) epidemiological studies
have all occurred in water impacted by point sources or storm water
outfalls from combined sewers. The large epidemiological studies relied
on interview surveys of beach goers, not actual linked illness to direct
water contact. The fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) relationship to illness
was mostly tested in sewage impacted waters and would be a better fit for
use in impaired waters. In Delaware funding to improve and increase
technology in publicity owned treatment works (POTWs) has prevented
untreated sewage from reaching our beaches and waterways. With
sewage treatment systems that have back-up power, 24 hour holding and
many system redundancies to prevent problems during weather related
episodic events and infrasturce failures. All outfalls are monitored by a
variety of state and local entities on daily, weekly and monthly intervals
to meet the Clean Water Act.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 1 page 5 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-03.6
DNREC
1.1.1
Data
The Beach Advisory and Closing Online Notification (BEACON) system
to meet the BEACH Act requirement for EPA to establish and maintain a
publicity available database of pollution occurrences for coastal
recreational waters has always been a problem. For a few reasons, this is
repetitive since DNREC; Office of Information Technology maintains
our website and makes sure the information is accurate. BEACON
usually has the wrong names of beaches, duplicate sites and beaches and
incorrect data. Trying to correct the problem is actually a bigger problem.
We usually just deal with the NRDC staff directly for the report, "Testing
the Waters". This has been a really big problem; the information needs to
be correct.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.7
DNREC
1.3
Data
Can EPA provide data to support that fecal indicator bacteria are
distributed evenly (is this an assumption)? Starting with line 30, the
document states, FIB are bacterial groups or species that are naturally
found in guts of warm-blooded animals, and therefore excreted in high
densities in the feces of warm-blooded animals (including humans).
They provide an estimation of the amount of feces (or degree of
contamination), and indirectly, the presence of fecal pathogen in the
water.
Section 1.3 states that pathogens are often seasonally and geographically
distributed and that FIB are naturally occurring in the gut of warm-
blooded animals and excreted in high densities. Section 1.3, lines 31-33
makes to no mention of FIB being distributed evenly.
1-03.8
DNREC
1.4
RWQC
The Health Concerns section suggest that the 2012 criteria was influencec
by the use of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) from studies
from two beaches impacted by treated sewage. More studies are needed
to demonstrate how the level of disinfection affects pathogens and virus
removal. In Delaware our sewage treatment facilities have secondary
treatment, no beaches are impacted by sewage treatment plant outfalls,
and treatment plant facilities greater than 0.5 MOD have enhanced
treatment, using sand filtration and UV disinfection, greatly reducing the
risk of viral survival in the effluent.
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
1-03.9
DNREC
1.5
RWQC
Delaware beach monitoring program has shown through data that our
public health protection is the same using the 1986 or the 2012 criteria.
Delaware's current criteria provide for the protection of primary contact
recreational use. Evaluating the application of the single sample
maximum (SSM), the current criteria offers the same protection as the
2012 criteria (SSM is applied at only two confidence levels).
This comment pertains to the 2012 recreational water quality criteria and
is beyond the scope of this guidance.
Chapter 1 page 6 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-03.10
DNREC
1.5
BAY
The beach action value (BAV) is based on statistics and not scientific
evidence. The BAV should not be a grant requirement. No data was
provided to show how much additional protection BAV provides.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
1-03.11
DNREC
1.5
Sanitary surveys
Delaware conducts beach sanitary survey weekly at all our guarded
beaches, using our resources and coordination with the beach towns to
eliminate pollution sources.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.12
DNREC
1.5
RWQC
Delaware's marine coastal tidal beaches are influenced by winds and re-
suspended sediments and this can cause elevated bacteria levels not
associated with potential or actual pathogens.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.13
DNREC
1.5
RWQC
We live in a vast country; one size does not fit all. Delaware's coastal
marine beaches are not impacted by human waste or improperly treated
sewage, we would like the EPA to consider placing emphasis on beach
sanitary surveys in order to prevent contamination and exposure to the
public and develop a criteria that could be used for non-point source
impacted marine waters.
(1) EPA recognizes the importance of sanitary surveys in identifying
sources impacting beaches and has placed particular emphasis on this tool
in the 2012 RWQC document (see section 6.1.1) and the in the Beach
Guidance (see Section 3.4.1).
(2) In the 2012 RWQC, EPA provides states with the flexibility to
develop alternative or site-specific criteria to reflect local environmental
conditions and human exposure patterns (see Section 6.2 in EPA-820-F-
12-058, Recreational Water Quality Criteria).
1-03.14
DNREC
1.5
Methods
The use of qPCR and rapid notification does not provide additional public
health protection to primary contact recreation users in Delaware, since
Delaware beaches are not impacted by sewage, untreated or otherwise.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
1-03.15
DNREC
1.5.2
BAV
The BAV requirement will decrease the use of alternative fecal
indicators or methods, including development of site specific thresholds
utilizing quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA).
Use of the BAV does not preclude the use of other tools discussed in the
criteria document. States still have the flexibility to develop alternative or
site-specific criteria for waters in their states.
Chapter 1 page 7 of 8
-------
Chapter 1 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
1-04
Connecticut
Department of Public
Health
RWQC
The Draft guidance document suggests that grant receipients will be
responsible for detecting and assessing levels (concentration) of pathogens
causing swimmer illness and the levels (concentration) of pathogen
indicators.
See footnote 3 in section 1.3 for an explanation of fecal indicators.
1-05
Natural Resources
Defense Council et al.
1.5
BAY
Some language in the draft criteria is unclear and could be interpreted as
establishing the BAV requirement only as an interim measure while states
and tribes are developing new or revised recreational water quality
standards. E.g., on page 12 of the draft, it indicates that it is important to
have a nationally consistent trigger for BEACH Act beach notification
actions until a state or tribe adopts EPA's new or revised water quality
criteria. However, section 4.7.2 provides appropriate clarity that a BAV
still must be used in order to receive federal funding even after a state
standard is developed. The language on page 12 should be clarified to
reflect that it is only the health risk level for the BAV that may vary based
on the state-adpoted standards, and that use of one of the BAVs is still
required for federal funding.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation submitted
to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Connecticut
Department of Energy
and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP)
BAV
The BAV requirement listed on page 12 is inconsistent with the State of
Connecticut Guidelines for Monitoring Bathing Water and Closure
Protocol (Beach Protocols) developed jointly by CT DEEP and the
Connecticut Department of Public Health. While the Beach Protocols
recommend evaluating the single sample exceedance criterion and the
geometric mean criterion, beach closures are generally made based on the
single sample exceedance criterion.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 1 page 8 of 8
-------
Chapter 2 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
2-01
Maryland Department
of the Environment
2.2-2.2.10
Performance
Criteria
Maryland already meets the 10 performance criterion in Table 2-1 on page
18.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
2-02
State of Washington
2.2.2
Tiering
Three new considerations are added to the basis for developing the tiered
monitoring plan. Does this mean each BEACH program must develop
another tiered monitoring program?
A new tiered monitoring program does not need to be developed but shouk
be periodically revisited if there are changes to the program.
2-03
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Performance
Criteria
Delaware's Recreational Water Program meets the 10 performance
criterion in Table 2-1.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
2-04.1
Connecticut
Department of Public
Health (CT DPH)
Performance
Criteria
CT DPH concludes that the Draft guidance and performance criteria will
require a significant staffing commitment for Connecticut - up from one
man-year per grant (or 12 man-months) to 3.8 man-years (or 46 man-
months) per grant. CT DPH anticipates an increase in administrative
overhead for US EPA Region 1.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
2-04.2
CTDPH
2.0
Performance
Criteria
CT DPH anticipates significant challenges associated with implementing a
Beach Grant that is bound by the requirements and performance criteria
proposed in the Draft guidance and performance criteria document.
Perhaps most notably, the Draft requirements and performance criteria are
not scalable to accommodate future uncertain grant funding levels. For
instance, nowhere in the Draft guidance and performance criteria
document is there provision for calibrating these requirements and criteria
to keep them in line with funding.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
2-04.3
CTDPH
Resources
The draft guidance document states that grants will be awarded on the
basis of supplied documentation that will require significant work in
advance of submitting a grant application. The draft guidance and
performance criteria fails to account or allow for the sfaffing resources and
funding needed to develop this required documentation.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
2-04.4
CTDPH
2.0
RWQC
Currently states assess the concentration of indicator bacteria, not because
it indicates the level (concentration) of pathogens causing swimmer illness
but because the concentration of indicator bacteria has been shown by
USEPA to associate with risk of swimmer illness.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 2 page 1 of 2
-------
Chapter 2 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
2-04.5
CTDPH
2.1
RWQC
States are not likely to be in position to assess the concentration of
pathogens or even pathogen indicators in natural recreational waters, for
obvious reasons that include the technical difficulty of sampling for,
culturing and enumerating pathogens associated with swimmer illness.
See footnote 3 in section 1.3 for an explanation of fecal indicators.
2-04.6
CTDPH
2.0
Grants
, shoreline health departments anc Required
The success of Connecticut's Beach Grant program is based on a
collaborative effort between the CT DPH,
the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT
DEEP). If the CT DPH accepts a Beach Grant award under the terms and
conditions set out in the draft guidance and performance criteria document,
both CT DEEP and shoreline health departments will be bound by these
terms and conditions. Given existing jurisdictional and organizational
boundaries, and in light of anticipated funding and changes to the terms
and conditions as stated in the draft guidance and performance criteria
documents, the CT DPH collaborative approach to marine beach
monitoring may be irreparably changed.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
ired Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
EPA does not sufficiently define what qualifies as a "program change" that] Based
would trigger evaluation in section 2.2.10. Additionally, NYC Health
suggests either reevaluating the role or adjusting available grant funds to
account for the burden of public evaluation of beach monitoring and
notification program. The current and proposed grant funding amount is
not sufficient to include full public evaluation of all beach program
changes within the scope of the program.
2-05
New York City
Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
(NYC Health)
2.2.10
Grants
on EPA's review of public comments, EPA clarified that a
"significant" change triggers an evaluation.
Chapter 2 page 2 of 2
-------
Chapter 3 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
3-01.1
Connecticut
Department of
Public Health (CT
DPH)
Prioritize beaches
The Draft guidance states that grant recipients must prioritize how they
will spend their iunding - partly by deciding which beaches to monitor and
which beaches to not monitor. Local health departments and municipalities
are likely to object to this approach based on public health concerns.
This guidance updated the priority-setting process required by CWA
section 406(b)(2)(A)(2)but did not fundamentally change it.
3-02.1
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
(DNREC)
Performance
criteria
Delaware already meets the requirements in Table 3-1.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
3-02.2
DNREC
Sanitary Survey
Delaware's Recreational Water Program uses the beach sanitary survey
tool and has achieved this process at all beaches including those not fundec Required
under the BEACH Act and has developed a List of Beaches. Our beach
sanitary survey work has an added benefit of knowing the history of the
beaches that are enjoyed by the public in Delaware.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document. EPA
supports the continued use of sanitary surveys.
3-03.1
Florida Department of
Health (FL DOH)
3.3
Monitoring
3.3- Request clarification. Is there a limit to beach length? If we sample a
the central access to a 10 mile stretch of uninterrupted sandy, accessible
coastline, is there a federal definition of what part of that beach would be
included in any notification actions issued based on that one sample? Our
grant allows for only 240 monitored sites for over 800 miles of coastline.
See section 4.3.2.1.4 for suggestions.
3-03.2
FLDOH
3.4.1
Prioritize beaches
Request clarification. What is the meaning of the word "potential"?
Based upon recently available news reports, elephants could be a potential grantees identify
source of pollution in some Florida waters. Could you provide a definition and
of what level of potential should be considered when determining potential about relative risk is in the sanitary
sources of fecal pollution? It appears that EPA is moving towards asking
states to expend many times the number of dollars on source and risk
determination work just to be able to determine where to spend thousands
of dollars on monitoring.
Section 3.4.1 includes updated references and information that might help
likely sources of human health risk due to fecal pollution
structure their beach program accordingly. Other new information
survey user guide and EPA's
recreational criteria regarding developing site-specific water quality
standards. However, the level of effort should still be in proportion to
likely risks and available resources from federal and state sources.
3-03.3
FLDOH
3.4.1.1.1
Sanitary surveys
While beneficial, the initial and routine sanitary surveys would add
additional personnel costs that would be impossible to absorb without
additional funding, or without reducing monitoring.
Other states have used sanitary surveys, and the 'routine' sanitary survey in
particular, to provide important information in a cost effective manner. It is
one part of a tiered approach to beach monitoring.
3-03.4
FLDOH
3.5.2
Prioritize beaches
Is there a frame of reference for what EPA considers "high beach usage"?
Is it simply a census count daily use average and then relative binning of
perhaps 1-100, 101-1000, and 1000+daily visitors? Recognize that the
tourism and public opinion qualifiers tend to overrule these calculations.
Based on a review of the public comments, EPA clarified in section 3.4.2
that there is no national definition of "high usage."
Chapter 3 page 1 of 5
-------
Chapter 3 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
3-03.5
FLDOH
3.6
Federal Beaches
Clarification requested. If a beach is located on federal property, and
therefore subject to the restrictions placed on federal grant money being
used on federal property, would it no longer be reported for any BEACH
Act purposes, including being used to create the National List of Beaches?
Based on a review of the public comments, EPA added section 3.7 to
address federal beaches.
3-04.1
Georgia
Department of
Natural Resources
Chap 3
Pollution source
Chapter 3 seems to be missing guidance for determining risk from wildlife
fecal sources. It is not clear how a sanitary survey that only finds wildlife
fecal sources would be useful for assessing risk to human health.
EPA's sanitary surveys, and the associated User Manual, contain more
detailed information about identifying fecal sources. Also, EPA plans to
publish detailed information about conducting a Quantitative Microbial
Risk Assessment (QMRA) as part of its technical support documents for
the Recreational Water Quality Criteria.
3-05.1
Hawaii Department of
Health (HI DOH)
3.4.1.1.1
Sanitary Survey
Although a sanitary survey can be a major undertaking requiring a great
deal of time and resources for most programs, it is a good step to take. This
would be a good tool to use to characterize the existing conditions of the
watershed and any possible contributory factors that may affect water
quality. The information could also be used to review what is working well
in a watershed to produce or maintain good water quality. This would be a
wealth of information that could be used program wide within the Clean
Water Act community.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
3-05.2
HI DOH
3.6
Prioritize beaches
List of beaches, program and non-program. Is the list on non-program
beaches a new requirement? Are these beaches required to have lengths
and boundaries determined, as well as the other required information for
program beaches? I would like more clarification on what a Tier 3 beach
is and what a non-program beach is.
The prioritization of beaches is a BEACH Act requirement and is not new
to the beach guidance. However, the guidance was updated to clarify that
the List of Beaches is an integral part of a state's program, and the basis foi
EPA's national "List of Beaches." See section 3.6 for an updated
discussion of program and nonprogram beaches.
3-05.3
HI DOH
3.6.1 and
3.6.2
Prioritize beaches
The List of Beaches must be a living document as status of beaches
changes as more information is gathered or as conditions change. It seems
EPA is leaving the word "significant" in to allow states the leeway to
decide whether public comment is required. At this level of decision-
making, public comment may be problematic. Why? There are numerous
groups and individuals that feel the area that they frequent or study should
have high priority. They have vested interest in the areas and often have a
narrow view of the overall monitoring goals. Soliciting information about
areas is a better way to make decisions regarding tiering beaches. The term
the "squeaky Wheel" gets the oil should not apply to development of a
sampling plan. The state program should have already acquired the
necessary information prior to tiering the beaches to make sound informed
decisions, all of which is already required to be public information.
Soliciting public comment will add another layer of review that will bog
down the implementation of the monitoring and waste valuable time and
resources.
As reflected in 3.6.2, EPA agrees that the List of Beaches is intended to be
a "living document." As explained in 3.6 and Chapter 4, the List is linked
to a "tiered" monitoring and notification program so that many factors can
be factored into the decisions. Public review is one factor and helps
provide transparency to the decisions. Thank you for your review of the
draft National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants. Your comment was noted and considered in the preparation of the
final guidance document.
Chapter 3 page 2 of 5
-------
Chapter 3 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
3-06.1
Natural Resources
Defense Council
(NRDC) et al.
Prioritize beaches
EPA must include all beaches within the program. In our
experience, the welcome changes in the Draft Criteria will apply to too few|and
beaches. In developing ranking and monitoring
plans, many if not all states list beaches that are commonly used by the put
lie as outside of the program because of funding deficiencies.
The BEACH Act requires states to prioritize their beaches based on risk
use as well as fiscal constraints. Designating a beach as "closed' or
"seasonal" is appropriate in tiering a state's or tribe's beaches.
3-06.2
NRDCetal.
Prioritize beaches
And many states also list beaches as closed that ought not be
closed, or list beaches as seasonably closed that are nevertheless used by
the public for recreation outside of the recreational season. The Draft
Criteria should be amended to prohibit grantees, in developing rankings
and monitoring plans, from asserting that certain coastal waters
are "closed" to bathers, either by area or season, because they allegedly
have no or zero use by the public. This is often a faulty and dangerous
assumption. In most instances, there are no physical barriers to a person
using a "closed" beach. Except in rare instances (e.g.,
ongoing construction, the presence of migratory or breeding birds,
etc.), beaches are not and cannot be so secured,
and therefore it is irrational to assume zero use during periods of "closure'
The prioritization of beaches is a BEACH Act requirement and is not a
new requirement, (it was included in the 2002 beach guidance). However,
the guidance was updated to clarify that the List of Beaches is an integral
part of a state's program, and the basis for EPA's national "List of
Beaches."
3-06.3
NRDC et al
Prioritize beaches
All too frequently beachgoers are not warned about pathogen
contamination because the local government does not
consider the coastal water open for recreational use.
Especially worrisome are non-program beaches, which are neither closed
nor monitored. These beaches are not marked as being outside the
program and the public is not necessarily informed that the beach is not
tested or when pathogen levels at the beach are typically dangerous. At a
very minimum, EPA should require states to post signs that a beach is not
monitored for water quality safety if it is a non-program beach.
All of these uses of "closed" beaches potentially expose bathers to
pathogens, and therefore, cannot be ignored in terms of developing
rankings and monitoring plans. The assumption that a closed" beach has
no users, and therefore the grantee has no BEACH Act obligations with
respect to such persons, leaves the very members of the public Congress
intended to protect vulnerable to illness from waterborne pathogens. For al
of the above reasons, EPA must amend the Draft Criteria to prohibit
grantees from asserting the faulty and dangerous assumption that a"closed'
beach has zero use.
The BEACH Act requires states to prioritize their beaches based on risk
and use as well as fiscal constraints. Designating a beach as "closed' or
"seasonal" is appropriate in tiering a state's or tribe's beaches.
Chapter 3 page 3 of 5
-------
Chapter 3 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
3-06.4
NRDCetal.
In our experience, bathers commonly use coastal recreational waters
regardless of whether a lifeguard is on duty or a beach is
administratively/nominally "closed." Swimmers are often present after
hours or outside of the season. These swimmers rarely know that they are
recreating on "closed" beaches, and EPA must
nevertheless protect their health under the BEACH Act.
The BEACH Act requires states to prioritize their beaches based on risk
and use as well as fiscal constraints. Designating a beach as "closed' or
"seasonal" is appropriate in tiering a state's or tribe's beaches.
3-07.1
Maryland Department
of Environment (MD
MDE)
Maryland has already achieved this process at all beaches including those
not included under the BEACH Act with the additional benefit of fixing
known pollution sources through annual sanitary surveys.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
3.08.1
Rhode Island
Department of Health
(RI DOH)
3.6.1
The new criteria would require public comment periods and programs to
address those comments in order to receive funding. Would public
comment periods and final reports on the comments have to be completed
before the grant application is submitted to EPA? Alternatively, can states
make note within their application of intent to hold public comment? It
would not be realistic to require states to have implemented these
requirements this year before the funding is allocated when a significant
amount of time and collaboration with regional project officers is
necessary to develop a good plan.
Based on EPA's review of public comments, EPA clarified that a
"significant" change triggers an evaluation.
3.07.2
RIDOH
9-12
Although prioritizing grant funds for higher risk beaches is important, it is
also important to continue monitoring at a lower frequency moderate and
lower risk beaches for new sources of contamination and track their
potential increase or decrease in risk over time. Sample analysis budgets
should reflect this and priority funding should be allocated to a well-
rounded risk based sampling plan.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
3-08.1
Washington
Department of Ecology
3.6
More detailed guidance is given as to how to classifying beaches into
program versus non-program beaches. Washington State has already gone
through this process; does the new guidance mean we have to do it again?
A new tiered monitoring program does not need to be developed, but
should periodically be revisited if there are changes to the program.
Chapter 3 page 4 of 5
-------
Chapter 3 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
3-09.1
Oregon Department of
Environmental
Protection
RWQC
Beaches should be classified by tiers. The beaches of Oregon differ
immensely from Florida beaches; grouping all coastal beaches into one
category provides a disservice to the public. Unlike beaches in Florida,
Oregon's ocean is cold and visitors to do not fully submerge themselves in
the water year round (there is a small percentage of Oregon's population
that surf year-round and have access to third party data collection to
monitor waters; OBMP cannot issue advisories from these data because
samplers and laboratories are not accredited by DEQ). Requiring Oregon
to uphold the same beach water quality standards as Florida is not an
adequate reflection of the nature of our waters, beaches and visitors.
Removing previously developed EPA beach tiers mandates states to use
more resources on fewer beaches to uphold the criteria, leaving many
beaches and people vulnerable because widespread sampling across the
coastline is no longer an option with existing resources. If the intent of the
new criteria is to reduce the number of illnesses at the beach, then updating
the beach program (including resource allocation) to include an emphasis
on finding and controlling sources of bacterial contamination would be
more effective at reducing illnesses than increasing the number of
advisories people may or may not heed as they head to the beach to enjoy
the surf.
This comment pertains to the discontinuation of use intensity values in
EPA's 2012 RWQC. As such, the comment is beyond the scope of this
document.
Chapter 3 page 5 of 5
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-01.1
Alabama Department of
Environmental
Management (ADEM)
BAY
The data on which the BAV is based is fundamentally biased and not
representative of nationwide beach monitoring stations.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-01.2
ADEM
BAV
A BAV is confusing and sends mixed messages to the public as
well as state environmental agencies.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-01.3
ADEM
BAV
The BAV will cause policy issues with regard to water quality assessmenl
and listing of impairments.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-01.4
ADEM
Methods
Rapid testing techniques such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction
(qPCR) have not been fully evaluated for use with all water quality
indicators, in all environments, and have shown extreme sensitivity to
interference, an increased level of relative uncertainty, and have the
documented potential to overestimate the amount of culturable
Enterococcus bacteria by several orders of magnitude.
The use of qPCR is not required. EPA recognizes that the use of qPCR
presents challenges as well as benefits. Section 4.4.2 discusses
assessments a beach manager should make regarding the acceptability anc
feasibility of using qPCR.
4-01.5
ADEM
Methods
USEPA itself states in Method 1611 that "The highly variable recoveries
observed during these studies should be taken into consideration when
analyzing results from Method 1611." This shows that there is still
work to be done for these types of tests to be utilized as reliable early
warning signals.
The use of qPCR is not required. EPA recognizes that the use of qPCR
presents challenges as well as benefits. Section 4.4.2 discusses
assessments a beach manager should make regarding the acceptability anc
feasibility of using qPCR.
4-01.6
ADEM
Methods
The required cost and resources required for rapid testing may not be
feasible given current budget constraints.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-01.7
ADEM
Methods
The current laboratory services provider is not equipped with qPCR
capabilities. Even if they had the ability it would not be feasible because
of the distance from sampling locations.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-02.1
Alaska Department of
Environmental
Conservation (ADEC)
BAV
Using the proposed BAV to trigger beach advisories, as required in the
draft guidance, would effectively implement water quality criteria that
have not yet been promulgated by EPA or adopted by Alaska.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 1 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-02.2
ADEC
BAY
DEC has no authority to use the proposed, more stringent BAV to issue
warnings to the public.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-02.3
ADEC
BAV
The large increase in resulting beach advisories with no standards to
support them would send a confusing message to our communities.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Alaska estimates that implementing the recommended BAV would result
in an increase in beach advisories of 370 percent based on Alaska beach
monitoring data collected from 2005-2013.
4-02.4
ADEC
BAV
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-02.5
ADEC
BAV
If the guidance is finalized without allowing alternative BAVs based on
current state criteria, Alaska will have no choice but to discontinue
involvement in the BEACH program.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-02.6
ADEC
RWQC
ADEC determined that Alaska's beaches arc mainly in the "lightly used"
category; therefore, the ADEC implements the single-sample standard of
276 enterococci per 100 mL for the BEACH program. In addition, the
DEC also implements the criterion stating that a geometric mean for a
30-day period may not exceed 35 enterococci per 100 mL.
In a departure from the 1986 criteria, EPA is no longer recommending ths
concept of multiple use intensity values of the SSM. EPA's 2012 RWQC
include both the GM and STV, used together to adequately protect the
designated use of primary contact recreation. Therefore, EPA
recommends that states and tribes adopt both the GM and STV into their
water quality standards.
4-02.7
ADEC
RWQC
ADEC is concerned with implementation issues associated with the
2012 RWQC due to elimination of the tiered criteria structure that was
part of the 2004 Bacteria Rule. The tiered structure gave the state the
ability to implement the Beach program with state-specific circumstances
in mind.
In a departure from the 1986 criteria, EPA is no longer recommending ths
concept of multiple use intensity values of the SSM. EPA's 2012 RWQC
include both the GM and STV, used together to adequately protect the
designated use of primary contact recreation. Therefore, EPA
recommends that states and tribes adopt both the GM and STV into their
water quality standards.
Chapter 4 page 2 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-02.8
ADEC
BAY
The use of the proposed BAV would substantially increase advisories
and create unnecessary concern for Alaskan recreational beach users
based on our colder environmental conditions and distinctive uses.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-02.9
ADEC
BAV
The BAV criteria would create a less effective program because it would
misrepresent realities on the ground. A higher number of advisories will
also result in less funding for beach sampling and the number of beaches
that can be monitored with the currently available funding.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4.03.1
American Samoa
Environmental
Protection Agency (AS-
EPA)
4.7.2
BAV
With regard to Section 4.7.2, the American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency (AS-EPA) strongly disagrees with the requirement thai
BEACH Act grant recipients m must use Beach Action Values (BAV) as
the Beach Notification Threshold.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 3 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
4.03.2
4.03.3
Commentor
AS-EPA
AS-EPA
Cited
Section
Keyword
BAY
BAY
Comment
AS-EPA considers it contradictory to require BEACH Act grant reci
pients to use BA V when the recom mended criteria states that use of
BAV is optional.
AS-EPA considers that an exceedance of the BAV does not
substantially indicate or suggest that an exceedance of the WQS will
likely occur.
EPA Response
The 2012 RWQC document discusses EPA's water quality criteria
recommendations for all recreational waters. The beach guidance,
however, contains requirements that are applicable only to coastal
recreation waters in states and tribes receiving beach grants as well as
recommendations applicable to all waters. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to: adopt new or revised recreationa
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
In order to provide flexibility to states and tribes, EPA decided not to
require immediate use of a specific beach threshold. While EPA expects
that states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
EPA may attach conditions to grants so long as those conditions
reasonably further the purpose of the authorizing statute. See Shanty
Town Associates Ltd. Partnership v. EPA, 843 F.2d 782 (4th Cir. 1988).
EPA's requirement that BEACH grant recipients submit a schedule for
the adoption of new or revised water quality standards furthers the
purpose of CWA Section 303(i)(l)(B), which directs States with coastal
recreation waters to adopt and submit to EPA new or revised water
quality standards for those waters for all pathogens and pathogen
indicators to which EPA's 2012 RWQC are applicable. See 33 U.S.C.
13 13(i)(l)(B). EPA's requirement that grant recipients use a beach
notification value is directly based on the BEACH Act's purpose of
providing for "the prompt notification of the public ... of any exceeding
or likely exceeding applicable water quality standards for coastal
recreation waters." See 33 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(l)(B), (b)(l).
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 4 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4.03.4
AS-EPA
BAY
AS-EPA considers that use of the BAY is overly conservat ive and
will lead to overly caut i ous beach adv isories.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4.03.5
AS-EPA
BAY
AS-EPA considers that use of a BAV criteria for notificat ions that is
different from the WQS wi thout any scien tific or public health basis
other than a n add itiona 1 and marginal measu re of precaution, will ca
use confusion for the public and will erode public confidence in
state/territory environmental agencies.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4.03.6
AS-EPA
BAV
AS-EPA considers that implementation of the BAV will lead to negat iv<
economic impacts.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4.03.7
AS-EPA
BAV
AS-EPA considers that the im position of the BAV requ irement on
BEACH Act grant eligi bility wi 11 lead to a reduction of beach
monitoring programs nationwide.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
AS-EPA
BAV
AS-EPA questions the wisdom of imposing the "action values" when
statutory based standards have been devel oped and •implemented basec
on sound science and regulatory due process
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 5 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-04.1
California State Water
Resources Control
Board (CA SWRCB)
BAY
Imposition of the beach action values is effectively a standards action
being implemented through a grant program without the benefit of a
public process.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-04.2
CA SWRCB
BAY
The requirement to use the beach action values creates legal
inconsistencies with state laws.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-04.3
CA SWRCB
BAY
Use of the beach action values will increase the number of beach postings
by between 50% and 60% with little likely improvement in public health
outcomes.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-04.4
CA SWRCB
BAY
The use of beach action values may cause public confusion and
uncertainty over Beach Safety.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-04.5
CA SWRCB
BAY
Imposition of the beach action values may have an adverse economic
impact to the state.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-04.6
CA SWRCB
BAY
Imposition of the beach action values may result in a reduction in overall
beach monitoring.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 6 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-04.7
CA SWRCB
Modeling
We continue support for state and US EPA development of predictive
modelling and rapid test methods that will provide more useful
information to the public on a same day basis. We believe these are more
cost effective approaches for improving public notification. As with the
beach action values and for most of the remaining proposed changes in
the National Beach Guidance Criteria for Grants, the State Water Board
supports their additions as guidance but not as required performance
criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-04.8
CA SWRCB
Modeling
We look to find approaches implementing appropriate beach predictive
modelling or implementing rapid methods for fecal indicator bacteria
which may be a more effective ways to protect public health.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-05.1
Chicago Park District
(CPD)
Modeling
We continue support for state and US EPA development of predictive
modelling and rapid test methods that will provide more useful
information to the public on a same day basis. We believe these are more
cost effective approaches for improving public notification. As with the
beach action values and for most of the remaining proposed changes in
the National Beach Guidance Criteria for Grants, the State Water Board
supports their additions as guidance but not as required performance
criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-05.2
CPD
BAY
We are also troubled by inconsistencies between the Guidance and the
2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. The Guidance requires states to
use the most restrictive Beach Action Value (BAV) of 190 cfu I 100 ml
where states have not yet adopted the 2012 Criteria in order to qualify for
grant funding. The 2012 Criteria provide states with a choice between a
BAV of 235 cfu /100 ml and 190 cfu / 100 mL.
The 2012 RWQC document discusses EPA's water quality criteria
recommendations for all recreational waters. The beach guidance,
however, contains requirements that are applicable only to coastal
recreation waters in states and tribes receiving beach grants as well as
recommendations applicable to all waters. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to: adopt new or revised recreational
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
In order to provide flexibility to states and tribes, EPA decided not to
require immediate use of a specific beach threshold. While EPA expects
that states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3. (cont.)
Chapter 4 page 7 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
EPA may attach conditions to grants so long as those conditions
reasonably further the purpose of the authorizing statute. See Shanty
Town Associates Ltd. Partnership v. EPA, 843 F.2d 782 (4th Cir. 1988).
EPA's requirement that BEACH grant recipients submit a schedule for
the adoption of new or revised water quality standards furthers the
purpose of CWA Section 303(i)(l)(B), which directs States with coastal
recreation waters to adopt and submit to EPA new or revised water
quality standards for those waters for all pathogens and pathogen
indicators to which EPA's 2012 RWQC are applicable. See 33 U.S.C.
1313(i)(l)(B). EPA's requirement that grant recipients use a beach
notification value is directly based on the BEACH Act's purpose of
providing for "the prompt notification of the public ... of any exceeding
or likely exceeding applicable water quality standards for coastal
recreation waters." See 33 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(l)(B), (b)(l).
4-05.3
CPD
BAY
The legislative process for states to adopt new water quality regulations
takes many months. As currently drafted, the Guidance may have the
effect of changing the BAV used at beaches to 190 for one or two years,
only to have it change back to 235 once the 2012 Criteria are adopted.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-05.4
CPD
BAV
We fear that a temporary reduction in the water quality criteria would
only serve to confuse people and erode confidence in beach water quality
programs.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-05.5
CPD
Modeling
CPD has also spent the past four years building predictive models for
water quality that allow us to issue advisories based on real-time
predictions instead of day-old lab results. ...The models are also based on
the existing water quality criteria of 235. Modifying the models to reflect
a change in the water quality criteria to 190 would take time and
resources. We strongly believe that public health would be better served
by focusing resources on sanitary surveys and mitigation projects to
address the sources of bacteria instead of modifying operations to
accommodate a temporary change in the water quality.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 8 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-06.1
Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas
Islands
Same comment document as AS- EPA above.
4-07.1
Connecticut
Department of Energy
and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP)
BAY
This new requirement listed on page 12 and page 70 is inconsistent with
the State of Connecticut Guidelines for Monitoring Bathing Water and
Closure Protocol (Beach Protocols) developed jointly by CT DEEP and
the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH). While the
Beach Protocols recommend evaluating the single sample exceedance
criterion and the geometric mean criterion, beach closures are generally
made based on the single sample exceedance criterion.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-07.2
CT DEEP
BAY
Requiring beach grant recipients to use the BAVs will result in
significantly more beach closures without any apparent justification other
than EPA desires a "nationally consistent trigger". While the Department
understands that using the BAV could provide a nationally consistent
approach those accepting the Beach Grant in the future, we are unaware
of any epidemiological studies that would require the use of these BAVs
to be the only number that is acceptable to use to inform beach closures.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-07.3
CT DEEP
BAV
Please clarify whether EPA expects states to use BAV values for 303 d
listing decisions? If this is the intention, more beaches will be listed as
"impaired" without scientific justification.
See section 4.7.4 of the final guidance for clarification.
4-07.4
CT DEEP
BAV
Requiring beach grant recipients to implement these BAV 's sends a
mixed message to towns and others responsible for beach sampling in the
already imperfect science of using indicator bacteria to inform beach
closures. This is unfortunate at a time when coastal states like
Connecticut are promoting the use of outdoors through programs like "No
Child Left Inside" (www.ct.gov/deep/ncli).
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 9 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-07.5
CT DEEP
WQS
Water Quality Standards in Connecticut are adopted as regulations and
are contained in Sections 22a-426-l through 22a-426-0 of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Changing the Water Quality
Standards in Connecticut involves a public process including reviews by
Legislative Regulation Review Committee. The Department can evaluate
the recommended recreational criteria EPA's 2012 Recreational Water
Quality Criteria document and draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants during the next triennial review
process. However, it is not possible for this to occur in time for the FY14
Beach Grant. This creates policy problems with implementing changes to
the beach program that are not consistent with our Water Quality
Standards.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-07.6
CT DEEP
General
The current beach program in Connecticut is truly a collaborative
relationship between EPA Region 1, DEEP, DPH and the coastal
Connecticut towns. It works because of the flexibility we now have to
administer the program and is a model of how a federal, state, and local
governments can work together to provide a great service to beach going
public. We also find that the requirements of the draft National Beach
Guidance will be a major point of friction and could compromise this
collaborative working relationship.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-07.7
CT DEEP
General
We hope that you strongly consider revising the draft National Beach
Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-08.1
Connecticut
Department of Health
(CT DPH)
Resources
BAG will require significant staffing requirement.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-08.2
CTDPH
Resources
Draft Criteria are not scalable to accommodate uncertain future funding
levels.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-08.3
CTDPH
Resources
Final grant guidance and performance criteria should include language
permitting a negotiate, scalable, and calibrated approach to beach
monitoring and grant implementation that is in line with funding levels,
epidemiology, research findings, and collaborative models of governance
that require sharing of authority and encourage distributed public health
protection across jurisdictional and agency (organizational boundaries).
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 10 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-08.4
CTDPH
Resources
Accepting a beach grant will have widespread impact. Given existing
jurisdictional and organizational boundaries, and in light of the
anticipated funding and changes in the terms and conditions as stated in
the draft guidance, the CT DOH approach to marine beach monitoring
may be irreparably changed.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-08.5
CTDPH
General
Other specific exceptions to requirements (must) in the document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-09.1
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental
Conservation (DNREQ
Sanitary surveys
Delaware has used the beach sanitary survey as an effective tool to
mitigate and eliminate pollution sources impacting water quality since the
early 1980's.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-09.2
DNREC
Modeling
Predictive models have been unsuccessful at our beaches because our
waters are too "clean".
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-09.3
DNREC
General
Delaware beach monitoring program has emphasized mitigating pollution
sources impacting beach water quality as the best tool we have for
protecting public health.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-09.4
DNREC
General
Expand on requirements.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-09.5
DNREC
Table 4-2
Tiering
Delaware does not fit the risk /use categories.
The categories in the Beach Guidance are examples. The state describes
its own risk/use categories as part of its formulation of a tiered
monitoring plan.
4-09.6
DNREC
Sanitary surveys
This discussion makes sense if there is an intermittent flow of untreated
sewage, does not inform the public of potential health risk. A beach
sanitary survey could explain the source of the FIB; this could decrease
the public health risk and help the public fully understand actual and
potential pollution sources.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-09.7
DNREC
Modeling
In Delaware we issue permanent advisory for primary contact recreation
after a rain fall event. This provides the public knowledge by permanent
signage and is very precautionary and protective of public health. We
have completed and implemented predictive models for rain fall events.
Delaware beaches were deemed too "clean" for a predictive model to be
useful. In our studies we have found that increased bacterial levels are
due to disturbed sediments and not fecal sources of pollution.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 11 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
4-09.8
4-09.9
4-09.10
4-09.11
4-09.12
4-09.13
4-09.14
4-09.15
4-09.16
4-09.17
Commentor
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
DNREC
Cited
Section
Table 4-3
Keyword
Sanitary surveys
General
Sanitary surveys
RWQC
Monitoring
BAY
BAY
General
RWQC
RWQC
Comment
This discussion is useful but you need to empathize the importance of a
beach sanitary survey to understand variability of samples results and
what is impacting the marine coastal site. This understanding is key to
the tiered approach and determining sampling frequency. Human sources
of pollution are the important piece in the puzzle, exceedances missed is
not relevance if there are no human sources.
You only reference California - you need to reference other states.
Delaware is in compliance but we need to place more weight on the beact
sanitary survey.
Using the geometric mean only over the entire beach season.
Delaware does not agree with using the statistical threshold value (STY)
for assessment purposes.
Using the tiered monitoring approach should enable us to better
understand our beaches and enable us to monitor more beaches with
fewer resources.
Use BAY as a tool without adopting it into the Water Quality Standards
as a "do not exceed value" for beach notification purposes.
The BAY could be used at the state's discretion, as a conservative,
precautionary tool for beach management decisions.
This will be very hard to explain to the public.
When the measurement of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) does not provide
any information on the source of the bacteria how can that be seen as
"more stringent"?
Requiring the use of a statistical value for a level of indicator bacteria thai
has no direct relationship to the level of real pathogens present and
assuming increased public health protection is promoting poor science.
EPA Response
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
EPA added a case study of the adoption of predictive models in the City
of Chicago and added advisory graphics from New York.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 12 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-10.1
Erie County,
Pennsylvania
Department of Health
(EC DOH)
BAY
It is extremely coniusing right now as to whether or not we 'may' or
'must' use the 32/1,000 or the 36/1,000 illness rate-based BAY. We had
already submitted the grant application when we found out the grant may
be tied to using the lower rate of 32/1,000. Whether this is a requirement
or a recommendation is not clear when reading the document and the
summary sheets.
Based on a review of the public comments, EPA clarified the flexibilities
that states have in selecting an illness rate. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to adopt new or revised recreational
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
In order to provide flexibility to states and tribes, EPA decided not to
require immediate use of a specific beach threshold. While EPA expects
that states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-10.2
EC DOH
BAY
We use the 235 cfu (E. coli) in Pennsylvania and do not want the criteria
lowered to 190 cfu. Presque Isle State Park beaches receive nearly 4
million visitors a year and we are not receiving reports of human illness
that could be tied to beach waters. There is no evidence that 235 cfu
should be lowered to protect human health at our beaches. The 235 cfu
has protected public health. If any beach is experiencing significant
impact from pollution, has continuous advisories, or has reported human
illnesses, then we could see requiring a stricter standard. However, that is
not the case in Pennsylvania, and we request remaining at the 235 cfu.
The BAY should not be a grant requirement.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-10.3
EC DOH
BAY
Our combined use of predictive modeling with precautionary advisories
offers much more human health protection and is already very
precautionary and conservative.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-10.4
EC DOH
BAY
When we compared the number of advisories and restrictions posted in
the last 3 years using 235 cfu against what would have been posted using
190 cfu, there was a significant difference. Advisories/restrictions would
have been issued significantly more times using the 190 cfu, without
having reported health issues to justify them. We could never make the
argument to local government and agency officials and get their support
for lower criteria. Local tourism and the economic impact from loss of
beach users would be significant on our community and again, there are
no local health complaints to justify the actions. Our current criteria is
conservative and protects public health.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 13 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-10.5
ECDOH
RWQC
We can't justify lowering the GM (100) when we don't see local public
health issues at the current geometric mean (126). One of our beaches
would have been closed an entire month last year if we were using the
lower geometric mean. Again, the impact on the tourism and economy
would have been significant.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-10.6
ECDOH
Any change is Pennsylvania's criteria would be a very long process. Erie
County manages the EPA Beach Grant for Pennsylvania. Adopting new
criteria would be difficult; involve a lot of communication at various
levels of government; require a lot of educating of individuals that are not
routinely involved with this program; and we would have to sell the
concept based on the health impact. This would be extremely difficult
when we are not receiving calls of reported illnesses connected to beaches
using our current criteria. Change must be evidence-based and show a
health benefit.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-10.7
ECDOH
Pennsylvania definitely would not be able to implement any required
changes to state law and regulations in the time available for a grant
award.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-11.1
Florida Department of
Health (DOH)
4.2.2
Resources
While recognizing that data driven determinations help develop
appropriate use plans we feel the need to point out that the suggestions in
this section (i.e. qPCR-vs-culture, model input/outcomes, switching
beaches into non-existent monitoring programs, reclassifying them as non
program beaches, etc.) seems like an attempt to cut back the existing
inexpensive tests for monitoring program in favor of experimental
methods that have not yet proven their reliability in tropical and sub-
tropical marine waters. Florida DOH would favor a scaled pilot project tc
evaluate these suggestions in our unique environment, yet would need
additional EPA funds to do so. We have explored the costs of each of
these suggestions for a large scale implementation and found them to be
prohibitively excessive for the limited new knowledge gained.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-11.2
FLDOH
4.3.2.1.3
Methods
EPA should realize that states are not taking a single sample to the lab as
soon as it is taken. A sample taken at 8:OOAM will be batched with eight
to ten other samples taken on the same sample run and then analyzed latei
that day (by 2:00 PM to meet 6 hour holding times). By the time these
sample tests are read and reported it is the next afternoon on day two.
The fact that EPA has continued to use this measure in their guidance
illustrates that you have not heard the state program managers about how
programs must be actually run in the field. Costs would multiply by a
factor of five if this qPCR protocol was implemented, thus sites
monitored would need to be reduced by a factor of five.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 14 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-11.3
FLDOH
4.3.2.1.4
Monitoring
In this section you indicate that you expect multiple samples to be at
beaches. Is there a set minimum number of samples that are required at
each beach for statistical validity? And is this criteria to be specified per
100 meter or per mile?
See section 4.3.2.1.4 for suggestions.
4-11.4
FLDOH
4.3.2.3
Methods
Again, line 5, page 52 proposes an unachievable turnaround time for
qPCR, since real world sampling and logistics will not allow for same daj
sampling and test results. The California study detailed on page 61 that
set this prediction included a ratio of samplers to samples of greater than
one. In the real world that ratio is not going to be >1:1 but closer to 0.1:1
Include the fact that a laboratory doing contract work must submit their
samples results to internal QAQC processes and the actual sample
processing time will arrive at closer to 10 hours. We recognize that EPA
has used the word "could" in this section to denote that there is a potential
of this short turnaround happening but we feel that a guidance written in
these generalized terms denotes the ability to make it seem like a common
event.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-11.5
FLDOH
4.3.2.3.2
Resources
Resampling after an exceedance is preferred to waiting for the next
routine sampling. However, Florida does not have the funding available
to meet this requirement without major changes to the sampling program.
In some areas resampling can happen due to sufficient local staffing and
near-by lab proximity, but this is locale specific.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-11.6
FLDOH
4.4.2.2
Methods
Please add on line 38 page 58 that qPCR analytical results can be
available is as little as 3 hours and as long as 10 hours after receipt in the
lab. Please see our comments above at 4.2.2 regarding objections to
reliance on unproven tropical waters experimental methods.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-11.7
FLDOH
4.5
Data
Clarify "Reported data must be consistent with 4.3.3.3." Does that mean
we must report all the meta-data submitted to STORET? Can we bin the
data into Good/Poor categories or do we have to put actual result
CFU/lOOmL numbers on the website?
Please consult the BEACON Data User Corner
(http://water.epa.gov/gr ants_funding/beachgrants/datausers_index.cfm)
for detailed reporting instructions.
4-11.8
FLDOH
4.5.1.1
QA/QC
Is the intent here to require that program managers maintain a file with
QA/QC reports from contract labs? As a client we are using state and
NELAP certified labs that give us certified data. Unless the laboratory
determines there is a problem we do not have a reason to reject the data.
Further, as clients we do not have rights to the labs internal QA/QC
process on a routine basis, which is what this requirement seems to
indicate. 4.5.1.2 Again, is the intent here that the beach program managei
performs the same QA/QC overview that the state and national
accrediting agencies already perform? If we use accredited labs are we
still required to maintain the verification logs that this section requires?
Most laboratories maintain QA documentation for users/customers with
QA requirements. It should not be a burden to the lab to share their QA
documentation.
Chapter 4 page 15 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-11.9
FLDOH
4.6.2
Modeling
4.6.2- Predictive models are exceedingly labor and lab cost intensive.
For shellfish harvest areas in Florida, these were only accomplished with
multiple daily samples and 7 days per week testing over many weeks, and
less frequently for months to acquire sufficient data for a statistically
valid closure model at each area after rainfall events. This intensive
effort is not possible for numerous beach sites with existing grant funds.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-11.10
FLDOH
4.7.2.1
BAY
Is the beach action value (BAV) a water quality standard? If it is not,
then it will become possible to have a water contact health advisory in
effect for water that has not exceeded the water quality standard. How
does EPA expect states to reconcile the failure of "attainment of use"
requirements for waters that have not exceeded the applicable water
quality standards?
Please see section 4.7.4 for a discussion of the use of RWQC in
identifying CWA section 303(d) impaired waters.
4-11.11
FLDOH
4.7.2.4
RWQC
We understood that the Puerto Rico studies of tropical marine waters
similar to Florida's did not provide a statistically valid CCE count for
health-based advisories using the qPCR methods, and so do not believe
this table on page 72 reflects accurately for tropical, and potentially sub-
tropical waters.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-12.1
Georgia Department of
Natural Resources
(GDNR)
Public
Notification
The requirement for reporting monitoring data to the public in a timely
manner by posting data on a publicly available website is unclear. Is an
annual report timely? Does having the data available to the public in
STORET meet this requirement?
Based on EPA's review of public comments, EPA added language
clarifying this new performance criterion. See section 4.5.
4-12.2
GDNR
RWQC
Use of the STV and GM for beach notifications is unclear. Can a
geometric mean calculation be applied to a single sample? This makes no
The STV and GM in EPA's RWQC recommendations are not
recommended for use as a beach notification threshold because EPA
recommends a corresponding duration of 30 days for the GM and STV
values. See the 2012 RWQC.
4-12.3
GDNR
BAV
Use of the BAV. If the state is in the process of adopting RWQS based on
the illness rate of 36 but has not finalized their standards, the Guidance
appears to say that the Beach Program should start using the BAV based
on the illness rate of 32, and then switch to using a BAV based on the
illness rate of 36. This switch would be very confusing to the public. The
Beach program should have the option of using the BAV based on the
illness rate that the state is in the process of adopting.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-13.1
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
RWQC
Better guidance is needed on the use of the BAV vs GM/STV Criteria.
For example, will states be required to conduct two notifications? One
based on the BAV (alerts) and another based on the RWQC (standards
exceedances). If not, then is the purpose of the RWQC simply for
monthly assessments?
See EPA's 2012
and BAV.
RWQC document for an explanation of the GM, STV
Chapter 4 page 16 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-13.2
Guam EPA
Public
Notification
Clarification is needed on the definition and differences in the use of
"advisory" vs "closure" vs "posting" vs "notification alerts". Guam uses
"advisory" for water quality standard exceedances. Will an exceedance o:
the BAY be labeled an "alert"?
Please refer to the Glossary in the beach guidance document.
4-13.3
Guam EPA
RWQC
Clarification is needed on whether the GM and STV are calculated on a
rolling or static duration. Evaluating Guam data, we will have significant
differences in the number of "advisories/alerts" depending on which
method is used.
See EPA's 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria document, section
3.6.2.
4-14.1
Hawaii Department of
Health (HDOH)
qPCR
qPCR data can be generated in the same day if: 1) sampler starts at 4 am
and delivers the samples to lab by 7 am, 2) lab staff preps the lab,
stripping DNA from all equipment, before samples arrive, 3) filter and
rolls filter and puts in bead tube another 1-2 hours depending on amount
of samples, 4) put into machine, and 5)6 hours later results. So by 3 pm
we have the data and by 4pm public notification is out. By that time,
most people are beginning to leave the beach. So, is the expense of the
qPCR equipment, establishing a library, and a dedicated lab area worth al
this? Then there is the question of whether what is found is viable. Then
seems to be some re-inventing of the wheel in this document, is it really
needed?
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-14.2
HDOH
qPCR
Until a truly effective rapid test is developed that is implementable for the
above described situations, qPCR is still not really a viable tool.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-14.3
HDOH
4.3.1.1.1
Modeling
Hawaii is already using a predictive tool in the event of a significant rain
event. When the National Weather Service issue a Flash Flood Warning,
and storm water discharge is verified, Brown Water Advisory is issue for
the area of concern. It can a bay, a section of coastline, an entire island
coastline, or the entire State of Hawaii. This was developed by review of
a large historical database for WQ data and descriptive conditions that
accompany the data.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-14.4
HDOH
4.3.2.3
Monitoring
This will be problematic for HI. Sporadic exceedances of enterococci
occur randomly statewide. These tend to be one-time events which are
typically followed by lower numbers. How do we address this? Is
resampling the next day an option? What if the resample day falls on a
Friday or a day preceding a holiday? Our budget does not allow overtime
for lab staff. That is why we test for enterococci and Clostridium
perfringens. If only enterococci is high and Clostridium is low, there is
no human fecal contamination issue. Any rain event and/or high surf in
Hawaii will result in elevated enterococci numbers due to enterococci
replicating in biofilm and in the sand.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 17 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-14.5
HDOH
4.7.2.1
BAY
It is unclear from the document whether usage of the BAV is a
recommended or mandatory, procedure, since it contradicts itself. If it is
mandatory, this will be problematic for HI. Since the value must be lowei
than the STV, there is a possibility that numerous notifications will be
sent out. The notifications will also be for a sampling that occurred a day
ago. Will such notice be relevant and useful to beachgoers? Since
enterococci has been shown by research to persist in tropical soils, beach
sand, biofilm, decaying vegetation, and therefore not be a sign of
possible fecal contamination in waters, how can exceedance of such an
indicator be relied upon to issue a notification that waters are
contaminated with fecal matter? In Hawaii, if we had used the BAV 70
during the last 30 days, we would have had 10 BAV alert to put out that
was due to background numbers.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-14.6
HDOH
Performance
Criteria
I applaud EPA's efforts to standardize and strengthen state's and tribe's
BEACH programs. However the amount of oversight and rules is overly
burdensome. It will divert time and manpower away from actual
implementation of the program, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of
BEACH.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-14.7
HDOH
Sanitary surveys
Although much of the needed time will be up-front, maintaining the
reviews will still require diverting employee (samplers) away from sampl
collection. Sanitary surveys alone, which I feel is a useful tool, will take a
large amount of effort to complete statewide. With other projects and
studies, it will be very difficult to adhere to these new requirements.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-15.1
Huron, Michigan Metro
Parks
BAV
We support efforts to improve beach water quality and protect public
health, however, disagree with requiring states to adopt a Beach Action
Value and new WQS as a condition of grant funding which is intended to
improve human health protection, but could do the opposite if Michigan
cannot implement the new standards in the time available for a grant
award.
Based on EPA's review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to: adopt new or revised recreationa
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
See section 4.7.3 of the Beach Guidance.
4-16.1
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(IEPA)
BAV
Illinois EPA is the agency responsible(through the Illinois pollution
Control Board) for adopting the National Recreational Criteria (2012) as
water quality standards for bacteria for our state. This is a long and
involved process and will take two to three years to carry out.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 18 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-16.2
IEPA
BAY
We do not see the logic, as expressed in the subject Guidance, of
requiring the state's beaches to be regulated at a new value, 190 ciu/100
mL while Illinois EPA undergoes the adoption process for the National
Recreational Criteria (page 70 of the draft Guidance). The state and local
authorities in Illinois that are responsible for regulating beaches will find
it extremely difficult to deal with this new value for the few years in the
interim.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-16.3
IEPA
RWQC
We intend to adopt the National Recreational Criteria as state standards
and we believe that Illinois is in good standing with USEPA as we
facilitate this process. Penalizing beach managers makes no sense when it
is recognized that the process of adopting national criteria as state
standards takes time, hence the Clean Water Act allowance of three years
(the triennial review) to accomplish this task. Therefore, we request that
the USEPA extend the timeframe to implement the grant conditions
contained within the draft beach guidance and performance criteria
document and thereby keep the beach criteria as they are (235 cfu/ 100
mL) during the interim period.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-17.1
Lake County, Ohio
WQS
The draft criteria requires the states to use a Beach Action Value (BAV)
of 190 cfu in order to receive funding once the draft document has been
adopted by EPA. It is our understanding that the 190 cfu BAV is to be
used until the states adopt the revised RWQS based on the 2012 RWQC.
States will have the choice to adopt BAVs based on a 32/1000 or 36/1000
estimated illness rate once the revised standards are approved. It is
unclear when the revised standards will be approved and whether they
will actually be the proposed numbers indicated in the draft criteria.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 19 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-17.2
Lake County, Ohio
WQS
The legislative process in Ohio for a rule change takes at least 18 months,
therefore new standards could not be adopted before the 2015 recreation
season. It makes absolutely no sense and is a huge waste of resources to
lower the BAV to 190 cfu temporarily when the Ohio standard is
generally in compliance with the proposed standards for a 36/1000
estimated illness rate.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-17.3
Lake County, Ohio
BAV
Lowering the standard and then changing it back to 235 cfu after
approval of the criteria will only confuse the public and the beach
operators. They will also lose confidence in the reliability of the
standard.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-17.4
Lake County, Ohio
BAV
The draft document clearly holds the states "hostage" in requiring the use
of the 190 cfu BAV in order to receive beach grant funding. It is obvious
that if the EPA does not accept Ohio's current water quality standards
then Ohio would not be permitted to apply for and receive beach grant
funding.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 20 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-17.5
Lake County, Ohio
Resources
If the funding ceases, the existing beach monitoring programs will likely
cease as well. In this stressed economy, locals do not have the resources
to continue provide services for non-mandated state programs. Should
this scenario exist across the country, and the states do not have the
capacity to continue with beach monitoring programs, it is doubtful that
EPA can do the program or can contract out a national beach program
for the $10 million dollars that Congress managed to appropriate after the
original funding cut. Elimination of funding to the states will directly
result in jeopardizing the public health of the beach goers for which the
190 du standard was proposed.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-17.6
Lake County, Ohio
Modeling
Lake County sampled its beaches daily in 2013 and will go to the beaches
daily to collect data for the predictive models that were developed for use
in 2014. We will validate the models with sample analysis three days per
week. Because Ohio beaches are sampled more frequently, we are able to
predict more accurately the actual advisory days and hence more
effectively protect the public health.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-17.7
Lake County, Ohio
BAY
The Lake County daily sampling frequency can more effectively predict
the variability in FIB. We compared our past data for the last three
bathing beach seasons to determine how lowering the BAV to 190 du
would have affected our beaches. Due to the frequency of our sampling,
the lower BAV would have resulted in an increase in exceedances of 10 ti
23% over the last three years depending on the beach.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-17.8
Lake County, Ohio
General
The Lake County General Health District strongly recommends that the
EPA consider all the comments that they receive and revise the draft
criteria accordingly. Further we implore the EPA to continue to fund the
beach monitoring program and appropriate the adequate funding for
states to implement the final revised criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-18.1
City of Long Beach,
California
General
Additional review as to the applicability of the science to California
beaches is warranted, i.e. different sources of pollution - less sewage
treatment effluent reaching our beaches vs east coast.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-18.2
City of Long Beach,
California
BAV
The new regulations will create confusion with required posting of
"Beach Action Values", which are "non regulatory". BAV's need
additional review and input prior to implementing posting requirements.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-18.3
City of Long Beach,
California
General
Economic impacts to local programs and beneficial uses issues need
additional analysis.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 21 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-18.4
City of Long Beach,
California
BAY
Lab impacts will need to be evaluated.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-18.5
City of Long Beach,
California
RWQC
Having multiple risk levels and multiple criteria will create confusion
among the monitoring agencies and the general public.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-18.6
City of Long Beach,
California
General
Recommend meeting with local monitoring program reps, state water
boards and EPA prior to implementation or approval.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-18.7
City of Long Beach,
California
General
This approach from EPA should consider how it will impact California
monitoring programs, which are very extensive when compared to other
states. The new criteria will have a major impact on beach health and
economy and at this point, we are not sure of tangible health benefits.
More analysis and discussion is warranted prior to the adoption of the
EPA Guidance Document.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-19.1
Louisiana Department
of Health and Hospitals
(LDHH)
BAY
Louisiana currently uses both a 30-day running geometric mean (GM)
criterion of 35 CFU/100 mL and a single sample maximum (SSM)
criterion of 104 CFU/100 mL. Using a simulation study, we have
estimated that with once weekly sampling, approximately 60% of
exceedances would be missed using single sample criterion alone. Those
results are generally consistent with Louisiana's (LA) examination of
advisory source (i.e., GM only, SSM only, both), in which 54% (722 of
1339) advisories were based on exceedance of SSM criterion (i.e., SSM
only and both SSM and GM criterion) between 2009 and 2013.
Examination of applying the BAY criteria of 60 CFU/100 mL to LA's
2013 season versus LA's current criteria results in 20% fewer
exceedances, even though the single sample threshold is reduced from
104 to 60.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-19.2
LDHH
1.5.1
RWQC
The draft guidance does a good job of explaining the need for both GM
and STY for WQ assessment purposes (Section 1.5.1), but completely
ignores that rationale in the beach advisory section. If the Draft Guidance
remains unchanged, LA will consider adopting the BAY as proposed and
drop the GM criterion from its advisory decision process. Although we
believe that adoption of the BAY will be less protective of public health,
we do not believe that it is appropriate for LA to use a more stringent
decision rule than that of neighboring states, creating the false impression
that LA's beaches are more contaminated than those of neighboring states
as a result.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 22 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-19.3
LDHH
BAY
If LA adopts the BAV, we will also consider reducing the sampling
period by one month to correspond with the swimming season as a
running 30-day GM would not be required.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-20.1
Maine Department of
Environmental
Protection (MDEP)
BAV
This reduction in the Beach Action Value number will essentially double
the amount of exceedances and advisories posted annually, and will likelj
have a negative impact on local economies largely based on tourism as
well as the public's perception of these valued resources.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-20.2
MDEP
Monitoring
that FIB are limited due to the lag time in obtaining results, lack of source
identification, detection of naturalized bacteria, non-fecal or not "fresh"
events, etc.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-20.3
MDEP
General
Given the economic importance of beaches and the wave of negative
public perception associated with advisories, this new requirement will
likely have serious implications for retention and compliance with MHB
protocols, etc.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-20.4
MDEP
RWQC
What epidemiological studies and data from the northeast were used to
justify the need for a 60 cfu/ml BAV? We're interested in these details to
help us communicate this proposal to our constituents.
Please refer to the 2012 RWQC document for a description of
epidemiological studies. One was conducted in Goddard, Rhode Island.
4-20.5
MDEP
Methods
Maine currently does not have the capacity to implement these tools as
they are expensive, highly technical, and we are not aware of any
laboratories that are currently set up with the platform to conduct qPCR
for surface waters within the state of Maine. Will EPA provide support or
assist states in obtaining support from to other entities to build our
capacity?
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-20.6
MDEP
General
We believe that the proposed changes will not lead to cleaner beaches but
rather to less participation in our voluntary program, or less beach goers
and tourist dollars due to increased advisories and closures or both.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.1
Maryland Department
of the
Environment (MDE)
Modeling
After working closely with Bay Program scientists, no beaches in
Maryland are appropriate for predictive modeling. The reason given was
that wind is the most significant factor associated with elevated FIB
counts. This suggests that the source is re- growth harbored in bottom
sediments and not a recent human source. This also shows that
Maryland's current criteria are as protective and are precautionary,
conservative, and provide a do-not-exceed value that protects swimmers.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 23 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-21.2
MDE
BAY
Please expand on how requirements will depend on status and content of
a state's or tribe's new or revised RWQS.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-21.3
MDE
Table 4.2
Monitoring
None of Maryland beaches fit the risk/use categories 1-4; current use of
the 1986 criteria ranks beaches and provides the same public health
protection as the 2012 criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.4
MDE
14-32
Monitoring
This discussion on temporal variations ignores the fundamental flaws of
any of the FIB : that the results do not provide any information on the
source of the FIB and differences in density within a given day can be
reasonably explained if the beach manager has done a sanitary survey. If
the beach is impacted by combined sewers or an intermittent flow of
untreated sewage, this discussion may make some sense, otherwise, it
does little to inform public health risk without fully understanding actual
and potential pollution sources.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.5
MDE
11-27
Modeling
In Maryland we issue a standing advisory for swimming after a rain event
that is both protective and VERY precautionary. At beaches where we
tried to develop predictive models, rain events were not the strongest
factor. Again, Maryland beaches were deemed too "clean" for a
predictive model to work. This discussion states that increased FIB levels
from storm events might come from disturbed sediments and NOT fecal
sources - HOW IS THIS A HEALTH HAZARD! Further proof that
Maryland's current criteria as protective.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.6
MDE
2-31
Sanitary surveys
This discussion is useless without emphasizing the importance of a
sanitary survey to understand variability of sample results that can be
explained by a full understanding by beach managers on what impacts a
particular beach. This understanding is KEY to the tiered approach and
determining sampling frequency. It does not matter how many
"exceedances" are missed if there are no human sources. Earlier in the
document, EPA states that the risk from non-human sources is not equal
to the risk from human sources. Again, confirmation that Maryland's
current conservative approach using the 1986 criteria provides the same
protection as the 2012 criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 24 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-21.7
MDE
121
General
California is referenced 12 times in this document while there are many
states without any reference (ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, MD, DE,
VA, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, OR, and AL). EPA needs to write a
guidance document for the whole nation, not just for California.
EPA added a case study of the adoption of predictive models in the City
of Chicago and added advisory graphics from New York.
4-21.8
MDE
14-16
Sanitary surveys
Water quality numbers do not tell the whole story of what is going in a
water column. A sanitary survey is an essential tool for a beach manager
to be able to say with assurance that water quality is "good". Although
EPA encourages the use of a sanitary survey it is apparent that EPA does
not give this tool its due weight in light of the emphasis EPA has placed
on the BAVs.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.9
MDE
1-22
Monitoring
FIB should not be considered a pollutant since, as discussed earlier in this
document, it can come from "stirring up sediments" (page 50) and is an
indicator for the presence of pathogens. If the source is not of fecal
origin, it should not carry the same weight as if it was a human source for
example. This is one reason why Maryland does not agree that the STV
should be included for assessment purposes. As already stated throughou
this document, if the goal is to protect public health, then it is
accomplished with either the 1986 or 2012 criteria because both are
precautionary, conservative, and provide a do-not-exceed value important
for public notification and protection. If the goal is determining
attainment of the WQS, these data do not provide information about the
FIB source's magnitude, duration, or frequency. It makes more sense to
use the geometric mean only over the entire beach season or even more
than one beach season in addition to any data or information attained
through the sanitary survey for attainment of water quality standards.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.10
MDE
5-16
RWQC
If this approach "encourages" more frequent monitoring, then why have a
tiered monitoring approach based on risk? This limits resources and may
result in States not monitoring low risk beaches at all since they would
carry the same weight as a beach that should be monitored twice weekly
due to risk (combined sewers for example).
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-21.11
MDE
RWQC
Requiring the use of a statistical value for a level of indicator bacteria
that has no direct relationship to the level of real pathogens present and
assuming increased public health protection is poor science and sets a bad
principal, diminishing public health official's integrity with the public.
Using the BAV should not be in the performance criteria and should
remain optional. Requiring use of BAV prior to States promulgation of
new criteria is coercive and an inappropriate mandate for receiving grant
funding under the BEACH Act.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document. The
relationship between pathogens and indicators is discussed fully in the
2012 RWQC document.
Chapter 4 page 25 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-22.1
Massachusetts
Department of Public
Health (MDPH)
BAY
The proposal by EPA to require grantees to conduct public notification,
such as advisories, when a water quality sample exceeds a BAV level
contradicts EPA's description of the BAV, which is clearly not a water
quality standard (EPA Recreational Water Quality Criteria 2012) but only
a guidance. This creates the confusing scenario where a performance
requirement of a federal BEACHES grant (the adoption of the BAV
guideline complete with the requisite public notification when the value
has been exceeded) contradicts state regulations requiring compliance
with an EPA-established bacteriological water quality standard.
Notifications based on two different values will serve to create a great
deal of confusion for health officials and the general public alike.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-22.2
MDPH
BAV
We also note that based on the results of the 2013 beach season in
Massachusetts, we expect over 300 additional notifications at marine
beaches that exceed the BAV guidance value, but meet the state
regulatory criterion (i.e., at beaches with samples > 60 cfu/100 ml; but <
104 cfu/100 ml). Requiring confusing public notification in so many
instances where sampling met regulatory standards would result in
significant resource impacts. MDPH/BEH therefore urges EPA not to
move forward with this proposed performance requirement for future
BEACH Act funding. Instead, we suggest that grantees be allowed the
flexibility of using BAV as EPA originally intended, i.e., as an optional
informational tool.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-23.1
Michigan Department
of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ)
BAV
Requiring states to adopt a Beach Action Value as a condition of a grant
is inconsistent with the intent of the BEACH Act. It would pull precious
staff time and resources away from the protection of public health by
requiring states to initiate the lengthy process of updating WQS.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-23.2
MDEQ
BAV
The Public Health Code would also need to be modified since R
333.12544 of the Public Health Code, 1978 PA 368, as amended (Act
368), requires that the WQS used by a local health department to assess
whether the water is safe for swimming conforms to the official state
WQS adopted by the MDEQ.
Please see section 4.7.4 for a discussion of the use of RWQC in
identifying CWA section 303(d) impaired waters.
Chapter 4 page 26 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-23.3
MDEQ
BAY
It would be impossible for Michigan to implement the required changes tc
state law and rules in the time available for a grant award.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-23.4
MDEQ
BAY
Even if the required changes were possible in the available time frame,
this effort would have minimal impact on the protection of human health
at beaches since the difference between the Beach Action Value (190 E.
coli per 100 ml) and the current 235 or 300 E. coli per 100 ml WQS is
only 45 or 110 E. coli per 100 ml, respectively.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-23.5
MDEQ
BAY
The United States Geological Survey evaluated data from freshwater
beaches in Chicago, Illinois, over a nine-year period (2000 to 2008) and
determined that lowering the threshold criteria from 235 to 190 E. coli pel
100 ml would have resulted in an increase in swimming advisories of onl;
3.4 percent, which amounts to an extra 500 beach-days of advisories over
that nine-year period.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-23.6
MDEQ
General
Monitoring and sanitary survey data have shown that storm water is a
major source of pollution that causes acute elevations in bacteria counts.
Michigan has 11 years of historical monitoring data and existing WQS
that helped us identify beaches with impaired waters. In addition, the
USEPA has reported that approximately 1,200 (40 percent) of the
Nation's beaches have issued beach advisories, postings, or closures. We
believe the most effective strategy to protect public health is to focus
efforts to restore these beaches.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-23.7
MDEQ
General
Rather than require states to initiate a resource-intensive effort to make
minor modifications to E. coli WQS with minimal additional human
health protection, we believe the best way to protect public health and
improve water quality is to expand and refine the use of sanitary surveys,
rapid methods, and forecast models to identify, correct, and eliminate
sources of pollution. Michigan is committed to these efforts regardless of
the availability of funds from the BEACH Act. Governor Rick Snyder
and the Legislature are preparing a budget for the MDEQ that includes
the Water Quality Initiative, which will support the statewide
implementation of real-time beach testing methods.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 27 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-24.1
New Hampshire
Department of
Environmental Services
(NHDES)
BAY
NHDES however does not believe that EPA has presented any significant
scientific evidence to demonstrate that implementing the revised Beach
Action Values (BAV) will in any way increase protection of public
health.
For States and Tribes that adopt EPA's 2012 RWQC recommendations as
their water quality standards, and use one of EPA's recommended BAVs,
the BAV would be based on the same water quality distribution as the
state's or tribe's Recreational WQS. Any single sample above the BAV
would trigger a beach notification until collection of another sample
below the BAV. Because the BAV is a more conservative point on the
water quality distribution for the 2012 RWQC, those states and tribes
with standards based on the 2012 RWQC that use the BAV would issue a
notification action at a lower concentration of fecal indicator bacteria.
4-24.2
NHDES
BAV
NHDES does not find clear guidance in the document on how to decide
between acceptable levels of illness for choosing between the two
suggested, yet very similar, BAV criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-24.3
NHDES
RWQC
... no clear research presented to date shows any improved health
outcomes at bacteria levels lower than the current standards. According tc
the EPA's own research (Report on 2009 National Epidemiologic and
Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water Epidemiology Studies)
"health relationships with indicators of water quality could not be
established due to good water quality" at a tropical marine beach.
See EPA's 2012 RWQC document for a discussion of the epidemiologica'
studies supporting the 2012 RWQC.
4-24.4
NHDES
BAV
No evidence has been presented in the DRAFT National Beach Guidance
and Required Performance Criteria for Grants supporting a lowered
notification threshold.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-24.5
NHDES
BAV
An analyses of all coastal New Hampshire beach samples tested between
2001 and 2013 show that the number of beach advisories would have
more than doubled from 1.2% to 3.0% if the suggested 60 CFU BAV rule
had been in place. However, there is no evidence that a comparative
reduction in waterborne bacterial illnesses would have been reported by
the public. A reduction in the coastal notification criteria does not appear
to be warranted to protect health and comes at a huge potential cost.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 28 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-24.6
NHDES
WQS
NHDES also has concerns regarding the process by which EPA is
requiring the new BAVs to be adopted by states. Section 303 of the Clean
Water Act provides the basic framework by which states and EPA work
together to adopt and update water quality standards including the criteria
by which waterbodies are evaluated. NH DES is currently completing its
triennial review of its water quality criteria as required by EPA. The
review included a consideration of the new BAVs proposed by EPA.
Ultimately, we decided not to adopt these criteria for the reasons provided
above. Here, however criteria are essentially being promulgated by EPA
through a grant requirement. To invoke such a process sets a troublesome
precedent especially given such short notice and the lack of a formal
opportunity for comment by the states and the public within the standard
CWA arena. Criteria are essentially being promulgated by EPA through a
grant requirement.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-24.7
NHDES
General
Without any demonstrated increase in public health protection, a required
reduction in the BAV used for issuing advisories will have a major impad
on the New Hampshire coastal economy which is dependent on our tidal
beaches. The excellent water quality at New Hampshire's beaches has
been used consistently as an attraction to the beach-going public. Given
that there is no discernable health benefit from changing this rule, the
unwarranted beach closures it will produce, and the impact it will have on
thousands of beach goers and of the many hundreds of thousands of
dollars spent in New Hampshire, the pressure from the public and elected
officials will be intense for NHDES to withdraw from the beach program.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-24.8
NHDES
General
EPA must seriously consider the lack of direct evidence of reduced public
health and should engage their economists in a cost/benefit study before
making such a rash decision.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-25.1
North Carolina
Department of
Environment and
Natural Resources
(NCDENR)
BAV
North Carolina adopted rules in 2004 that were a reflection of the 2002
Beach Guidance document. It will take an additional two years for North
Carolina to go through the rule making process to update the changes to
reflect the 2014 beach guidance. Assuming that BEACH Act funding is
available, North Carolina would not be eligible for beach grants until this
rule making process was complete. Using the BAV should remain
optional.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 29 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-25.2
NCDENR
RWQC
Page 69 line 18 concerning the departure of multiple use intensity values
of the SSM. It may be necessary for North Carolina to reduce the number
of tier II and tier III sampling sites because of the additional work and
staff required to post these low usage sites. The BAV criteria will force
the program to just concentrate on monitoring the most highly used ocean
beaches.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-26.1
Natural Resources
Defense Council
(NRDC) et al.
BAV
We strongly support the requirement states and tribes must use a BAV to
prompt public notification actions in order to be eligible for federal
BEACH Act funding. Draft Criteria at 12-13, Section 4.7.2. We support
this requirement because the BAVs are more protective of human health
than EPA's current water quality criteria for recreational waters.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-26.2
NRDC et al.
BAV
Among other factors, those water quality criteria are based upon a
gastrointestinal illness rate of either 32 or 36 illnesses per 1,000
swimmers, both of which are unacceptably high. The BAVs provide a
more conservative level of protection, and linking notification to the
BAVs will help offset the health risks associated with EPA's current
water quality criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-26.3
NRDC et al.
BAV
Some language in the Draft Criteria is unclear and could be interpreted as
establishing this requirement only as an interim measure while states
and tribes are developing new or revised Recreational Water Quality
Standards. For example, on page 12 of the draft, it indicates that it is
important to have a nationally consistent trigger for BEACH Act beach
notification actions until a state or tribe adopts EPA's new or revised
water quality criteria, and then funding requirements will be based on the
approved standards (lines 30-37, page 12). But the language on page 12
should be clarified to reflect that it is only the health risk level for the
BAV that may vary based on the state adopted standard, and that use of
one of the BAVs is still required for federal funding.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 30 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-26.4
NRDCetal.
Modeling
EPA should require grantees to include at least one beach risk appropriate
predictive model - even if this is as simple as a preemptive closure based
on rainfall - for every site. For example, at beaches affected by combined
sewer overflows, storm/overflow models would inform monitoring plans;
for beaches where other uses are the main risk drivers, different models
may be applicable.
The 2012 RWQC document discusses EPA's water quality criteria
recommendations for all recreational waters. The beach guidance,
however, contains requirements that are applicable only to coastal
recreation waters in states and tribes receiving beach grants as well as
recommendations applicable to all waters. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to: adopt new or revised recreational
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
In order to provide flexibility to states and tribes, EPA decided not to
require immediate use of a specific beach threshold. While EPA expects
that states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-26.5
NRDC et al.
Modeling
Where possible, accurate models should be developed that allow grantees
to issue beach notifications and closures prospectively, so that
swimmers are notified in time to avoid water contact. If EPA cannot
mandate a model for every site, it should require grantees to explain why
a model is inappropriate. If a model is inappropriate because of
insufficient data, the state should prioritize acquiring additional data.
EPA should require models where they do work, not merely encourage
them. If they can't be required, they should be incentivized.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-26.6
NRDC et al.
Public
Notification
We support the suggestion on page 77 that "To the extent possible, states
and tribes should be moving toward same-day notification of
exceedances and prompt reporting by using tools that provide rapid
results (i.e., rapid analytical methods and predictive models) and tools
that facilitate rapid communication of those results (e.g., electronic
notification and real-time reporting)." But we believe that this should be a
requirement rather than an encouragement.
EPA may attach conditions to grants so long as those conditions
reasonably further the purpose of the authorizing statute. See Shanty
Town Associates Ltd. Partnership v. EPA, 843 F.2d 782 (4th Cir. 1988).
EPA's requirement that BEACH grant recipients submit a schedule for
the adoption of new or revised water quality standards furthers the
purpose of CWA Section 303(i)(l)(B), which directs States with coastal
recreation waters to adopt and submit to EPA new or revised water
quality standards for those waters for all pathogens and pathogen
indicators to which EPA's 2012 RWQC are applicable. See 33 U.S.C.
1313(i)(l)(B). EPA's requirement that grant recipients use a beach
notification value is directly based on the BEACH Act's purpose of
providing for "the prompt notification of the public ... of any exceeding
or likely exceeding applicable water quality standards for coastal
recreation waters." See 33 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(l)(B), (b)(l).
Chapter 4 page 31 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-26.7
NRDCetal.
Monitoring
EPA is continuing to rely on culture methods with known and serious
timing problems, but is only tentatively endorsing qPCR and modeling
protocols because of hypothetical drawbacks. Even if a qPCR test is less
accurate than a culture test, if it has some accuracy it is more helpful than
a culture test that tells swimmers what the water quality was yesterday.
Even if qPCR and models are less accurate in certain settings, they are at
least timely. If beach managers have a good idea of what the water quality
is now, through modeling or experience, then they should notify the
public based on that modeling or expertise.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-26.8
NRDCetal.
Monitoring
We believe that EPA should require grantees to move toward rapid testin;
and further require predictive modeling and/or preemptive advisories (as
on page 80) that warn the public before potential exposure.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-27.1
New York City
Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
(NYC Health)
4.7.2.1
BAY
NYC Health suggests that the guidance document and performance
criteria consistently specify that, "any [valid] single sample above the
BAV would trigger a beach notification until collection of another sample
below the BAV."
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-27.2
NYC Health
BAV
NYC Health suggests that the EPA clarify how the BAV single sample
threshold be applied to beaches that stretch many miles, and are sampled
multiple times (>10) on a single day. For example, in the case of any (1)
single sample exceedance of the BAV for a long, continuous beach,
should the notification be applied to the entire beach, or only that
particular section of beach where the exceedance occurred? Is the
interpretation of single sample representativeness and notification scope
entirely under state/local jurisdiction?
Please refer to section 4.3.2.1.4, for information about sampling
locations. The state should also consult with the EPA beach coordinator
when developing its monitoring protocols.
4-27.3
NYC Health
Monitoring
Furthermore, does state/local jurisdiction have flexibility in determining
the validity and representativeness of a single sample? For example can
the representative single sample for a long, continuous beach be a mean
average of all of the single samples taken at that beach on a given day?
Please refer to section 4.3.2.1.4, for information about sampling
locations. The state should also consult with the EPA beach coordinator
when developing its monitoring protocols.
4-27.4
NYC Health
5.3.2
Monitoring
DOHMH suggests clarifying section 5.3.2 When to Remove a
Notification to confirm, or specify otherwise, that a Notification Action
may only be lifted when water quality sample results meet the BAV
threshold and the 2012 RWQC for Statistical Threshold Value (STV) and
Geometric Mean (GM). If any of the three thresholds remains unmet, the
beach notification action must not be lifted.
A Notification Action should be lifted when a water quality sample resul
is received that is below the threshold used to impose the action, whether
it is the BAV, existing SSM, or other beach notification threshold.
4-28.1
Ohio Department of
Health (ODOH)
BAV
Ohio's existing E. coli recreational criterion applicable to bathing waters
is 235 cfu/100 mL. This water quality standard is consistent with the
Beach Action Value associated with an illness rate of 36/1000 recreators
as put forward in EPA's 2012 revised guidance. As such, we do not see
the necessity of applying BEACH Act grant conditions as described in
the 2014 draft National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for
Grants document to Ohio.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 32 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-28.2
ODOH
General
Ohio's water quality standards involves a multi-step and time-consuming
process that under normal circumstances takes from 12-18 months. Even
if Ohio were to initiate a rulemaking today, it is unlikely that revisions
could be adopted in final form and approved by US EPA by the start of
the next recreation season. Therefore we would request that the US EPA
extend the timeframe to implement the grant conditions contained
within the draft beach guidance and performance criteria document.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-28.3
ODOH
Modeling
The revised guidance briefly discusses the use of predictive modeling but
does not specifically allow for their use as another determinant for
posting advisories. Predictive models, once established and proven
reliable, are more protective of public health and reduce the need for
culture based water sampling multiple times per week.
See Sections 4.6.5 and 5.3.1, which specify that advisories may be
imposed on the basis of model results.
4-28.4
ODOH
RWQC
The Ohio Department of Health encourages the review of the RWQS to
ensure protection of the public health; however, more time is needed to
complete the review at the state level.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-29.1
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
(ODEQ)
BAV
We estimate there will be approximately 40 % more advisories.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-29.2
ODEQ
General
The new criteria will create the perception, real or not, that our beaches
are degrading (the opposite is probably true).
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-29.3
ODEQ
General
The temporal or spatial extent of our beach monitoring activities will be
reduced. Because the new criteria will lead to more advisories, we will
need to either reduce the number of beaches we visit to accommodate
resampling or reduce the number of times we visit beaches over the
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 33 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-29.4
ODEQ
General
There will be less monitoring resources for investigative sampling.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-29.5
ODEQ
General
Additional public attention will be focused on the "issues of our beaches'
detracting from more substantial environmental concerns like
groundwater quality, polluted freshwater streams, emerging toxics
concerns, stormwater and other non-point source issues etc.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-29.6
ODEQ
General
Inconsistency with water quality standards for fresh water creates
confusing messaging to Oregonians.
EPA recommends that states adopt the 2012 RWQC into their WQS for
all waters and achieve consistency between fresh and marine waters. The
states should conduct an appropriate public process in making the
required changes to their beach monitoring and advisory programs.
Public outreach provides an opportunity to inform the public concerning
the improvements in beach safety afforded by elements contained in the
guidance.
4-29.7
ODEQ
General
As we promulgate new guidance and rules I think it is important to
understand the "big picture" as we try to be as effective as possible in
implementing effective "place based" environmental priorities based on
data demonstrating the extent and risk to human health and aquatic life.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-30.1
Oregon Health
Authority
General
Oregon Health authority provides documentation of substantially increas
numbers of exceedances using BAV based on a review of past data and
application of the BAV threshold.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-31.1
Puerto Rico
RWQC
Assuming that we start the process for public participation on June 1,
2014 it would take at least 4 to 5 month to finish it; a draft has to be
developed, then it has to be reviewed internally before a public notice be
issued, at least 30 days has to be granted for public submitting comments
and then EQB has to review and address the comments and update the
List of Beaches before submitting it to EPA. We understand that we can
fulfill this requirement before EPA awards FY 2015 funds.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 34 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-32.1
Rhode Island
Department of Health
(RIDOH)
4.7.2.1
BAY
There is a discrepancy between the recommendations within the
document. Are states required to adopt a BAV in order to receive funding
or is this a tool we may use?
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-32.2
RIDOH
Notification
In addition, attention should be brought to the definition of a "Beach
Action." Many states conduct the notification for recreational facilities
differently. A beach action in one state might be to recollect a sample,
whereas a beach action in another state is to close the facility to all
recreational activities. If the new Criteria leaves this definition open to th<
states' interpretation, that needs to be stated.
Please refer to the Glossary in the Guidance document. In addition,
Section 5.2.1.2 discusses various forms of notification.
4-32.3
RIDOH
Notification
Rhode Island does not issue water quality advisories as is custom with
other states and tribes. When a single sample exceeds the national
threshold of 104 cfu/100 ml, the beach is closed to swimming until a
clean sample is reported. As a Program, we believe this approach is the
most protective to public health. Advisories give the public the option to
swim and that exposes vulnerable populations to potential sources of
contamination. Therefore, closing a beach at 104 cfu/100 ml may be mon
protective than posting an advisory at 60 cfu/100 ml.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-32.4
RIDOH
BAV
Implementation of the BAV in Rhode Island would lead to a significant
reduction in state tourism as a majority of Rhode Island's summer
revenue is from out-of-state visitors.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-32.5
RIDOH
BAV
The quality of life for our struggling job market would be further
impacted. For every day a beach has to close, food stand workers,
lifeguards, cleaning crews, parking attendants, and beach managers lose a
day of work. These are often minimum wage jobs and a loss of work has
the potential to severely affect a person's quality of life.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-32.6
RIDOH
BAV
The state of Rhode Island supports local and small businesses. When a
beach is closed, revenue to local restaurants, shops, services, and hotels is
lost.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 35 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-32.7
RIDOH
BAY
In 2013, Rhode Island experienced a 10% exceedance rate using the
current value of 104 cfu/100 ml. If we had applied the proposed criteria
of 60 cfu/100 ml we would have experienced a 16% exceedance rate. To
the public this suggests water quality has declined but as we know that
was not the case.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-32.8
Rhode Island DOH
BAY
In 2013, Rhode Island experienced 111 saltwater beach closure days.
Using the draft BAY there may have been as many as 200 or more closun
days. While Rhode Island has been very protective of public health, we
feel the BAY would create a severe economic impact with no
demonstrated improvement in protection.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-33.1
South Carolina
Department of Health
and Environmental
Conservation
(SCDHEQ
4.1
Modeling
For states with recreational water quality standards, the use of predictive
models may not be specifically supported in regulation.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-33.2
SCDHEC
4.7.2
BAY
The State considers this proposed requirement to be beyond what is
required by State and Federal regulation. As set forth in the Recreational
Water Quality Criteria (2012), the EPA considers the illness rate of 32
illnesses in 1000 to be a reasonable risk and the STY is considered the
reasonable quantification value to represent that risk.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-34.1
Surfrider
BAY
Specifically, our discussions with beach managers in several states have
indicated that if they were to use a BAY of 60 cfu for public notification
rather than 104 cfu, their number of beach postings and/or closures may
increase 30-60%. Although this would result in greater protection of
public health, it would occur at the expense of reduced beneficial use and
access to beaches and the ocean, which is of equal concern to our
members.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-34.2
Surfrider
BAY
Another potential adverse consequence of mandatory use of BAVs for
public notification is the cost of subsequent testing necessary to un-post
or reopen a beach. If the use of BAVs results in a substantial increase in
these "re-tests" and there is assumedly no increase in funding to support
increased testing, states may be forced to reduce the number of beaches
that are routinely monitored and/or reduce beach monitoring frequency to
compensate. Either of these unintended consequences would result in
less water quality information available for public health protection.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-34.3
Surfrider
BAY
The 2012 revised water quality criteria will require the State of Oregon to
adopt bacteria standards that are protective of a primary recreation use at
their beaches for the first time, reducing their allowable level of
Enterococcus from 158 cfu to 110 or 130. If they are further required to
use a BAY of 60 cfu, it would result in a cumulative decrease of 62% in
their notification limits.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 36 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-34.4
Surfrider
BAY
States that currently use EPA criteria to close beaches should at least be
given some time to revise their public notification programs and state
regulations to utilize BAVs to trigger swimming advisories, keeping the
STV as a trigger for beach closures. EPA should consult with these states
to see if this is of interest and to determine a reasonable implementation
schedule.
Based on EPA's review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold. States and tribes receiving
beach grants must develop schedules to: adopt new or revised recreational
WQS, and to identify and use an appropriate beach notification threshold.
See section 4.7.3 of the Beach Guidance.
4-34.5
Surfrider
Modeling
We are pleased that EPA will now allow states to place more of an
emphasis on developing and using predictive water quality models for
public notification purposes at beaches. In many locations, modeling
holds more promise than qPCR and other developing rapid methods, to
provide cost-effective, real-time health protection for beach-goers.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-34.6
Surfrider
BAY
Surfrider recommends that the EPA finalize this Guidance after removing
the requirement for mandatory use of BAVs and recommit to prioritizing
funding for the Beach Grants program in EPA's annual budget.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-35.1
Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Center
General
Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, prohibits the
MDEQ from promulgating any additional rules after December 31, 2006;
therefore, a revision of the E. coli water quality standard under
Michigan's Part 4 rules would first require the legislature to amend Part
31.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-35.2
Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Center
General
R 333.12544 of the Public Health Code, 1978 PA 368, as amended,
requires the Water Quality Standard used by a local health department to
assess whether water is safe for swimming conforms to the official state
Water Quality Standards adopted by the MDEQ; therefore, a
modification of the Public Health Code would also be required.
Please see section 4.7.4 for a discussion of the use of RWQC in
identifying CWA section 303(d) impaired waters.
4-35.3
Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Center
Resources
Tourism is essential to our local Up North economy, and people are
acutely aware that a lack of funding to continuously monitor public
beaches and ensure healthy water could jeopardize our local economy and
way of life. Continued funding is critical for us to continue monitoring
efforts to pinpoint additional priority beaches and ensure that levels at
other high-use beaches in our area remain below Water Quality
Standards.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 37 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-35.4
Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Center
BAY
We advise the EPA to consider the impact the BAV would have by
decreasing beach monitoring in states unable to immediately meet the nev
conditions, and urge you to work with the MDEQ to find a viable solutior
that would not result in the loss of funding to agencies throughout
Michigan.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-36.1
Grand Traverse County
Health Department
(CHP)
BAV
It seems that it is a waste of precious time and resources to change state
and local water quality standards by only 45 E. coli in order to meet the
grant condition to utilize the BAV.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-36.2
Grand Traverse CHP
Resources
if it wasn't for the Beach Act funds over the past several years, that our
monitoring efforts would not have been possible and our considerable
improvements which have been accomplished collaboratively would have
only been a dream.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-36.3
Grand Traverse CHP
Resources
It is my hope that local and state beach managers will be able to continue
to use Beach Act funds to allow them to continue to pursue our strategic
approach in protecting public health at our beaches, which utilize the
tools which are cited in the "Guidance" which have been proven to be so
successful within the Great Lakes region.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-36.4
Grand Traverse CHP
General
It is also my hope that the EPA considers pausing the proposed changes tc
the 2014 draft "Guidance" for beach grants for a two (2) year period. Any
significant future changes should include utilizing meaningful scientific
advances such as rolling out the rapid test methods for reporting beach
results to the public.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See sec. 4.7.3.
Chapter 4 page 38 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-37.1
Virginia Department of
Health (VDOH)
BAY
It is not necessary for EPA to require states to use an interim threshold
value to issue beach notifications while developing new or revised state
WQS. The BEACH Act clearly provides a requirement that states must
update water quality standards within 36 months. This requirement is
above and beyond what is required by the BEACH Act, and will likely
impede on the time and effort required to adopt the 2012 RWQC into
state WQS before December 2015.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See sec. 4.7.3.
4-37.2
VDOH
3.6.4
BAV
Virginia intends to adopt new WQS by December 2015, as required by
the BEACH Act, as a threshold value to issue beach notifications. If EPA
requires states to use the BAV as a threshold value to issue beach
notifications, please strongly consider amending the BEACH Act
requirement for states to adopt WQS by December 2015; the adoption of
new WQS for state beach monitoring programs will be irrelevant if EPA
dictates the use of BAVs, since BAVs are not suggested to be included in
state WQS.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See sec. 4.7.3.
4-37.3
VDOH
RWQC
EPA's 2012 RWQC clearly that states use either the STV or BAV as a
threshold value to issue beach notifications. Please strongly consider
developing and issuing EPA Performance Criteria that is consistent with
EPA's 2012 RWQC.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-37.4
VDOH
RWQC
EPA's 2012 RWQC is designed to provide states with options that meet
the various needs of each state's beach monitoring program and water
quality conditions. If EPA believes that it is important for states to have a
nationally consistent trigger for BEACH Act beach notification actions, it
is unclear why EPA provided states with two illness rate choices for
criteria values in EPA's 2012 RWQC.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-37.5
VDOH
Resources
Virginia would require additional and significant resources if B AVs were
used to trigger beach notifications. Since 2004, Virginia's beach
monitoring program has issued 250 beach advisories. If using the BAV of
60 cfu/100 ml, Virginia would have issued at least 450 advisories, and
likely more due to resampling.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 39 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-37.6
VDOH
BAY
At Virginia Beach area beaches, beach waters are closed when advisories
are issued by state/local public health, and the closures are enforced by
local law enforcement. Given the potential economic impacts of issuing
more advisories and the additional resources needed to issue such
advisories, EPA's 2014 draft Performance Criteria does not provide
sufficient rationale of the additional public health protection gained by
requiring the use of BAVs for beach notifications.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-37.7
VDOH
RWQC
EPA's 2012 RWQC explains that the criteria values of 110 cfu/100 ml
and 130 cfu/100 ml in EPA's 2012 RWQC are health protective of the
general public, including children. If BAVs are required to issue beach
notifications, please provide a thorough explanation of the additional
public health protection gained.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-38.1
Washington Beach
Program
BAV
Washington BEACH program is concerned about the requirement that all
BEACH Act grants use a beach notification threshold or beach action
value (BAV) of 60 cfu if they have not adopted the 2012 EPA bacteria
criteria. This requirement will mean a higher cost to our BEACH
program, this will mean we will have to cut beaches from the program or
monitor beaches less frequently.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See sec. 4.7.3.
4-38.2
Washington Beach
Program
BAV
The BAV of 60 cfu is much more stringent than our current BAV of 104
cfu. This will mean we will have to resample beaches more often, this is
quite costly. For Washington State we estimated what the additional
costs would be if the BAV were 60 or 70 (this is based on data from 2013
beach resample events):
For the BAV >70 cfu we would have to resample 96 times versus the 64
resample events that occurred in 2013. Based on just the laboratory costs :
estimate we'd have to cut 2-3 beaches at the>70 cfu BAV and 3-4
beaches at the >60 cfu BAV.
• Additional laboratory costs would be costing $3,360.
• Additional labor costs to resample 32 more times would be $5,120.
• Total additional cost approximately: $8,480.
For the BAV >60 cfu we would have to resample 112 times versus the 64
resample events that occurred in 2013.
• Additional laboratory costs would be costing $5,040.
• Additional labor costs to resample 48 more times would be $7,680.
• Total additional cost approximately: $12,720. Based on just the
laboratory costs I estimate we'd have to cut 2-3 beaches at the>70 cfu
BAV and 3-4 beaches at the >60 cfu BAV.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 40 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-38.3
Washington Beach
Program
RWQC
In addition, Washington State has not adopted the 2012 bacteria criteria.
Local health jurisdictions think it would be politically unfavorable to use
a lower numeric criteria than our current state standard. Our partners
may choose to opt out of the beach program all together. A more
politically favorable option would be to wait until Washington State has
promulgated EPA's 2012 criteria, thus local jurisdictions would see it as a
state imposed requirement.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.1
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
(WDNR)
BAY
Requiring states to use a Beach Action Value (BAV) on 190 cfu as a
requirement of receiving funding until the state adopts the revised RWQS
will be disruptive to our program. It forces direction of resources to chase
exceedances of a lower BAV at the expense of implementing real-time
monitoring tools irrespective of the risks assessed in developing our tierec
program.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-39.2
WDNR
BAV
At a time when our program partners have more limited funding and in
some cases more limited staffing, the grant condition will force the beach
program to allocate resources to more resampling activities rather than
transitioning to the real-time tools at priority locations.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.3
WDNR
BAV
Given the limited resources available, lower the BAV and increasing the
number of advisories may have the unintended consequence of
abandoning monitoring at impaired beaches so only the relatively clean
beaches get monitored.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.4
WDNR
General
Smaller communities in Wisconsin are already considering discontinuing
monitoring at beaches identified as having water quality impairment, even
those with a relatively large tourist industry. This may lead to even greatei
economic justice issues associated with pollution. Section 3.6 seems to
encourage this action by declaring the beaches to be non-program
beaches.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.5
WDNR
BAV
Lowering the BAV during our transition to using new real-time tools
means additional work will be necessary at the local level to build
confidence in the decision-making tool and resources that would have
been devoted to the transition process will be diverted to re-sampling. We
believe that the interests of public health are better served by preserving
states' flexibility to implement recreational water quality standards,
allowing the programs to optimize available tools to balance vigilance at
the beaches and public health protection.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 41 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-39.6
WDNR
BAY
Requiring states to use the lower BAV until state rules are revised creates
the impression that there is an urgent need to protect public health
regardless of the source or setting and adds needless confusion to the
public notification system. This grant condition subverts the federal rule
which gave the states discretion on establishing the recreational water
quality criteria to be applied within the state.
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
4-39.7
WDNR
BAV
This mandate seems to conflate determinations of water quality
impairments with decisions about whether it is safe to swim on any
particular day which seems counter to the RWQC rule that separated the
decisions and created the concept of a BAV.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.8
WDNR
4.3.2.1.1
BAV
Used in isolation, the recommended monitoring frequencies and lower
BAV in section 4.3.2.1.1 appear inadequate to provide the level of public
health protection this BAV reflects.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.9
WDNR
Monitoring
Beginning the monitoring an entire month in advance of the beach season
expends resources when little or no one is swimming. In the upper
Midwest this recommendation is impractical and needlessly expensive in
locations where ice is still present, limiting available resources for
monitoring late in the season when we have experienced higher incidence
of elevated bacteria and algae.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.10
WDNR
Monitoring
As with prioritizing locations to implement qPCR, the guidance should
encourage strategic investments in more intensive monitoring to better
characterize various beach settings to validate that minimal monitoring is
appropriate.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.11
WDNR
Modeling
WDNR encourages providing more detailed support document for
implementing predictive models using Virtual Beach 3.0 (similar to the
details for qPCR).
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.12
WDNR
Modeling
Page 49, line 1 suggests a two year timeframe for building a robust model
but doesn't indicate the monitoring frequency or number of data points
included in this period. In our work with USGS, they have recommended
roughly 60 data points over that period.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 42 of 43
-------
Chapter 4 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
EPA Response
4-39.13
WDNR
4.3.1.1.4
Monitoring
Section 4.3.1.1.4 makes general statements about 'most inland streams
experiencing higher FIB densities in spring and summer than during the
winter' and the reasons for the phenomenon. We are concerned that these
broad generalities may not hold true across the range of coastal states and
climate change and land use may be changing these patterns.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
4-39.14
WDNR
4.3.3.1
Monitoring
Section 4.3.3.1, page 53, line 5 suggests the potential for citizen
volunteers to provide more intensive monitoring at high-priority beaches.
Wisconsin has extensive experience with volunteer monitoring data in
decision-making. Recruiting, training, and the logistics of coordinating a
volunteer workforce have their own challenges and costs. Decision-
makers may not be comfortable with delegating sampling directly
associated with public health protection. We urge EPA and beach
managers to be realistic about the investment required and the limitations
of this approach.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 4 page 43 of 43
-------
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
5-01
Oregon Department of
Environmental
Protection
General
The President's past and current budget proposals do not include funding
beach monitoring programs. It will be difficult to explain why we are
adopting a more conservative criteria, resulting in twice as many advisories
and fueling public concern over contamination issues, just to be defended
the following year. How would the public respond? Would they know then
is no funding to monitor Oregon's beaches? Or would the public think
since there are no advisories, the water does not contain high levels of
bacteria? Also, would hearing more frequent advisories indicate to the
public that the beach is more contaminated than it had been in the past
under the old criteria? Might the public become fatigued from hearing too
many advisories and not pay any attention to them?
Based on a review of public comments, EPA decided not to require
immediate use of a specific beach threshold in order to provide flexibility
to states and tribes. States and tribes receiving beach grants must develop
schedules to adopt new or revised recreational WQS, and to identify and
use an appropriate beach notification threshold. While EPA expects that
states and tribes will use Beach Action Values as their notification
thresholds (i.e., the 75th percentile value of the water quality illness rate
from their new or revised Recreational WQS if they are based on EPA's
2012 RWQC recommendations), grantees may use an alternative value
based in science, local water quality data, or monitoring experience, so
long as the grantee explains the selected value in documentation
submitted to EPA. See section 4.7.3.
5-02.1
Natural Resources
Defense Council
(NRDC) et al.
BAY
Linking notification to the BAVs will help offset the health risks
associated with EPA's current water quality criteria.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
5-02.2
NRDCetal.
Public
Notification
At a minimum, EPA should require states to post signs that a beach is not
monitored for water quality safety if it is a non-program beach.
EPA does not agree that states should be required to post signs at non-
monitored beaches.
5-02.3
NRDCetal.
Public
Notification
We support the suggestion on page 77 that "To the extent possible, states
and tribes should be moving toward same-day nofitication of exceedances
and prompt reporting by using tools that provide rapid results (i.e., rapid
analytical methods and predictive models) and tools that facilitate rapid
communication of thos results (e.g., electronic notification and real-time
reporting.)" But we believe that should be a requirement not an
encouragement.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
5-03.1
Connecticut Department
of Public Health (CT
DPH)
Public
Notification
The draft guidance requires "immediate" public notification of water
quality monitioring sample exceedances. Current culture-based methods
for enumerating indicator bacteria require 24 hour culture time. Results
reported today as exceeding the WQC will be for samples collected
yesterday. This kind of public notification confuses and obscures good
public health messaging.
Section 5.3.1 requires states to immediately issue a public notification (1)
after data and QA review of results are completed (2) results indicate that
there is an exceedance or likely exceedance of a WQS or other notification
theshold value; (3) and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the first
sample.
5-03.2
5.5
Data
CTDPH
The draft guidance refers to requirements for "immediate" or "timely"
responses (actions) without specifying further an applicable timeframe.
"Timely" and "immediate(ly)" have different meanings depending on the
context, action and statutory requirement. Section 4.5 clarifies the
requirement for timely communication of water quality to the public.
Chapter 5 page 1 of 2
-------
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses-Draft Beach Guidance Document
Comment #
Commentor
Cited
Section
Keyword
Comment
Response
5-04.1
New York City
Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
(NYC Health)
5.3.2
BAY
NYC Health suggests clarifying section 5.3.2 When to Remove a
Notification to confirm, or specify otherwise, that a Notification Action
may only be lifted when water qualify sample results meet the BAV
threshold and the 2012 RWCQ for Statistical Threshold Value (STV) and
Geometric Mean (GM). If any of the three thresholds remains unmet, the
beach notification action must not be lifted.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
5-04.2
NYC Health
5.4.1
Public
Notification
To improve the communication of risk to the public when water qualify
does not meet acceptable standards, DOHMH conducted focus groups and
intercept surveys of beach patrons in 2013. In response to input on several
beach signs, DOHMH developed a new public notification sign for beach
water qualify warnings that communicates clearly and directly the action to
be taken and the basis for the direction. The EPA may wish to consider
including this and other signs considered more effective for consideration
by other jurisdictions.
We have incorporated New York's signs as examples of effective advisory
signage.
5-04.3
NYC Health
5.4.4.2
Public
Notification
DOHMH developed a new texting service for the 2014 bathing season that
other jurisdictions may wish to consider incorporating into their public
communication strategies.
Thank you for your review of the draft National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants. Your comment was noted and
considered in the preparation of the final guidance document.
Chapter 5 page 2 of 2
------- ------- |